Superintendent Ybarra expresses concerns over proposal
Superintendent of Public Instruction Sherri Ybarra appeared before a joint meeting of the Idaho House and Senate Education committees and outlined her concerns about a proposal change to how the state funds K-12 education.
Superintendent Ybarra says she and her staff have had little time to analyze the draft bill and its potential impact on school districts, but an initial review raised a number of concerns.
Various education stakeholder groups and individuals also weighed in on Thursday’s legislative “listening sessions.”
The draft legislation was made public on January 31st and comes from a multi-year effort to replace Idaho’s 20-year-old school funding formula.
Superintendent Ybarra was a member of the 2018 Public Funding Formula Committee, whose recommendations guided the development of the proposaed new formula.
She was not invited to help draft the bill.
Ybarra supported the broad recommendations of the committee last November, but she said, “there’s a big difference between recommendations and the draft legislation.”
“It is my and my department’s responsibility to look at this legislation through the lens of how we would implement the new formula and understand exactly how it works and how it will impact districts and charter schools,” Superintendent Ybarra told lawmakers. “The list of concerns and questions I’m sharing is not meant to be complaints or ‘throwing stones,’ but a starting point for our work to collaborate and find solutions together.”
Of the issues Superintendent Ybarra highlighted in her testimony, is the one biggest issues on the minds of teachers and school administrators: the need to maintain an even playing field for state funding of education.
“I am not supportive of a plan where school districts lose significant funding,” she said, noting that the proposed formula used incomplete current year enrollment data, which may return inaccurated funding projections.
She also stressed that a new funding model should not be used as a rationale for cutting school funding if state revenues falter.
Teacher pay was another sticking point for Ybarra, who has been an outspoken advocate for raising teacher pay and pointed out that the proposal “limits flexibility at the local level” when compared to the existing career ladder.
She also cautioned lawmakers that the proposal does not reward teachers for furthering their education, which is a critical compensation strategy for recruiting and retaining qualified teachers.
Other concerns raised by Superintendent Ybarra included:
The payment schedule included in the legislation creates cash flow problems for the districts. Many districts would not be able to cover payroll, and districts could be forced to adjust, which may mean creating or increasing reserves, short-term borrowing, or making cuts. There is no floor for payments, and so districts will not know what they are getting until the end of the year. This will result in uncertainty and fiscal instability for our districts. The bill contains no off ramps in the event that future revenue does not support ongoing investment to fund the hold harmless provision. What happens after three years? Is there a fiscal cliff for any of the districts? The wealth adjustment is problematic. Distributing state dollars to compensate for a lack of local contribution is not a viable solution for communities that are not able to pass supplemental levies. It also creates an expectation that local districts will go to patrons to try to pass a supplemental levy and decreases funds available to all districts (in other words, it reduces the overall pot of funding available to all districts). Definitions for at risk, economically disadvantaged, and special education need to be aligned to current administrative rule and to federal ESSA definitions. One example would be that the special education definition is overly broad. This could lead to over-identification of students, and, once funded, you cannot decrease the amount.
