Advocates Skeptical of Rhode Island’s New School Funding Formula; Woonsocket Plaintiffs to Continue with Litigation

Rhode Island has shed its reputation as the country’s only state to operate without an education funding formula, but advocates for equal educational opportunity remain skeptical. The plaintiffs in Woonsocket School Committee v. Carcieri maintain that the school aid formula recently passed by the State Legislature fails to mitigate inequity and fully address the needs of students from poverty backgrounds and English-Language Learners. They will proceed with the litigation.

The new financing formula, signed into law by Governor Don Carcieri on June 23rd, would take effect in 2011-2012. The law establishes a per-pupil “core instruction amount” of $8,295, and would supplement aid for students who qualify for free or reduced lunch by a factor of 40%. The state calculated the base amount by averaging 2006-2007 education expenditures in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics.

In an interview with ACCESS, Steve Robinson, attorney for the plaintiffs in the ongoing Woonsocket litigation, expressed skepticism regarding the Department of Education’s claims that the legislation establishes “the best funding formula in the country.” Instead, according to Robinson, the financing scheme is a “political compromise” between the legislature and affluent communities, and arbitrary and out of touch with student needs. He contrasts the new scheme to the recommendations of “Funding Our Future,” [doc] a 2007 study commissioned by the General Assembly itself, which outlined a formula with weights for relative property wealth and needs of ELLs, and set the base per-pupil funding level at $10,600.

The new formula, he notes, provides for only nominal increases in funding for low-income districts without accounting for student needs, while effectively diverting a significant amount of aid to their affluent counterparts. Because the formula accounts the percentage of students from poverty backgrounds instead of districts’ capacity to raise funds through property taxation, Rhode Island’s five wealthiest communities receive an additional $11 million that would otherwise go to poor communities like Woonsocket.

Additionally, the formula does not account for the number and needs of English-Language Learner students, instead using poverty levels as a proxy. Robinson argues that this component, in particular, has significant anti-equity implications, as ELL students are concentrated in urban areas, while students from poverty backgrounds are scattered throughout the state. Districts would also continue to cover the costs of transportation on their own.
Plaintiffs will continue with their suit as filed. Robinson is “confident” that their arguments still hold, but acknowledges that advocates face a formidable public relations challenge due to the passage of the new formula.