jujubee1206

Also to clarify, my response was directly related to the "why am I voting for this in [insert parish here]" question. That reason is MFP funding and how it works. But I definitely did not mean to imply it is the only funding districts spend on public education!

Federal funding is not part of the MFP formula.

The formula is specifically used to determine the allocation of state and local responsibility for funding of public school systems.

For FY 27, the EBR Parish School System is projected to receive approximately $123.1 M in state Level 1 MFP funding, while the local share is projected at just under $122 M. But to be clear these amounts reflect Level 1 funding only, not total school system funding. The remaining MFP levels build upon the Level 1 base and provide additional adjustments and funding components. Level 1 is the starting point and where the 65%/35% statewide split must be maintained.

Level 2 of the MFP is the “incentive” portion of the formula. While Level 1 establishes the base funding amount and equalizes state/local responsibility, Level 2 is intended to encourage local school systems to generate and spend additional local revenue above the minimum required amount.

Level 3 is additional funding for specific student populations and educational priorities through targeted allocations added on top of the Level 1 base funding.

It's a pretty complex formula. Even the above is oversimplifying it and not comprehensive. And given the FY 27 formula includes BESE proposals that the legislature is likely not going to act on (the state has been using the same MFP formula since FY 23) the above amounts are probably a bit inflated, but the general explanation of how it works still applies.

The MFP is a statewide balancing formula. The formula is designed so that public education funding statewide is funded 65% by the state and 35% by local school districts

But that does NOT mean every district gets a 65/35 split individually.
Some districts are wealthier and can raise more money locally through property taxes, so they receive less state support. Other districts have weaker tax bases and cannot raise as much locally, so the state pays a much larger share.

For example:
Washington Parish receives nearly 90% of its Level 1 funding from the state because it has a weaker local tax base.

Cameron Parish receives roughly 25% from the state because it has a stronger tax base.

East Baton Rouge is closer to an even split.

Everything is connected. If one district loses property tax revenue, that district may suddenly look “poorer” in the formula and qualify for more state funding. But because the formula is still trying to maintain that overall 65% state / 35% local balance, changes in one district can affect calculations for every other district too.

So even small changes to one district’s tax base can become a statewide issue under the MFP.