Louisiana Senate Bill SB716

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/3/12
• Refer: 4/3/12

Caption

Provides relative to legislative approval of the Minimum Foundation Program formula. (8/1/12)

Impact

The bill significantly impacts the process of how education funding is approved within Louisiana. By requiring that the MFP formula be developed and submitted in a stringent format, the legislation seeks to streamline the approval process, thus potentially expediting the allocation of funds to parish and city school systems. This change aims to ensure that legislative procedures are followed precisely, facilitating a more efficient path for educational funding that aligns with the requirements set forth in Article VIII, Section 13(B) of the Louisiana Constitution.

Summary

Senate Bill 716, known as the Minimum Foundation Program Legislative Approval Act, aims to establish a formal method for the legislative approval of the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) formula, which determines the cost of funding education in Louisiana's public elementary and secondary schools. The bill mandates that legislative approval of the MFP shall be obtained through a concurrent resolution originating in either the Senate or House. This resolution must include the MFP formula verbatim as approved by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) and adhere to specific formatting guidelines to ensure clarity and compliance with state law.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding SB 716 appears to emphasize a desire for increased accountability and transparency in educational funding. Proponents argue that this structured approach will lead to a more equitable and reliable method of funding allocation. However, there may be concerns about the rigidity of the process and whether it could hinder timely adjustments to the MFP formula in response to changing educational needs.

Contention

One notable point of contention related to SB 716 is the specification that the MFP formula must not include non-essential commentary or policy directives, limiting its scope strictly to mathematical computations necessary for funding allocation. Critics may argue that this constraint could overlook important discussions about educational policy and funding priorities that require legislative input. The requirement for revisions if the submitted formula does not conform to the new standards could also lead to delays in funding, raising questions about the balance between strict procedural compliance and the need for flexibility in educational funding discussions.