By Stephen Smoot
Often a situation or process looks overwhelmingly mysterious when overwhelmingly complex. As one moves closer to it, gives close examination and analysis, mysteries clear up as the cogs and wheels of the machine show their purpose. When understanding replaces ambiguity also, the public may be more reassured when proposals of tweaks and changes come.
This coming session of the West Virginia State Legislature, many county school systems in West Virginia have requested to change the school funding formula. Officials from county school systems face binds related to certain restrictions in the school aid formula and have asked for increased support and flexibility in how the formula is applied.
Additionally, elements of the state school funding formula unnecessarily make the traditional public school system vulnerable when students pursue alternative forms of education outside of it, such as with microschools, homeschooling parents and cooperatives, or charter schools.
With public schools one of the most primary services provided by government, it is essential that parents and voters especially understand how the State of West Virginia provides school funding over and above what each system gets from local taxes, other forms of state and federal aid, and also whatever grants they may earn through application and award.
How It Works
About 14 months ago, Pendleton County Schools Treasurer J. P. Mowery crafted a presentation to explain how the State of West Virginia determines how it funds its schools. It may appear a Byzantine maze at first glance, but actually reflects painstaking efforts by State officials and the State Legislature over the years to balance needs and resources at every level, provide enough to ensure proper function, and support the special needs of sparsely populated county systems.
In the past decade, the State Legislature has shown itself responsive to calls for more flexibility and support, particularly with legislation passed in 2019. It was strongly supported by Governor Jim Justice, himself a former educator alongside his primary role as business owner.
Seven aspects of school system costs, which Mowery’s presentation refers to as “steps,” come together to illustrate how conditions in each county school system dictate its funding. These are related to not only the actual costs of each function of the school system, but also the amount of local base funding in the form of what it receives under the law from property tax receipts collected by the county sheriff’s department and assessor’s office.
These include professional educators, service personnel, system fixed charges, transportation, professional student support personnel, and the sixth comes under “other current charges” that may fluctuate, such as pay for substitute teachers or support for faculty senates.
Under step seven come elements of curriculum and instruction not including the educators themselves. These include improvement of instructional programs, improvement of 21st century technology systems, dual credit and advanced placement course support, and leadership and teaching instruction and trainings.
After the seven steps of assessing the financial condition and needs of the school system, the next three steps in determination examine the context of the systems needs in terms of what support the system derives locally.
Once the State calculates these 10 steps, it can determine the amount of state funding aid to provide to most West Virginia county school systems. Those with populations that are sparse relative to the geographic size of the county to an extent defined under state law receive extra aid, referred to as the 1400 floor, which will be explained in a different article in this edition.
An important element to remember is HB 206, passed by the State Legislature and implemented during the 2019-20 school year. As Mowery explained in the presentation, “House Bill 206 required each county’s basic state aid funding to be distributed in the form of a block grant, effective with the 2019-20 school year.” Furthermore, he stated that “all basic state aid funds distributed to the county board shall be exempt from expenditure requirements” and also that “a county board may expend the funds in any authorized and allowable manner the county board deems appropriate.
HB 206’s removal of these restrictions and regulations serves in a sense as added support in kind. Although tough to quantify as a statistic, the less time that county schools officials must spend tending to useless regulations, the more time they have for the purposes of education.
This legislation served as a strong and appreciated response to county school systems finding regulatory restrictions on how they could use funds overly onerous.
Additionally, “full time enrollment” of students “drives the formula.” That said, adjustments to that come from the presence of “certified adults,” the 1400 floor for certain counties, and “jointly established schools where the sending school provides the transportation.”
The latter term refers to institutions such as the South Branch Career and Technical Center in Petersburg, the James Rumsey Technical Center in Berkeley County, or the formerly named Arch Moore Technical Center that serves Jackson and Roane counties. In each case, trades education programs include students from multiple counties. The cost of transportation and education has an impact on spending and funding.
Sparseness of County Population Has An Impact On the Funding Formula
A significant element taken into consideration by the State in terms of the funding formula comes in its definitions of the level of population sparseness or density.
The State of West Virginia created four categories of relative population density. Each tier has different levels of funding impact based on the varied needs of differently populated counties.
Sparse has less than five people per square mile. Low has between five and nine per square mile, Medium 10 to 19, and highly dense counties are defined as having 20 or more per square mile.
These ratios help to determine the funding rate for personnel as part of the entire state funding award. For example, the formula funds different numbers of professional educators for each population sparsity and density tier. Sparse systems receive funding for 77.75 professional educators per 1,000 students. Low gets 72.60, Medium 72.45, and High 72.30.
