Legislative leaders are pausing before they solicit new proposals for a consultant to study Arkansas' education funding formula.
In a May 6 letter to members of the Senate and House education committees, the chairmen, Sen. Jane English, R-North Little Rock, and Rep. Bruce Cozart, R-Hot Springs, informed lawmakers that the committee would delay posting a new "request for proposals" for a consultant to review the joint committee's process for disbursing state public school funds, "pending possible further discussion by the committees."
That letter confused some committee members because the panel had just voted five days earlier to reopen the bidding process. That vote came after only one consulting firm responded to the initial proposal request with a nearly $1 million price tag that gave members of both parties sticker shock.
Cozart said Tuesday that the committee eventually will move forward with a request for proposals. The delay, he said, is to give lawmakers the opportunity to ensure its request is specific to avoid unnecessarily driving up the cost of a consulting contract.
He added that the committee will discuss the matter at its June 11 meeting.
"We want to make sure that what we're asking for is exactly what we're going to get," Cozart said.
The joint Education Committee included in its 2018 report a recommendation to hire a consultant to review its biennial education adequacy study.
The first proposals were requested earlier this year, but only Augenblick, Palaich and Associates responded. The Colorado firm said that it would do the work for $943,605, however, the committee declined to accept the proposal.
Officials from the company told lawmakers that it would look at the state's education funding model from a variety of angles and seek input from parents, students, teachers, business leaders and administrators. The firm also would examine how high-performing school districts in Arkansas use their money and review best practices from similar states, according to its proposal.
The joint Education Committee's final report every two years of educational adequacy funding includes recommendations for the governor and General Assembly about how to distribute public school dollars. The practice of making that report started in 2003, when legislation was passed in the wake of the Arkansas Supreme Court's Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee decision that found the state's education funding system was inadequate and unconstitutional.
Public schools receive the largest singular chunk of the general revenue. In fiscal 2020, which begins July 1, $2.25 billion of the $5.75 billion general-revenue budget will go to the Public School Fund.
The funding formula stemmed from a 2003 study of the school-funding process by a pair of college professors -- Larry Picus of the University of Southern California and Allan Odden of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Odden and Picus have reviewed the funding mechanisms several times since 2003, and legislators have slightly tweaked the adequacy process and funding formula. But most of the professors' initial recommendations remain the foundation of the biennial adequacy reports. Their original contract was for $350,000.
Rep. Mark Lowery, R-Maumelle, made the motion last year to include the recommendation for an outside study of the adequacy process. He said he made the suggestion because of some issues that have arisen with the school-funding formula.
He noted, for instance, that the matrix for determining how much money each district gets for transportation isn't very accurate, disbursing too many transportation dollars to some districts and not enough to others.
Lowery also said the matrix used to distribute the majority of education money is a "funding formula, not a spending formula," meaning that school districts aren't bound by spending state money on any particular category.
He said he wasn't concerned about the bidding delay, and that narrowing the scope of the request for proposals likely would bring the study more in line with his original intent.
Some lawmakers at the May 1 meeting said they worried that Augenblick, Palaich and Associates may suggest that the state spend substantially more money on public education. Such a finding could set up another legal challenge similar to the Lake View case.
Lowery, who was one of only six representatives to vote to contract with Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, said that wasn't a concern of his.
"The recommendations of a consultant are not something that the Legislature is bound to," Lowery said. "In Lake View, the Supreme Court said the Legislature will define what 'adequacy' is."
Senate President Pro Tempore Jim Hendren, R-Sulphur Springs, said that the decision by English and Cozart to delay was "good discretion." Hendren, who sits on the Senate Education Committee, made the motion earlier this month to extend the request-for-proposals period by 60 days in hopes of getting more bids.
"We want to make sure -- because of the huge amount of dollars involved and because of the court oversight and history of adequacy -- to continue to improve the process, and that's what this is about," Hendren said. "But we also don't want to do things that could lead to more legal issues or protracted debate on such a huge budget item."
Gov. Asa Hutchinson has said he'll defer to the Legislature about whether a consultant should be hired.
Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, said she was confused about how the request for proposals was being delayed despite the committee's May 1 vote. Elliott is the vice chairman of the Senate Education Committee.
"I'm disappointed because I wanted to get started," she said.
Hendren said he wasn't concerned about being pressed for time. The committee's next adequacy report is due in late 2020.
Asked whether he thought the outside study would ever occur, Hendren said he thought it would.
"I think all of us want to see the processes improved," he said. "I've had my history working with consultants. Some provided incredibly useful services, and we've had some that were not so successful.
"That's why this is important, and it's also why it was disconcerting that we only had one response to the initial [request for proposals]."
Metro on 05/29/2019