Weighted student funding not designed to direct resources to successful
strategies
A school funding model being considered as an alternative to Gov. Ted
Strickland’s proposed education funding plan is untested and insufficient
to be used as the basis for a statewide school funding system, an analysis by School Funding Matters shows.
The weighted student funding approach, as outlined in the 2008 report
from Fordham Foundation Fund the Child:
Bringing Equity, Autonomy, and Portability to Ohio School
Finance, allows funding to follow students to any school they choose
to attend. Proponents say the approach, sometimes called per-pupil funding, can address inequities among schools and
give school-level educators more control over how money is spent.
An analysis titled Models for Ohio School
Funding: Comparing the Evidence-Based Approach with Weighted Student Funding compares that approach with the evidence-based model at the heart of the
plan approved by the Ohio House.
The review finds that the weighted student funding model sets out how
to distribute dollars to schools but has no mechanism for determining how much
funding is needed. Unlike the evidence-based approach, which relies on research
into effective education strategies to set spending levels, this model of weighted
student funding provides no guidance in how to ensure resources are adequate
and directed to activities that improve student achievement.
“The most important issue for Ohio is that we put into place a system that
funds what actually works to improve education outcomes,” said Andy
Benson, director of policy for KnowledgeWorks. “While there are potential
advantages to giving local educators a greater say in how money is spent, this
weighted student funding approach does nothing to ensure that dollars are going
toward effective strategies.”
The comparison finds no clear evidence exists to determine if weighted
student funding can achieve its goals of increasing equity and improving
results by giving schools more control over finances. No location has yet
enacted the model without substantial modifications and some that adopted or considered the
approach have since abandoned it, including Seattle and Charlotte schools.
Other findings include:
- The weighted student
funding model provides no direction in deciding how to weight funding for
different types of students, such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds
or English language learners, creating the potential for political or
subjective influence on the system. In comparison, the evidence-based
model includes specific funding direction based on objective research
results.
- While weighted
student funding aims to give schools more control, the model does not take
into account that many school administrators do not have the time or
training to manage budgetary concerns.
Focusing on school-level
results has the potential to improve accountability, but too many
questions remain about the implementation and effectiveness of weighted student
funding to make it a viable choice for Ohio. As the review concludes, “The best option for the state appears to be the Ohio
Evidence-Based Model, which will likely put the constitutionality debate to
rest and drive Ohio
in a new direction that answers the demands of a 21st-century economy.”
Download the full report.