Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This mixed-methods study examines the impact and implementation of Nevada’s weighted student funding (WSF) model that targets funding to students with the greatest need. We use event study models to analyze student achievement data from 2017–2018 to 2021–2022 and qualitative in-depth interviews with school district and school administrators to explore perceptions of the new funding model. Our quantitative findings suggest that Nevada’s WSF helped improve student achievement overall, but it did not mitigate achievement disparities between targeted and non-targeted students. Our qualitative data reveal administrators’ implementation concerns, especially in designing programming to support students intending to benefit from the additional funds. Our findings highlight the tension between WSF’s two distinguishing features—targeted funding based on student needs and school administrator autonomy.

Keywords

finance equity achievement mixed methods school finance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allbright

T. N.

Marsh

J. A.

Hall

Tobben

Picus

L. O.

Lavadenz

(2019). Conceptualizing equity in the implementation of California education finance reform. American Journal of Education, 125(2), 173–200.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2022). Child population by race and ethnicity, 2021. https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race-and-ethnicity?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/2/2-52/false/2048/68,69,67,12,70,66,71,72/423,424.

Austin

P. C.

(2011). An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(3), 399–424.

Baker

B. D.

(2021). Educational inequality and school finance: Why money matters for America’s students. Harvard Education Press.

Baker

B. D.

(2022). School finance and education equity: Lessons from Kansas. Harvard Education Press.

Baker

B. D.

Green

P. C.

(2008). Politics, empirical evidence, and policy design: The case of school finance and the costs of educational adequacy. In Cooper

B. S.

Cibulka

J. G.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 311–337). Routledge.

Bishop

J. P.

Noguera

P. A.

(2019). The ecology of educational equity: Implications for policy. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(2), 122–141.

Bloom

H. S.

Hill

C. J.

Black

A. R.

Lipsey

M. W.

(2008). Performance trajectories and performance gaps as achievement effect-size benchmarks for educational interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 289–328.

Brinkmann

(2020). Conversational knowledge and gifts of chance: On the state of the method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19(1), 1–9.

10.

Burns

Harbatkin

Strunk

K. O.

Torres

Mcilwain

Waldron

S. F.

(2023). The efficacy and implementation of Michigan’s partnership model of school and district turnaround: Mixed-Methods evidence from the first 2 years of reform implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 45(4), 622–654.

11.

Caliendo

Kopeining

(2005). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching (IZA Discussion Paper No. 1558). ftp.iza.org/dp1588.pdf

12.

Chambers

J. G.

Levin

J. D.

Shambaugh

(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(2), 283–300.

13.

Cornman

S. Q.

Nixon

L. C.

Spence

M. J.

Taylor

L. L.

Geverdt

D. E.

(2018). American community survey comparable wage index for teachers (ACS-CWIFT). nces.ed.gov/programs/edge/docs/EDGE_ACS_CWIFT_FILEDOC.pdf

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among 5 traditions. Sage.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2020). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

16.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

(2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.

17.

Eddles-Hirsch

(2015). Phenomenology and educational research. International Journal of Advanced Research, 3(8), 251–260.

18.

Gándara

Orfield

(2010). A return to the “Mexican room”: The segregation of Arizona’s English learners. The Civil Rights Project at UCLA. escholarship.org/uc/item/7m67q3b9

19.

Gándara

Rumberger

Maxwell-Jolly

Callahan

(2003). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36), 1–54.

20.

Guest

MacQueen

K. M.

Namey

E. E.

(2011). Applied thematic analysis. Sage.

21.

Hanushek

E. A.

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.

22.

Harvey-Jordan

Long

(2001). The process and the pitfalls of semi-structured interviews. Community Practitioner, 74(6), 219.

23.

Hernandez

(2022). Indy explains: The tug-of-ward over mining tax revenue for education. The Nevada Independent. Retrieved from https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-the-tug-of-war-over-mining-tax-revenue-for-education.

24.

Hill

(2022). Youngkin, Lombardo talk education at town hall. Las Vegas Review Journal. www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/youngkin-lombardo-talk-education-at-town-hall-2640375/

25.

Houck

(2015). Understanding school finance laws and practices. In English

F. W.

(Ed.), SAGE guide to educational leadership and finance (pp. 239–255). Sage.

26.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

27.

Jackson

C. K.

(2020). Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question. In Tach

Dunifon

Miller

D. L.

(Eds.), Confronting inequality: How policies and practices shape children’s opportunities (pp. 165–186). American Psychological Association.

28.

Jacob

Ludwig

(2008). Improving educational outcomes for poor children. National Bureau of Economic Research. www.nber.org/papers/w14550

29.

