Weighted student-based funding formulas that allocate resources according to student needs¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 6 claims (5 for, 1 mixed) · 2 studies (2 review), q2 · 0 of 2 report an effect size · 6 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The report describes weighted funding formulas that fund schools based on the number of students, applying a "weight" based on the number and concentration of students from low-income families, English learners, foster youth, homeless youth, and/or students with disabilities. Rather than funding specific personnel slots, these approaches expect schools to spend funds in ways that best meet student needs. ESSA's Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding program allows the Secretary of Education to grant flexibility to 50 districts demonstrating funding equity through such a model.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Districts must track data illustrating results and revise plans and funding allocations each year accordingly, as in California's system

Constraints¶

• The report notes that during the 2016 Negotiated Rulemaking, districts using resource-allocation methods not based on equal dollars voiced concerns about disruptions such as teacher transfers if their strategies did not meet the proposed supplement-not-supplant standard

Target Learners¶

• students from low-income families
• English learners
• foster youth
• homeless youth
• students with disabilities

Target Learning Goals¶

• equitable access to resources
• enriched curriculum opportunities for historically underserved students

Claims¶

• Across 11 states with transparent student group allocation, estimated combined additional funding for dual EL/low-income students ranged from $904 per pupil in Arkansas to $16,161 in New Jersey [+W]
• Thirty-seven states provide dual funding for students who are both English learners and from low-income families, with 36 adding the unique weights for each group and New Jersey adjusting the combined weight [+W]
• Five school finance costing studies (2016–2023) recommended additional funding weights of 0.15–0.40 for EL students and 0.30–0.81 for low-income/at-risk students, equivalent to $1,548–$4,976 and $3,389–$8,357 in 2024 dollars [+W]
• In 2023–24, 44 states provided unique funding for at-risk students, with all 44 classifying low-income students as at-risk and 22 providing concentration-based funding [+W]
• California's 20% supplemental grant weight falls below other states' adequacy-study recommendations for English learners and at-risk students [~W]
• In 2023–24, 49 states provided separate additional funding for English learners, most commonly through weights in their funding formulas, with a national median EL weight of 0.25 [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Allocate base state special education funding by prior-year count of students with disabilities, weighted by disability cost groupings

Examples¶

• Four cornerstones of a fair and effective school funding system: adequacy, equity, transparency, and responsibility: EdBuild's adequacy-equity-transparency-responsibility framework for judging a state formula

Key Sources¶

• Cook-Harvey, C.M., Darling-Hammond, L., Lam, L., Mercer, C., & Roc, M. (2016). Equity and ESSA: Leveraging Educational Opportunity Through the Every Student Succeeds Act. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. http://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/equity-essa