Home















Costing-Out Home | Overview | A Primer | State Fact Sheets | Policy Brief  

Mississippi Fact Sheet

Study Title:

“School Finance in Mississippi : A Proposal for an Alternate System”

 

Date Completed:

December 1993

 

Calculated Base Costs:

Overall, the average per-pupil foundation amount for 1992-93 would have been $2,754, ranging from $2,746 to $3,256 per pupil. This does not include federal funds.

In a hypothetical school district with an enrollment of 2,500 (two elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school), the base cost was $2,006 per pupil for school year 1993-94. In an examination of 24 “typical” existing districts, the base cost was $2,147 per pupil for school year 1992-93.

Adjustments included $107.35 per pupil for low-income students, $119.2 million statewide for special education, $71.4 million for vocational education, and $67 million for transportation.

 

Major Recommendations:

Eliminate the inadequate and inequitable Minimum Education Program (Mississippi's school finance system since 1953) and adopt a multi-tiered funding program.

First tier: A per-pupil foundation consisting of the base cost plus adjustments for low-income students, special education, vocational education, and transportation. This tier would be primarily financed by the state, but supplemented by local property tax revenues.

Second tier: A “reward-for-effort” plan in which state compensation ensures that two districts making the same tax effort generate the same per-pupil revenue, up to a designated amount.

Third tier: Revenue raised locally beyond the first two tiers.

Increase average per-pupil spending, including third-tier local contributions, to $3,092 (a $276 raise).

Increase state aid to schools from $900 million in 1991-2 to about $1.05 billion.

No district should receive less than a five percent increase in state aid.

The base cost should be reexamined every 4-5 years, and should be adjusted for inflation each year in the interim.

The state should consider providing additional funding to stimulate innovation or reward high-performing districts.

 

Special Features of the Study:

It appears that the authors collaborated closely with the Task Force and members of the Department of Education to create a politically viable proposal.

Determined the per-pupil base cost by considering only demographically average districts.

Funding is based on average daily attendance, not total enrollment.

Authors say the proposal would result in a more equitable distribution of per pupil revenues statewide.

 

Implementation:

The Mississippi Adequate Education Plan (MAEP) was passed by the legislature in 1994 and funded in 1997. MAEP is a foundation program very similar to the one proposed by this report. The required local contribution is capped at 27% of program cost. In FY 1998, the total cost of MAEP was about $1.25 billion, with the state share being 81% and the local share being 19%.

 

Methodology:

Successful Schools:

The state authorized the Task Force on Restructuring the Minimum Education Program to contract for research and consulting services with school finance experts to recommend a restructuring of Mississippi 's school funding system.

Researchers created a hypothetical district based on a set of costs suggested by the Mississippi Department of Education.

The team identified 24 “typical” districts using markers including school size, the assessed valuation per pupil, the percentage of students receiving free lunch, the operating tax levy, and other local revenues. They also analyzed district expenditures in four major “cost centers”: instruction, administration, plant operation and maintenance, and ancillary support. In calculating the average expenditures in each cost center, outlier districts were not considered, nor were districts that failed to meet state accreditation standards.

The team recommended multiplying the number of free-lunch-eligible students in each district by an extremely low 1.05 when determining average daily attendance.

Because the team lacked the resources to create new formulas for special education, vocational education, and transportation expenditures, they recommended that these adjustments be based on existing state formulas.

 

Public Input:

None

 

Additional Factors:

The study does not take into account personnel benefits, such as health and retirement, or capital outlay and debt service.

 

Prepared by:

The Task Force on Restructuring the Minimum Education Program

 

Prepared for:

Augenblick, Van de Waters & Myers