Student funding formula changes get approval from Alabama Senate committee
Students walk through the hallways of Livingston Jr. High School in Livingston, Ala. on Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023. An Alabama Senate committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would shift the state's method of funding schools from a pure average daily attendance model to one that includes weights for certain groups of students, such as those in rural schools and English Language Learners. (Will McLelland/Alabama Reflector)
An Alabama Senate committee on Tuesday approved legislation to overhaul the state's student funding formula.
SB 305, sponsored by Sen. Arthur Orr, R-Decatur, would establish the Renewing Alabama's Investment in Student Excellence (RAISE) program and create the RAISE Fund to help address the needs of underserved students through a new funding system.
The state currently distributes money to schools based on average daily attendance. The new formula would provide weighted funding for students in poverty, English language learners, special education and gifted categories, as well as charter school students.
'An English language learner that doesn't speak English costs more to educate that child than a native Alabamian that comes from an English-speaking home, and so we want to help those school districts that have those challenges with additional resources,' Orr said after the committee meeting.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The committee also approved a related bill that will transfer $375 million from the state's Educational Opportunities Reserve Fund, a state savings account for budget surpluses intended for educational initiatives, into the newly created RAISE Fund. Orr said that the transfer is intended to fund the program for the first three years, though he left the possibility of additional appropriations open in a conversation with reporters after the meeting.
'We could do more if we wanted to. There's nothing that requires us to, but we wanted to start drawing down from the Educational Opportunity Fund . . . we don't know about the economy, and we see what's going on with Wall Street and tariffs, so we want to hold some back in case we need it,' Orr said.
The senator said during the committee meeting that $100 million of the $375 million would be spent on the move to the new funding system in the first year; $125 million for the second year and $175 million for the third year.
Orr said it was important to give school districts long-term stability.
'We don't want to pull the rug from beneath them… they go out and hire teachers and make investments relying on us,' he said. 'This is a long-term commitment.'
The legislation came after months of discussions between lawmakers and advocates who pushed for a weighted student formula that would provide a base amount per student with additional weights for different student needs, such as English language learners.
The bill passed without much discussion, though one senator voiced his support for the measure.
'There are so many of the one-size-fits-all solutions that we're forced into, many times for political reasons,' said Sen. Will Barfoot, R-Pike Road. 'I look forward to supporting this program.'
Orr said the bill is a step toward more equity in education.
'It's a challenge and the research shows to educate children coming in those particular areas, it certainly costs more money … but if you don't start, you won't get there,' Orr said.
The bill now moves to the full Senate for consideration.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
House GOP approves ‘technical changes' to Trump agenda bill
House Republicans on Wednesday greenlit a series of 'technical changes' to the party's tax cut and spending package, removing language that would have thrown their effort off course in the Senate. The chamber approved the tweaks — which were tucked inside a procedural rule for a separate measure — in a 213-207 vote, weeks after Republicans passed the sprawling package full of President Trump's legislative priorities. The adopted rule also tees up a final vote on the White House's bill to claw back $9.4 billion in federal spending. House GOP leaders moved to make the changes after the Senate parliamentarian scrubbed through the legislation — a procedure known as the 'Byrd bath' — and identified provisions and language that do not comply with the strict rules for the budget reconciliation process, which the GOP trifecta is using to circumvent a Democratic filibuster in the Senate and approve the bill by a simple majority. Leaving the legislation as it was risked the parliamentarian ruling that it was not compliant, which would have resulted in the threshold for passage in the Senate increasing from a simple majority to 60 votes — allowing Democratic opposition to block it. The changes to the Trump agenda bill — officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act — pertain to defense funding, energy policy and changes to Medicaid. For defense, Republicans nixed $2 billion for the enhancement of military intelligence programs; $500 million for the development, procurement and integration of maritime mines; and $62 million to convert Ohio-class submarine tubes to accept additional missiles. On the energy front, meanwhile, the changes removed a provision that would have reinstated leases for a proposed copper and nickel mine that had been renewed under the first Trump administration but revoked under Biden. The mine would have been located near an area known as the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, a nature preserve that contains canoe routes and species including black bears, moose and foxes. While leaders moved to strike some portions of the bill, they still plan to fight for those provisions when the package hits the Senate floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're going to try it again on the Senate floor,' House Majority Leadere Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. ' We disagree with the parliamentarian. … But you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' With the changes made, the House is now expected to formally send the package to the Senate, where Republicans are mapping out their own changes to the behemoth bill. Some GOP senators want to decrease the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, others are pushing to increase the spending cuts in the bill, and a subset are pressing for a smaller rollback of the green energy tax credits that Democrats approved in 2022. Any changes to the House bill in the Senate, however, risks party leadership losing support in the lower chamber, which will have to approve the Senate's tweaks before the bill can head to Trump's desk for signature. Party leaders are still hoping to enact the package by July 4, but that timeline is coming into serious question as Republicans remain at odds over a series of high-stakes issues. Rachel Frazin contributed.
