Florida Education Finance Program

Florida Education Finance Program

Student’s Name

Date

Institutional Affiliation

Introduction

The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) caters to all public-school students in Florida and guarantees funding and access to all educational needs, services, and programs. The legislature enacted this constitutional funding formula in 1973. It uniformly allocates funds to each student who participates in the public-school programs regardless of the local economy and geographical differences. This mechanism for educational funding guarantees equalized education opportunities as financial provision is dependent on student participation in educational programs instead of financing based on the number of teachers and classrooms(Wright, 2010). These programs factor in aspects such as student population sparsity, local property tax, district cost differential, and cost of educational programs to equalize funding amongst all school districts in Florida( OPPAGA, 2021).

Local, state and federal support are the primary sources of funds for the Florida Education Finance programs. Local support is derived from local sources such as property taxes collected in all Florida counties. The property tax estimate is specific for each county as the Florida Department of revenue utilizes a legal procedure to determine rates. Local support accounts for up to 90% of the school districts’ total FEFP. The state support includes legislative appropriations such as the general revenue fund, the state school trust fund, and the educational enhancement trust fund ( Florida School Boards Association, 2016). The general revenue fund encompasses a sales tax on all services and goods (Florida Department of Education, 2021 ). In contrast, the educational enhancement trust fund encompasses the tax proceeds from the Florida lottery net proceeds and gambling machines. Other sources of funds in the state support include income from mobile home licenses and tax receipts from the state’s forests. The final source of funding is federal support, and this has direct funding from federal agencies such as the department of education and the Department of Interior. The federal funding support through the Coronavirus aid, relief, and economic security act were especially beneficial in addressing the adverse impacts of Covid-19 in school operations (OPPAGA, 2021).

Florida Education Finance Program Calculation

The Florida Education Finance Program is calculated by multiplying the full-time equivalent (FTE) student by the cost factors of the FTE(OPPAGA, 2021). Student enrollment serves as the basis for education funding; thus, one FTE is described as the total sum of hours of instructions given to each student. As FTEs vary based on the student’s educational level, this variable is based on the school district projections and the demographic of the students. Cost factors are the actual cost of each educational program. For instance, the cost of a basic program weighs less than a special student program; hence, the cost factor equates to the program’s actual cost multiplied by the demographic of the students taking the said program. Once the full-time equivalent is multiplied by cost factors, a weighted FTE is determined. The weighted FTE is then multiplied by the base student allocation (BSA) and the district cost differential (DCD), and subsequently, this determines the base funding. The base student allocation is the funds allocated to each FTE, while the district cost differential is the cost of living of each district ( OPPAGA, 2021).

To determine the total funds, also identified as the gross state and local FEFP funds, supplements, and allocations such as reading program, student transportation allocation, and the department of juvenile justice supplements, among others, are added to the base funding. Once the gross state and local FEFP funds are determined, the required local effort is removed from that equation while adjustments to appropriation are added (OPPAGA, 2021 ). The required local effort is removed from this equation to determine the state FEFP funds. Therefore if a school district has fewer local funds, the state funds are greater, and if a school district has more local funds, the state funds are lower. It equalizes the funding per student, thus ensuring all public school students across Florida receive equal educational funds. Once the required local effort is subtracted, the ending result is a net state FEFP in which a class size reduction allocation fund is added, thus amounting to the total state funding. Lastly, the required local effort levies and the 748 discretionary millage levies are added, thus providing total funding (OPPAGA, 2021).

Impact of Increased Required Local Effort

Local effort funding accounts for up to 90% of a school district’s total FEFP. Increasing the required local effort would increase educational funding, further enabling equitable funding across all school districts in Florida. For instance, if the higher required local effort was based on property wealth and income, high income and property wealth districts could contribute more funding, eventually making up for the difference between district needs. Moreover, contributions based on property income and wealth would ensure equalized funding as wealthy school districts could fully fund their expected budget (Shuls, 2017). It would then mean that more financial resources are allocated to school districts that serve the most students from low-income and property wealth regions. Furthermore, equalized funding can solve the current systemic underfunding of students from low wealth and income regions (Morgan, 2018). For instance, New Jersey lends more funds to schools in high poverty districts, thus ensuring schools in poor districts have up to 20% more funding than their counterparts in low poverty districts.

In addition, a rise in the required local effort would increase in the funds for specific and targeted educational programs for low-income students. It will ensure that education funding is allocated as per the needs of students and serve to equalize the educational opportunities, services, and programs provided to students from both high-income and low-income families (Baker, 2004). Other than students from low-income families, a higher required local effort could help increase additional funds that cater to students with disabilities and other special needs. It will help address compounded challenges and ensure that all students, regardless o their unique needs, have access to all educational programs and services.

Conclusion

The Florida Education Finance Program is crucial in providing educational programs and services to all public-school students in the state of Florida. Through this program, school funding is uniformly allocated to all schools regardless of their geographic locations and local economies. Though this educational finance program requires more funding to guarantee the equal provision of educational programs to low-income and high-income students, it has enabled overall student participation, thus providing basic educational needs to all students in Florida.

References

Baker, B. D., & Friedman-Nimz, R. (2004). State policies and equal opportunity: The example of gifted education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 39-64.

Florida Department of Education. (2021). Funding for Florida School Districts. Retrieved http://www.fldoe.org/fefpFlorida School Boards Association. (2016). Understanding the FEFP. Retrieved https://fsba.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-17-FEFP-101.pdf

Morgan, I., & Amerikaner, A. (2018). Funding Gaps 2018: An Analysis of School Funding Equity across the US and within Each State. Education Trust.

OPPAGA. (2021). Florida Education Finance Program. Retrieved https://oppaga.fl.gov/ProgramSummary/BackPageDetail?programNumber=2002&backPageNumber=01

Shuls, J. V. (2017). Financing school choice: How program design impacts issues regarding legality and equity. Kan. JL & Pub. Pol’y, 27, 500.

Wright, R. (2010). State education finance and governance profile: Florida. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(1), 61-65.