Requests that BESE provide in 2015-2016 MFP formula for monthly distribution of funds to public school governing authorities for dropout recovery programs based on counts of students making satisfactory monthly progress
The legislation seeks to implement a structured funding mechanism that incentivizes public schools to enroll and assist students in dropout recovery programs. By integrating measures to track student progress, the resolution aligns with the requirements established in House Bill No. 968, which authorized such programs. These provisions necessitate monthly reporting from schools on various metrics regarding student progress, thus promoting accountability and ensuring that resources are directed towards effective interventions. This funding structure could promote better outcomes for students in recovery programs throughout the state.
House Resolution 213 calls upon the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) to ensure that the 2015-2016 Minimum Foundation Program formula allocates monthly distributions of funds to public school governing authorities for dropout recovery programs. This resolution emphasizes the importance of dropout recovery initiatives in enhancing the educational opportunities available to high school students who have left school. By focusing on those making satisfactory monthly progress, the resolution aims to provide tailored support for students struggling to regain their footing in the education system.
Overall, the legislative sentiment around HR213 appears to be supportive, particularly among educators and those invested in improving high school graduation rates. Stakeholders recognize the long-term economic and social benefits of facilitating higher educational success among at-risk youth through dedicated dropout recovery efforts. The resolution highlights a collective acknowledgment of the necessity for proactive measures to address dropout rates effectively.
While the overall tone surrounding HR213 is positive, there may be some contention regarding the implementation of dropout recovery programs and their effectiveness. Critics could challenge whether the funding model proposed truly addresses the diverse needs of students in recovery, as some may argue it focuses too heavily on metrics rather than holistic educational support. Moreover, there may be debates about how the funding, once allocated, is utilized at the local level and whether it translates into meaningful advances in student success.