Each year, some of the most closely-watched legislation presented in the Mississippi Legislature involves funding for K-12 public education. For supporters of public schools, these bills generally create more anxiety than optimism.

It is a well-established skepticism. Under the current funding formula, The Mississippi Adequate Education Program, adopted in 1997, the legislature has fully-funded education just twice. The last time came in 2008. Since then the state has underfunded education by approximately $3 billion.

Essentially, every year the Mississippi House and Senate make their own funding proposals and fight it out on a race to the bottom.

But this year all of the campaign promises to fund our schools are actually playing out in both the House and Senate. The Senate’s plan (SB2332), which would retain the MAEP format, is estimated to increase public school funding by $210 million over last year’s funding. The House plan (HB1453), offered by Rep. Rob Roberson of Starkville, discards the MAEP formula while increasing funding by an estimated $250 million over last year.

Both plans mean more money to our schools.

Of the two, however, it is the House plan that appears to be the best approach to funding, and not simply because it provides $40 million more.

That plan, called the INSPIRE Act, does a better job of recognizing that the needs of all students are not through a robust system of weighted funding that provides for needs across a variety of categories, including two low-income categories, three special education categories, English language learners, gifted student, career tech students, even a category for students in sparsely populated area. The range of weighted funding measures recognizes the unique challenges and costs found in every school and every school district.

The Senate’s revamped MAEP formula uses weighted funding to a far smaller degree.

While the Senate has not provided detailed funding estimates, INSPIRE has calculated funding for each school district. Golden Triangle school districts would receive $9.8 million more in state funds than the current year, with the Columbus Municipal School District leading the way with a $3.7-million boost.

The main criticism of the INSPIRE Act is that it does not provide an objective formula – a fixed number that is the measure of whether the state has or has not fully funded the schools. History has proven that an objective formula isn’t a guarantee of funding. The state has met MAEP standards just two of 27 years now, so it’s dubious to assume that we lose anything with the absence of that objective formula.

The INSPIRE Act likely won’t make it more likely that the state consistently funds education at an appropriate level, but it will mean less embarrassment for legislators when they fail.

The INSPIRE Act seems to have broad appeal. Progressives and liberals like it because it provides more funds for poor students, wherever they are found. Conservatives like it because it is funding based on students rather than schools or school districts.

So it will be interesting to see which funding system emerges by the end of the session in April.

The good news is that the state is making real strides to provide the funding our schools need and deserve.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Our View: CPD: Finally, stability at the top?

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 2 days ago

• 

  Slimantics: The recycling game has changed a bit

  By Slim Smith • 16 hours ago