Each category of school system personnel, such as service and professional student support, for example, receives a certain approved amount of funding with one class of exceptions. Selected central office personnel, such as financial officers, directors of certain vital functions, do not receive funding consideration in the state aid formula.
Funding for professional educators can be adjusted for individual advancements, such as national certifications, years of teaching service, and other elements. Furthermore, the levels of funding for this category are also governed by the sparsity and density ratios. As Mowery stated in his presentation, “instead of being based on a specific ratio per thousand students in net enrollment, the PI requirement is calculated as a specific percentage of the lesser of the number PE employed or funded.” Systems get either the allotted funding at the set percentage or the percentage of professional instructors out of total professional personnel, whichever is less.
The State Legislature Provides Flexibility In Personnel Budgeting
Another important State Legislature move that provided help and flexibility came in how the State funds these personnel ratios. Until approximately a decade ago, school systems had to hire to the ratio to receive the full personnel funding. Some systems would hire to the limit, then have a “reduction in force,” known better as “RIF” to get the extra money from positions cut when needed.
Obviously this process created instability and low morale, especially among new hires.
The State Legislature tweaked the process to provide county school systems the personnel funding up front and permitted them flexibility to work within it to not penalize a policy of frugality. Employing fewer personnel than paid for by the formula is called being “under the formula.”
In the final regular meeting of 2025 for the Pendleton County Board of Education, Mowery explained the impact of the formula and other issues to the Superintendent, other central office personnel, and Board members. He shared that in the County, “we employ under the formula, which is how we survive.”
Mowery explained furthermore that “we get the money whether we employ the people or not.” Keeping each category of personnel “under the formula” level and “to the good,” he stated, “that’s how we balance the budget, keep all of our schools open.”
A large number of school systems in the state employ over the formula or in excess of state personnel funding in one, some, or all categories. Most of these, Mowery said, either enjoy a substantial excess levy approved by taxpayers in a vote or are at some level of financial trouble.
“Hancock (County) had a grenade go off,” Mowery shared with the meeting attendees, explaining that they went quickly from a $5 million surplus to a $2 million shortfall in short order, and saying that they “missed the mark somewhere on their planning.”
In response, Delegate Pat McGeehan (R-Hancock) stated that he requested that “several delegates . . . start an informal task force to develop a bill, along with funding, which would allow for school districts that are in extreme emergency situations, such as gross mismanagement or maladministration, to receive funding to cover and honor employee contracts through the remainder of the year.”
He added that county systems would have to first eliminate “all these non-essential administrative positions . . . that are making that kind of money with very little responsibility.”
Student Transportation Funding
The sparsity and density ratio also has an impact one what school systems get for transportation as well.
It must be reiterated here that, according to HB 206, no matter what each system receives based on these different “steps” to figure total aid, it may prioritize spending however it wishes, depending on current needs and future projections. This allows for prudent planning and also to prepare for unexpected expenses, either one time or structural, as in planning for inflation.
Counties receive reimbursement for transportation costs that do not include personnel salaries or capital improvements such as Pendleton County’s recent paving of the bus garage parking lot. Pendleton County, and other sparsely populated counties, receive a 95 percent reimbursement rate.
Other factors can help to boost funding. School systems using propane or compressed natural gas, receive 10 percent additional funding. With the Potomac Valley Transit Authority in the future potentially offering hydrogen fuel to local school systems, it would make sense to include that. PVTA has, however, concluded after extensive testing that electric powered buses will not function effectively in areas with mountains or extremes of heat or cold.
Aid also goes to systems whose buses cross county lines to get to career and technical schools.
The Factor of Local Funding
The State determines its own estimates of the local share paid for by tax revenues based on valuations from the State Tax Office. To encourage local voters to support excess levies for their school systems, the State does not factor monies from this source.
Aid is based on an expected 85 percent amount coming from local tax revenues
It does, however, include contributions from payments in lieu of taxes, whether federal PILT from lands they own, or PILOT agreements between counties, county school systems, and private sector entities. For example, Hardy County Schools entertained a proposal from MN8, a corporation constructing a large solar farm to provide extra support through PILOT. Board members and Superintendent Sheena Van Meter shared with them that funds obtained through PILOT would simply cause an offsetting decline in the state aid formula, in essence negating it altogether.
MN8 responded positively and stated that they would work with the school system to find ways to help that did not trigger a lowering of state aid.
Next month will come an article sharing what adjustments that area school superintendents would like to see changed in the state aid funding formula.
