"What's two plus two?" The accountant smiles and answers, "What do you want it to be?"
That punch line fits into the story of Wyoming's school funding recalibration. On paper, the numbers add up. Salaries rise. The model balances. But when math serves policy instead of people, it can disguise more than it reveals.
The Select Committee on School Finance Recalibration, which will sponsor the bill setting the updated funding model, is deciding what two plus two will equal.
Here's the first reality we shouldn't ignore. Actual average teacher salaries in Wyoming exceed the model's averages because districts have been covering pay by hiring fewer teachers.
In other words, the paycheck looks healthier because the staff is thinner. The spreadsheet can balance that way, but classrooms feel the difference.
Ask a teacher in Thermopolis covering three preps because positions went unfilled. Or a parent in Lusk watching class sizes climb. When fewer adults do the same work, student support, planning time, and program breadth take the hit.
Now to the headline number that keeps getting repeated. The Legislature applied an 8.5% increase to the model for 2025-26.
That wasn't an across-the-board raise for teachers. It was a change to the model benchmark.
Districts were already paying above that level, so the 8.5% didn't change most paychecks. It made the model appear to catch up.
That distinction matters, even if it didn't stop some legislators from taking credit for a raise that never reached educators.
A raise that never reached classrooms, but made for good press releases?
Inflation is the quiet villain in this story. Since 2010, Wyoming's cost of living has risen by roughly 42%. Actual teacher salaries grew by about 17%, and the funding model's weighted average rose by less than 10%.
Even with the proposed model average of around $70,000, the figure sits several percentage points below the level needed to keep the same buying power teachers had fifteen years ago.
Bigger numbers, smaller baskets at the grocery store.
Why does the gap persist? Nearly 90% of the education block grant pays for people, about two-thirds for professional staff and one-quarter for nonprofessional staff.
That means two levers control nearly all of Wyoming's education spending: how many teachers are funded and how much each is paid.
When policymakers want to contain costs, they can move either lever. Raise the modeled salary while trimming the number of funded positions.
Or hold staffing while anchoring the model to a wage that trails inflation. Both approaches produce tidy totals. Both make two plus two equal whatever the budget requires.
Either way, students lose.
The recalibration process is supposed to prevent that. The Select Committee's job isn't just to review the model. It's to ensure the model meets Wyoming's constitutional obligation of a complete and uniform education.
In practice, that means the committee sets the assumptions that define adequacy: salary levels, staffing ratios, and cost adjustments.
When the committee's bill becomes law, those numbers will set the cost of public education for the entire state. The decision is technical and moral at the same time.
Some proposed updates modernize the mechanics. Weighted averages now reflect actual labor costs across districts. No more treating small and large districts the same. Regional Cost Adjustments are being refreshed with a new wage index that better reflects hiring conditions. External Cost Adjustments will track inflation annually.
Those changes help, but they correct the math without fixing the base. If the starting salary level trails real market value, every adjustment on top simply preserves the shortfall.
Consider where Wyoming stands in the teacher market.
For years, our pay advantage drew strong candidates from neighboring states. That edge has faded. And with it, Wyoming's promise to teachers.
Recent data show Colorado and Utah matching or surpassing Wyoming's averages. The playing field looks level, but when you're recruiting teachers in Pinedale or Saratoga, that "level playing field" doesn't help much.
When the model signals that a higher salary is funded while districts reduce headcount to afford it, the state sends a mixed message to educators deciding whether to come or to stay.
So what does two plus two equal in this recalibration? It should equal a model that restores real parity with inflation and sustains the number of teachers needed to meet standards.
It shouldn't equal a headline raise in the model while classrooms run leaner to make the math work. The difference shows up in students' daily experience, and in a workforce that watches the purchasing power of its pay slip year by year.
If you're wondering why your district's classroom sizes keep growing, this is why.
Citizens have a role in keeping the math honest. Listen for the distinction between model changes and actual paychecks.
Ask whether the proposed averages match inflation since 2010 and whether staffing assumptions protect class time, student support, and program access.
The Select Committee writes the bill. The rest of us write the expectations. When arithmetic becomes policy, the sum belongs to the people who are paying attention.
Gail Symons can be reached at: GailSymons@mac.com
