State Auditor Stacey Pickering issued the following statement on MAEP.
Due to the recent debate and House passage of HB 957 (Mississippi Uniform Per Student Funding Formula Act of 2018), I thought it would be prudent to share the historical research and information compiled by my office about the many changes to the MAEP. Included here is a list of current MAEP state code sections that have been amended, added, or changed; a copy of the School District Rating and Accountability System changes over time; and an overview flow chart of the actual MAEP formula.
I hope you find this information useful in future discussions. Because it accounts for more than 40 percent of total expenditures from the state general fund, the Office of the State Auditor has continued to track MAEP and related K-12 public school funding and expenditure data for more than ten years. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office at 601-576-2800. In summary,
- The MAEP formula has changed many times over the last 20 years. Some were changes to the law and some were regulatory changes by MDE—ALL of them affected the calculation.
- First written in 1994; In 1997, SB 2649, was the first major overhaul including funding projections and comparisons, Add-On costs, pupil-teacher ratios, vocational program allowances, transportation, gifted, local support, counting transfer students, preliminary estimate calculations, distribution and payment of funds, violations and penalties, education enhancement funds distribution, etc.
- In 2005, there were more major revisions to the formula.
- In 2006, the formula underwent a major change—instead of full recalculations every year, it is only recalculated every fourth year and is adjusted in intervening years.
- Again, in 2011, there were a number of changes made to the MAEP formula and its components.
- In 2013, the Legislature finally mandated a definition of attendance, because the State Department of Education failed to provide uniform guidance. This helped to make the formula more equitable to all school districts, but also changed the formula calculation by using better data.
- School District Accountability Ratings affect the MAEP. The attached chart shows how the accountability formula has changed. This has had significant impacts on the MAEP formula because of the way MDE “sets the bar,” and defines a successful school district.
10 comments:
Interesting presentation however it doesn't provide the main impetus behind even producing MAEP. The threat of a Federal lawsuit for not providing equitable distribution of education funding, as was the rage at the time across the nation (based upon the Equitable Educational Opportunities Act of 1974) was the reason MAEP was even contemplated much less created. So this new law opens up MS to another Federal lawsuit like the Mental Health, Corrections, etc. lawsuits and usual consent decrees. PS if we go that route a Federal Judge will determine how much and how diverse state funds will be spent. Some people never learn! However the usual law firms defending MS in Federal court will reap another bounty.
I've never agreed with anything F Mickns has posted. However, he is exactly correct in every word of that post.
It's not enough that the Justice Department Shit-canned Cleveland High School and it's Wildcats mascot....Now they'll jack-boot the entire state.
But thank God Hillary is not in command.
I don’t know who threw up all over Visio, but that’s the worst flow chart I’ve ever seen.
Forgetting the subject matter, if anyone with a college degree created it... they should be fired.
Was WordArt their first try?
Stacey. Seriously. Watch some YouTube videos. The Auditors office should be embarrassed.
Does the world not realize that everything there is to do with school funding and the way schools are graded are 100% in the Mississippi law book (literally everything)? Lawmakers pass bills, tell MDE how to do it, and then they wear them out for doing it. Kind of like a psycho relationship.
The whole premise of this is ridiculous. Billions of dollars have gone to K12 funding since 1997 through MAEP. It is the single largest expenditure of taxpayer money the state makes every year. Of course it should be studied and adjusted carefully every time it is needed. So what? If this current iteration doesn't work, change it until it is right. Dang.
The chart is accurate, but was purposely made to look more difficult than it actually is by the Republican leadership is their successful defeat of initiative 42. Half of the chart has nothing to do with MAEP, other than explaining the County/City assessed valuation methodology for all local taxes. The concern over inflated free lunch participants and the validity of data is real, but is not the fault of the formula. If the new formula will be consistently funded, that will at least allow school districts to know where they stand from year to year. But MAEP is not complicated. The goal of the Legislature has always been to create a formula that justifies the amount they wish to find. The 27% cap, which steals money from poor districts and gives money to rich districts may well be struck down in federal court, if ever challenged.
$107 million more at the end of seven years (maybe). Meanwhile Rome continues to burn. I'm not an apologist for MDE or districts- improvements must be made but the big misspending is at the legislative level. They like to tout increased administrative expenditures but they have created the laws that require you to have an administrator to oversee them. You could get rid of testing coordinators and return them to the classroom if the accountability wasn't a full time job in most districts. More than one in the larger. If they would update the data system schools could more easily send accurate information and that wouldn't have to be at least a full time job in every district. It is easy to lob criticism but unless you witness what districts actually have to do and the ways they have to do them you don't really see.
The education empire, at every level (local, district, state) is similar to a medical empire (small office, clinic, hospital). More than half the people working there are tabulating, documenting, logging, tracking, positioning and tracking data-dots. In order to justify themselves, their activities, their charges/expenses in case they are questioned or sued.
Remember that old movie "The Blob"? It grew and grew and grew and ate everything in its path.
As a Republican who benefits from the 27% rule, it needs to go. I don’t really believe that shifting that money to the poorer districts is going to help their outcomes, but the rule is contra to equity funding.
EdBuild said the 27% cap is “inequitable, illogical and not good for kids.” But, the Republican leadership only repeats the recommendations of EdBuild with which they agree. Wonder if Mr. Speaker’s district benefits from the 27% cap?
Post a Comment