Requests the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to make changes to the Minimum Foundation Program formula beginning with the formula adopted for the 2010-2011 school year
The proposed changes under HCR20 intend to eliminate duplicate payments for educational services provided to youth in OJJ custody, which stem from the current funding methodology that does not adequately address their needs. By incorporating students in OJJ into the MFP formula, the state aims to simplify financial processes and allocate resources more efficiently, thereby potentially improving educational outcomes for at-risk youth. This proposal follows a series of recommendations from the Commission on Streamlining Government, which advocates for more equitable distribution of educational funds tailored to the specific needs of schools and students.
HCR20 is a House Concurrent Resolution that urges and requests the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to implement significant changes to the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP), beginning with the formula adopted for the 2010-2011 school year. The resolution aims to align funding more closely with the actual costs of education, advocating for a student-based budgeting model where a substantial portion of MFP funds would be designated for instructional expenditures at the school level. This reflects an effort to ensure that the generated funds follow students across educational settings, particularly focusing on those transitioning into the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ).
The sentiment surrounding HCR20 appears to be generally positive among educational reform advocates who view the resolution as a step towards more equitable funding mechanisms that could lead to improved graduation rates. However, potential challenges may arise regarding bipartisan support as differing views on education funding models often separate legislative opinions, particularly about local versus state control of educational resources. Advocates are hopeful that the resolution will garner the necessary legislative backing to implement these reforms.
Notable points of contention include the practical implications of shifting to a student-based budgeting model, as concerns may be raised regarding the adequacy of resources distributed to various districts, especially underfunded areas. Critics may argue that the changes could lead to disparities if not properly implemented or monitored, particularly for schools that already struggle with limited resources. Discussions surrounding HCR20 highlight the tension between centralized funding control and the flexibility that local education agencies currently enjoy, raising questions about the balance of authority in making educational policy decisions across Louisiana.