The Hill
30 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hegseth takes fire from Republicans at heated Senate hearing
Republican senators came out firing during Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's hearing on Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on armed forces. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately pressed Hegseth over the Russia-Ukraine war, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) driving home the point later in the hearing; Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the top Senate appropriator, scolded the Pentagon's delays with budget information; and Sen. Lisa Murkowski closed out the hearing by questioning the administration's focus on Greenland in its Arctic strategy. McConnell, one of three Republicans who opposed Hegseth's confirmation, gaveled in the hearing by calling out the Trump administration for what he views as a flat base-line defense budget. He then launched into strong warnings against the U.S. cozying up to Russia in its bid to end its war in Ukraine. McConnell said Washington's allies are 'wondering whether we're in the middle of brokering what appears to be allowing the Russians to define victory. I think victory is defined by the people who have to live there — the Ukrainians.' The former Senate majority leader who now chairs the subcommittee, McConnell asked Hegseth which side he wanted to win the war. The Defense chief said the Trump administration wanted the killing to end but would not choose a side. 'America's reputation is on the line,' McConnell said. 'Will we defend Democratic allies against authoritarian aggressors?' Later in the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asked Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine Caine if Russian President Vladimir Putin is going to stop at Ukraine. 'I don't believe he is,' Caine replied. Hegseth, meanwhile, said it 'remains to be seen. Graham fired back, referring to his previous allusion to appeasement of Adolph Hitler: 'Well, he says he's not. This is the '30s all over. It doesn't remain to be seen.' The line of questioning laid bare the ideological divide within the GOP as to how the U.S. should confront Russia, seen by defense hawks as a global threat that must be countered with military assistance to prop up Ukraine and assert U.S. force in the European theater. But many in the Trump administration, including Hegseth, have taken a more ambivalent tone, arguing for an America First approach that could see American troops rotated out of bases in Europe and an end to the flow of military aid from Washington to Kyiv. 'We don't want a headline at the end of this conflict that says Russia wins and America loses,' McConnell told Hegseth. The hearing had a far more adversarial tone compared to Hegseth's appearance before the House Appropriations defense subcommittee a day prior, in which the Pentagon chief emerged largely unscathed, particularly at the hands of GOP members. Democratic and Republican senators grilled Hegseth over a sparsely outlined defense budget for next fiscal year, echoing rare bipartisan criticism during the House hearing. Collins reprimanded the Pentagon for being 'unacceptably slow' in submitting a detailed Pentagon spending request for the fiscal year 2026. Congress is waiting on the information as the GOP struggles to agree on Trump's reconciliation package. She also told Hegseth that Trump's budget request represented a reduction in buying power compared to the 2025 military budget, when inflation is taken into account, but suggested the Senate might correct that. McConnell earlier was also critical of the administration's defense spending plan, pushing back at Hegseth's argument that the U.S. would be making the largest investment in the military in 20 years via Trump's reconciliation package. McConnell said putting funneling defense dollars into that package while declining to increase military spending in the regular budget 'may well end up functioning as a shell game to avoid making the most significant annual investments that we spent years urging the Biden administration to make.' There was also no shortage of criticism from the panel's Democrats. