An outpouring of concern from students, teachers and some principals of large and multitrack schools yesterday greeted the latest suggestions for divvying up school funding according to a new formula based on student need mandated by Act 51.

More than two dozen people signed up to testify before a school board committee, and more than 50 more submitted testimony — much of it opposing recommendations that include giving about 25 percent of total funding as a base allocation to each school, and funneling funding for Junior ROTC and some resource teachers into the "lump" to be divided among all schools.

The board Finance Committee will hear public comment again at the end of the month, and has ordered an analysis from Department of Education officials before taking recommendations to the full board by mid-September.

But after yesterday's meeting, schools Superintendent Pat Hamamoto said the latest formula seemed to be close to the status-quo funding that the Legislature's Reinventing Education Act of 2004 had sought to alter.

"We all say one size doesn't fit all," she said, referring to the foundation grant every school would receive under the new suggestions. "So why are we giving everyone the same?"

Hamamoto said she doesn't have a magic formula that addresses how to divide funding, and recognized the committee had wrestled with some difficult questions, including how to balance huge losses small and rural schools were seeing under the first committee's formula. The board limited implementation to 10 percent this year because about half of the state's public schools were going to see major losses. That, plus an additional $20 million from the Legislature, is keeping schools at an even keel this first year.

During yesterday's testimony, Waipahu High principal Patricia Pedersen told committee members the latest suggestions "do not address the intent of the law" to provide money based on student need, and suggested a more workable foundation of 10 percent to 15 percent of the total funding be divided up as a base allocation to all the schools.

About 20 students from Leilehua High lined up behind a teacher, parent and their student body president to oppose the latest plan that would see their school gaining some funding, but losing the weight for "transiency," which had provided additional money for schools with high populations of military dependents as well as children from families who may be homeless.

"It doesn't make sense to give small schools more than larger schools," said student body president Hilary Nakasone. "Think how illogical that is."

Teacher Carl Friedl said that the issue of transiency has a large effect on students.

"When parents are deployed, students are anxious and distracted," he told the committee. "It affects their learning."

But members of the second Committee on Weights which produced these recommendation, defended their actions.

"All the Kalihi schools will benefit," said Roger Takabayashi, a committee member and president of the Hawai'i State Teachers Association. "All the poverty schools will get more money."

And weighted formula committee member Lionel Aona, a retired DOE budget director, said the first formula "was so badly flawed it would basically wipe out half the schools in Hawai'i."

But Takabayashi also said the second Committee on Weights had been "groping in the dark" to come up with recommendations without more analysis.

"Every time you change the formula, you have to look at who gains or loses," he said.

Board members did not have time to get into long discussions yet, but that will come at the next meeting. They also heard yesterday by satellite hookup from two independent consultants who analyzed the first formula, saying it had short-changed poor students in the weighting, as well as students who speak English as a second language.

The consultants recommended tripling the weighting for both disadvantaged students and non-English speaking students.

But board members indicated they are a long way from any final action on the new recommendations.

"I've a lot of concerns about the recommendations," said member Breene Harimoto. "I'm concerned it (the foundation grant) is an over-reaction to small schools."

The two consultants also said there is little research to show that just adding money to schools automatically brings higher student achievement.

"We're robbing Peter to pay Paul," agreed board member Darwin Ching, "but there's no guarantee we'll get any better results."

The consultants noted that what was especially important in seeing scores rise was deploying the best and most highly qualified teachers to the schools where the need is greatest — probably rural schools in high-poverty areas. The consultants also strongly backed a pay differential — as much as 30 percent — for teachers who serve in those areas.

Reach Beverly Creamer at bcreamer@honoluluadvertiser.com.