Weighted student funding (WSF) is a multifaceted school finance, management, and governance reform that is gaining attention. While WSF has a number of goals, its primary objective is to redress intra-district funding inequities. This article draws on a mixed-methods study of WSF in Prince George’s County Public Schools to examine the initiative’s impact on the distribution of financial resources to the 180 schools that were affected by it. Our findings indicate that WSF was not a robust mechanism for advancing equity and illustrate how technical, economic, and political factors can undermine the ability of WSF to realize its equity goals.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2002). First steps to a level playing field: An introduction to student-based budgeting. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.
2.
Annenberg Institute for School Reform. (2010). Student-based budgeting [Special issue]. Voices in Urban Education, 29, 1-48.
3.
BakerB. D. (2004). A closer look at the costs of serving children living on the edges: At risk, limited English proficient and gifted children. Educational Considerations, 32(1), 42-54.
4.
BakerB. D. (2005). The emerging shape of educational adequacy: From theoretical assumptions to empirical evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30, 277-305.
5.
BakerB. D. (2009). Within-district resource allocation and the marginal costs of providing equal educational opportunity: Evidence from Texas and Ohio. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(3), 1-28.
6.
BakerB. D.ElmerD. R. (2009). The politics of off-the-shelf school finance reform. Educational Policy, 23(1), 66-105.
7.
BakerB. D.ThomasS. L. (2006). Review of Hawaii’s weighted student formula. Honolulu: Hawaii Board of Education.
8.
BrimleyB.Jr.GarfieldR. R. (2002). Financing education in a climate of change. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
ChambersJ. G.LevinJ. D.ShambaughL. (2010). Exploring weighted student formulas as a policy for improving equity for distributing resources to schools: A case study of two California school districts. Economics of Education Review, 29, 283-300.
10.
ChambersJ. G.ShambaughL.LevinJ. D.MurakiM. (2008). A tale of two districts: A comparative study of student-based funding and school-based decision making in San Francisco and Oakland Unified School Districts. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
11.
CooperB. S.DeRocheT. R.OuchiW. G.SegalL. G.BrownC. (2006). Weighted student formula: Putting funds where they count in education reform. Fayetteville, AR: Education Working Paper Archive.
12.
CurtisK.SinclairK.MalenB. (2014, March13-14). Student-Based Budgeting (SBB) as an education reform strategy: Theory and evidence. Paper prepared for the 39th Annual AEFP Conference, San Antonio, TX.
FahyC. (2011). Education funding in Massachusetts: The effects of aid modifications on vertical and horizontal equity. Journal of Education Finance, 36, 217-243.
15.
FoleyE. (2010). Equity and student-based budgeting. Voices in Urban Education, 29, 6-16.
16.
Fordham Institute. (2006). Fund the child: Tackling inequity and antiquity in school finance. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
17.
FowlerF. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
GarmsW. I.GuthrieJ. W.PierceL. C. (1978). School finance: The economics and politics of public education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22.
HorowitzH. (1966). Unseparate but unequal: The emerging fourteenth amendment issue in public school education. UCLA Law Review, 13, 1147-1172.
23.
KirpD. L. (1968). The poor, the schools, and equal protection. Harvard Educational Review, 38, 635-668.
24.
KoskiW. S.HahnelJ. (2008). The past, present and possible future of educational finance reform litigation. In LaddH. F.FiskeE. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 42-60). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
LaddH. F. (2008). Reflections on equity, adequacy, and weighted student funding. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 402-423.
26.
LaddH. F.ChalkR.HansenJ. S. (Eds.). (1999). Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
27.
LaddH. F.FiskeE. B. (2011). Weighted student funding in the Netherlands: A model for the U.S. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 470-498.
28.
LevinJ.ChambersJ.EpsteinD.MillsN.ArcherM.WangA.LaneK. (2013). Evaluation of Hawaii’s weighted student formula. San Mateo, CA: American Institutes for Research.
29.
MalenB.CurtisK.SinclairK.CroningerR. G.GarciaA.EganL. (2013). In pursuit of equity, autonomy, and improvement: A study of the student-based budgeting initiative in Prince George’s County Public Schools (A research monograph prepared for the Prince George’s County Public School System: Prince George’s County, MD).
30.
MilesK. H.RozaM. (2006). Understanding student-weighted allocations as a means to greater school resource equity. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 39-62.
31.
MilesK. H.WareK.RozaM. (2003). Leveling the playing field: Creating funding equity through student-based budgeting. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 114-119.
32.
OddenA.PicusL. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
33.
PetkoM. (2005). Weighted student formula WSF: What is it and how does it impact educational programs in large urban districts?Washington, DC: National Education Association of the United States.
34.
Public Impact. (2012). Funding a better education: Conclusions from the first three years of student-based budgeting in Hartford. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.
35.
RebellM. A. (2009). Courts and kids: Pursuing educational equity through the state courts. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
RubensteinR.SchwartzA. E.SteifelL. (2006, April). Rethinking the intradistrict distribution of schools inputs to disadvantaged students. Paper presented for the conference “Rethinking Rodriguez,”Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley.
ShambaughL. S.ChambersJ. G.DeLanceyD. (2008). Implementation of the weighted student formula policy in San Francisco: A descriptive study of an equity-driven, student based planning and budgeting policy (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2008-No. 061). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
TraversJ.GreenG.MilesK. H. (2013). Spare some change: Smarter district resource use for transformational schools. Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies.
41.
WiseA. (1968). Rich schools, poor schools: The promise of equal educational opportunity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
42.
YinR. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