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), bashed the Pentagon for cutting military medical research while spending $45 million for a grand military parade marking the Army's 250th birthday, set for Saturday 'This is not consistent with what the men and women in uniform deserve,' Durbin said. Others, including Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) berated Hegseth for the Trump administration's decision to send National Guard troops and active-duty Marines into Los Angeles this week, calling the actions a wildly out-of-proportion response to sometimes violent protests against Trump's escalating immigration crackdowns. 'Threatening to use our own troops on our own citizens at such scale is unprecedented, it is unconstitutional, and it is downright un-American,' Murray said, noting that the actions were undermining the readiness of the U.S. military. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) pressed Hegseth to reveal the cost or timeline of refurbishing Trump's luxury jet from the Qatari government, meant to become Air Force One. 'You have signed a contract with a company to reconfigure the Qatari aircraft. What is the price of that contract?' Reed asked. Hegseth replied that the information 'cannot be revealed in this setting,' prompting Reed to fire back. 'Why can't it be revealed? This is the appropriation committee of the United States Senate. We appropriate the money that you will spend,' Reed said.
Miami Herald
33 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
State Senators Overwhelmingly Vote to Raise Car Dealership Fees 488%
California's state Senate has approved legislation allowing car dealers to charge buyers up to 1% of a vehicle's purchase price in document processing fees, with a $500 cap. This $500 limit represents an increase of nearly 500% from the current cap of $85, and the average starting price of a new car in May was $48,656, Cox Automotive reports. The bill passed with only one Senator voting against it, and its supporters, including California's New Car Dealers Association, say the fee is necessary since the $85 cap hasn't kept pace with the state's rising business costs over the decades. Processing paperwork that the added costs would help pay for includes loan documents, fraud protection forms, and Department of Motor Vehicles registration. Anthony Samson, the California New Car Dealers Association's lobbyist, said in April that other businesses can recoup similar costs through service charges, but dealers can't. "If we believed we could simply recover our costs and the price of the vehicle, I assure you that we would not be here today asking for your support on this measure," Samson said, according to Cal Matters. However, Senator Dave Cortese said he's working with the California New Car Dealers Association to lower the fee's ceiling when it's heard in the Assembly. Senator Henry Stern was the only Senator who voted against the bill, noting he feels that car sellers have undermined the state's efforts to protect consumers and the environment with actions like lobbying for the U.S. Senate to pass federal legislation blocking California's electric vehicle mandates. "The car dealers haven't earned the trust to justify this major increase in junk fees," Stern said, according to Cal Matters. Ray Shefska, CarEdge Co-Founder, added that "This bill reinforces that in America, whether it be national, state, or local, we have the best politicians money can buy. When things are already barely affordable, let's by all means make it even more difficult for people buying cars in California." The California New Car Dealers Association has donated $2.9 million to the state's lawmakers since 2015, according to Digital Democracy's database. One California Senator, Carolyn Menjivar, didn't vote on Tuesday but stated: "If we're looking to help everyday Californians with affordability, why are we looking at helping an industry that is making a healthy profit?" California is one of the most expensive states to buy a car since it charges the highest sales tax rate at 7.25% and imposes significant registration fees. The document processing fees vote occurred amid reports of auto dealers using incentive strategies to sustain profits without raising vehicle prices in reaction to Trump's tariffs. State government vehicle purchases are exempt from the document charge. House Assembly members still have to vote on the car dealer fees bill before it heads to California's Governor for approval or veto. If the House Assembly approves the legislation in its current form, a $500 cap could increase Governor Newsom's chances of vetoing it. Florida has the highest car dealer document fees in the U.S., with its $999 cap, followed by Virginia at $799, and Colorado registering third at $699. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
