Factors in education formula could be eliminated

The Education Committee heard testimony Jan. 31 on a bill that would eliminate certain factors from the state aid to education distribution formula.

LB364, introduced by Valentine Sen. Deb Fischer, would eliminate the teacher education allowance, instructional time allowance and student growth adjustment from the Tax Equity and Educational Opportunities Support Act (TEEOSA), which is projected to provide a savings of about $24 million.

Teacher education allowances were created to provide additional resources for districts with an above average number of teachers with graduate degrees, while instructional time allowances were created for school districts with above average instructional hours. The student growth adjustment was created for districts that were estimating student growth to exceed 25 students, or 1 percent, of the fall membership.

“Education should be a priority of government, but the [funding] method we use needs to be examined,” Fischer said. “Right now, we are providing incentives for allowances that all school districts do not have the access to take advantage of.”

The three components addressed in this bill primarily give aid to urban schools, Fischer said. Removing them would add equity to aid distribution, she said, as small school districts often receive little or no state aid.

Jon Habben, executive director of Nebraska Rural Community Schools Association, testified in support of the bill, saying there needs to be a sustainable formula that includes rural Nebraska and its 60,000 to 70,000 students.

Mark Shepard, associate superintendent of business affairs for Lincoln Public Schools, testified in opposition to the bill.

Over the past 20 years, Shepard said, TEOSSA has been changed and developed to meet individual school’s needs. Eliminating factors from the formula would not reduce the state’s obligation to schools, he said, but would shift aid for districts that qualify to districts that do not.

“We could make the formula more simple, but it would not be fair or equitable,” he said.

Kevin Riley, superintendent of Gretna Public Schools, also testified against the bill, saying he opposes eliminating the student growth adjustment factor.

“There’s a misconception that school districts like ours have all of this money,” Riley said. “If you look at the general fund operating expenses, Gretna was in the bottom five in spending per student.”

That is the case for all rapidly growing school districts, he said.

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.