NEWS
Fifteen years of delay led to a court order. Now Wyoming debates how much recalibration to fund — while former leadership critiques the result. Wyoming is recalibrating its school funding model for the first time since 2010.
That’s not spin; that’s fact. And if that sounds like a long time, it is. Fifteen years is more than a legislative oversight. It’s a pattern. In a recent WyoFile opinion piece, Albert Sommers wrote; “Recalibration has not been accomplished since 2010.”
That sentence is accurate. It is also revealing. Because for much of the period since 2010, Sommers was not a spectator. He served on House Education Committee. He chaired the House Education Committee. He co-chaired the 2020 Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration, and he later served as Speaker of the House during the 2023–2024 biennium — while litigation over school funding was pending. Recalibration still did not happen.
The Larger Point
Recalibration did not suddenly become controversial in 2025. It became unavoidable. After fifteen years without completion — including years when Albert Sommers chaired education committees and later served as Speaker — the court required action.
The current bill is not perfect. There is room for negotiation. But this is not a sudden assault on public education.
In February 2025, a Laramie County District Court Judge ruled Wyoming's school finance system unconstitutional and ordered recalibration. The current effort is not a spontaneous political experiment. It is a response to judicial intervention following years of legislative delay.
Leadership is not measured only by the bills you pass, but by the ones that never make it across the finish line. So, when former leadership now critiques the structure of recalibration, voters are entitled to ask a simple question: where was this urgency before the court stepped in?
This is not about claiming anyone single-handedly caused the lawsuit. It is about acknowledging that legislative leadership during the period of delay included those now criticizing the fix. Recalibration did not stall in a vacuum. It stalled while everyone was watching.
The $88 Million “Cut”
Much of the rhetoric surrounding Senate File 81 centers on an $88 million “cut” to public education. That number is real — but the framing isn’t. The consultant evidence-based model recommended roughly $1.897 billion. The legislative committee’s version funds approximately $1.809 billion. The difference between those figures is about $88 million.
But that is not a reduction from current funding levels. It is $88 million less than the consultant recommendation. Calling that difference a “cut” assumes the consultant proposal was already law. It wasn’t.
The committee version still increases funding over current statute in the first years of implementation. What’s being debated is not whether to fund schools, but how much of the consultant’s recommended price tag to adopt. There is a meaningful distinction between “less than requested” and “cut.”
Class Sizes and the Staffing Shift
Teachers are understandably concerned about class-size adjustments in SF 81. The bill increases core teacher ratio assumptions in several grade bands. That change reduces the number of core teacher positions the funding model generates. Both the consultant recommendation and the legislative version rely on a staffing model, not just class-size math.
The consultant evidence-based model did not treat smaller class sizes as the sole path to better outcomes. National research driving these models suggests that after early elementary grades, marginal reductions in class size produce diminishing returns compared to targeted instructional support. For that reason, the consultant framework adjusts core teacher ratios while adding instructional facilitators, at-risk tutors, supervisory aides, and pupil support personnel to increase total adult capacity in school buildings. The goal is to balance instructional effectiveness with fiscal sustainability — particularly in states experiencing flat or declining enrollment.
In other words, the concept of adjusting class-size assumptions while expanding adult support roles originated in the consultant study itself, not in the legislative committee room. The current bill reflects a scaled version of that structure, funded at a lower overall level than the full consultant proposal.
The shift is from a smaller class plus one adult to a slightly larger class plus more adults supporting instruction and intervention.
Teachers’ concerns about classroom workload and support capacity are not imaginary. The real debate is whether the funded staffing levels in SF 81 fully match the theory behind the evidence-based model — and whether the additional adult support positions are sufficient to offset the adjusted class-size assumptions. This is a staffing-mix conversation, not a classroom abandonment plan.
Insurance Equalization
One provision of SF 81 leaves little ambiguity: districts must join the state employees’ group insurance plan beginning in 2027–2028. This directly addresses equity concerns raised in the lawsuit. When districts carry widely different insurance costs, funding equity erodes. A unified insurance pool standardizes that burden statewide.
Equity and constitutional adequacy were central themes in the court’s ruling. Uniform insurance costs are one of the most straightforward ways to move toward that standard.
Organized Advocacy and Coordinated Pressure
As SF 81 moves through the Senate Education Committee, lawmakers are facing coordinated advocacy campaigns. The Wyoming Education Association has issued action alerts urging members to contact committee members ahead of hearings. Better Wyoming has circulated similar messaging encouraging constituents to email legislators and oppose the bill, describing it as an $88 million cut and warning of large-scale job losses.
That is a normal part of modern legislative politics. But context matters. When action alerts and social media graphics simplify a complex funding model into a single headline number, nuance is often lost. Teachers reacting online may genuinely believe existing funding is being reduced, when the debate is actually over the gap between the consultant’s recommended model and the Legislature’s scaled version.
Lawmakers are not only debating policy; they are navigating organized pressure campaigns amplified through email chains and social media. Advocacy is legitimate. So is precision.
Recalibration is not an $88 million cut from existing funding.
It is a scaled recalibration under judicial order, following years of legislative delay.
Recalibration is politically painful. But ignoring it for fifteen years is what brought the courts into the room. Wyoming is not debating whether to fund public education. It is debating how to responsibly fund it after years of delay — including under leaders who now critique the result.