Pickering pans MAEP formula again
State Auditor Stacey Pickering has filed his annual report on the Mississippi Adequate Education Program funding formula, and as he has for the last few years he warns lawmakers there are problems and flaws with the formula that determines how more than $2 billion in state tax dollars are spent on education.
"Each year the Office of the State Auditor provides an overview of MAEP funds, how arbitrary changes are continually made to the formula, and how funds are used, or not used, for our students," Pickering said. "Accountability issues are a major concern of this office, and it is past time for the MAEP formula to be seriously examined."
The MAEP formula was created by the Legislature in 1997, in large part to create equity in funding for public schools in poor and affluent areas, and to stave off lawsuits other states were facing. Lawmakers have only fully funded the formula twice. Public education advocates are pushing for a referendum in 2015 to change the state's constitution to require full funding of the formula. Former Gov. Ronnie Musgrove is suing the state on behalf of numerous school districts seeking reimbursement of funding shortfalls from the formula and full funding moving forward.
Pickering's report largely points out concerns he has raised before with lawmakers.
The report says:
* MAEP funding is given to districts in a lump sum with no oversight or accountability regarding how the funds are to be used as no targeted spending is required by law:
* Spending MAEP funds is at the discretion of the district with no state requirements.
* The rate at which administrative expenditures has grown far exceeds the rate at which classroom spending has grown. In fact, in all years except 2004-05, the rate of administrative spending has significantly out-paced classroom spending. Expenditures are increasingly going to administrative costs as opposed to where the money should be going, which is the classroom.
* While using enrollment might initially appear to be an ideal funding mechanism for school districts because it artificially inflates the number of children actually attending classes, it is a poor mechanism for funding for several reasons:
It removes a district's incentive to get children to attend school regularly.
It does not properly reflect student or school needs.
It would add an additional $30 million or more to school districts with no guarantee that it would be focused where it is needed the most- in the classroom.
* Using the new federal Community Eligibility Program causes artificial inflation of the state's "At-Risk" Program:
This new program will give 53 districts and 506 individual schools the ability to give free lunch to all students regardless of individual eligibility.
Base Student Cost uses free lunch data to establish funding for "At-Risk" programs– inflated 10 percent in the "At-Risk" program portion.