Bill Description: House Bill 279 alters part of the existing K-12 funding formula to replace the current calculation based on support units with a far simpler funding formula based on average daily attendance.

Rating: +1

Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?

Analyst Note: House Bill 279 includes a one-time $14.2 million appropriation to rural school districts to offset the expected loss of revenue from implementing the new funding formula. This appropriation technically does not constitute an increase in government spending because it is equivalent to what the districts would have otherwise received under the existing funding formula. 

Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?

Currently, Idaho’s public system of education is funded using a convoluted formula based on support units that are calculated by taking the average daily attendance (ADA) and dividing that figure by a set of divisors that varies depending on the grade level. House Bill 279 would simplify the process for calculating discretionary funds by replacing the support unit model with a funding formula based solely off ADA. This reform will improve transparency by making it easier to forecast and track Idaho’s K-12 education budget. 

(+1)

Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. Conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?

Analyst Note: House Bill 297 states that the funding formula should eventually “be refined to encompass a weighted per-student funding formula that allocates education funding to school districts and public charter schools using a base amount per student and an additional amount for certain weighted student characteristics.” While the bill does not suggest what these weights should be, it is worth highlighting that such a formula risks treating students unequally based on arbitrary characteristics that have nothing to do with actual student needs.

Does it expand the government's bureaucratic monopoly on education, reduce family and student choice, or finance education based on an institution or system? Conversely, does it reduce government coercion in education, expand education choice, or finance education based on the student rather than the institution?

House Bill 279 changes the funding formula for discretionary funds from calculating disbursements based on support units to a funding formula based on average daily attendance. While this change will improve efficiency in the public education system, it cannot be said to truly “finance education based on the student” since it is both limited in scope and the savings gained from students leaving the public school system do not get transferred to fund alternatives to public schools like those available through school choice. 

(0)