Jarmolowski

Aldeman

Roza

(2022). Do districts using weighted student funding formulas deliver more dollars to low-income students? Peabody Journal of Education, 97(4), 427–438.

30.

Kolbe

Baker

B. D.

Atchison

Levin

Harris

(2021). The additional cost of operating rural schools: Evidence from Vermont. AERA Open, 7, 2332858420988868.

31.

Kraft

M. A.

(2020). Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher, 49(4), 241–253.

32.

Ladd

H. F.

(2008). Reflections on equity, adequacy, and weighted student funding. Education Finance and Policy, 3(4), 402–423.

33.

Lafortune

Herrera

Gao

Barton

(2023). Examining the reach of targeted school funding. Policy Brief. Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved from https://www.ppic.org/?show-pdf=true&docraptor=true&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ppic.org%2Fpublication%2Fexamining-the-reach-of-targeted-school-funding%2F.

34.

Lee

J. H.

Fuller

(2022). Does progressive finance alter school organizations and raise achievement? The case of Los Angeles. Educational Policy, 36(3), 587–623.

35.

Legislative Counsel Bureau. (2017). The Nevada Plan for school finance: An overview. Legislative Counsel Bureau Fiscal Analysis Division. www.leg.state.nv.us/division/fiscal/K-12Education/NevadaPlan/NevadaPlan2017.pdf.

36.

Levin

Chambers

Epstein

Mills

Archer

Wang

Lane

(2013). Evaluation of Hawaii’s weighted student formula. American Institutes for Research. www.air.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/AIR_Evaluation_of_Hawaiis_Weighted_Student_Formula_Full_Report06-19-13_0.pdf

37.

Levin

Manship

Hurlburt

Atchison

Yamaguchi

Hall

Stullich

(2019). Districts’ use of weighted student funding systems to increase school autonomy and equity: Findings from a national study. United States Department of Education. files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED600460.pdf

38.

Levinson

Geron

Brighouse

(2022). Conceptions of educational equity. AERA Open, 8, 23328584221121344.

39.

Nevada Department of Education. (2021). 2021–2023 Budget K-12 funding. www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/81st2021/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=46420&fileDownloadName=K_12_Jhone%20Ebert_Overview.pdf

40.

Nevada Department of Education. (2023). Pupil-centered funding plan: Mechanisms and implementation. www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/82nd2023/ExhibitDocument/OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=62738&fileDownloadName=0207_Peterson.M_pres_NDE.PCFP.pdf

41.

Nevada Report Card. (2022). State demographic profile, Year 2021–2022. Nevada Department of Education. nevadareportcard.nv.gov/DI/nv/2022

42.

O’Connor

Joffe

(2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–13.

43.

Picus

L. O.

Goertz

Odden

(2012). Intergovernmental aid formulas and case studies. In Ladd

H. F.

Goertz

M. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 279–297). Routledge.

44.

Qutoshi

S. B.

(2018). Phenomenology: A philosophy and method of inquiry. Journal of Education and Educational Development, 5(1), 215–222.

45.

Rindels

Valley

(2021). Implementation bill, budget votes, lay groundwork for launching new education funding formula. The Nevada Independent. Retrieved from https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/implementation-bill-budget-votes-lay-groundwork-for-launching-new-education-funding-formula

46.

Roza

Hagan

Anderson

(2020). Variation is the norm: A landscape analysis of weighted student funding implementation. Public Budgeting & Finance, 41(1), 3–25.

47.

Sadler

(2019). Nevada officials work to implement new school funding formula. Las Vegas Sun. lasvegassun.com/news/2019/nov/25/new-school-funding-formula-nevada-implementation/.

48.

Senate Bill 178, Chapter 453. § 1.1 et seq. (2017). https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/Bills/SB/SB178_EN.pdf

49.

Senate Bill 432, Chapter 389. § 1.1 et seq. (2015). https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/78th2015/Bills/SB/SB432_EN.pdf

50.

Senate Bill 504, Chapter 515. § 1.1 et seq. (2013). https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/SB/SB504_EN.pdf

51.

Senate Bill 543, Chapter 624. § 1.1 et seq. (2019). https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/7052/Text

52.

Spiegel

Clark

L. R.

Domina

Radsky

Yoo

P. Y.

Penner

(2024). Measuring school economic disadvantage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231217683

53.

Spradley

(1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

54.

Sun

Penner

E. K.

Loeb

(2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643.

55.

Tuchman

Gross

Chu

(2022). Weighted student funding and outcomes: Implementation in 18 school districts. Peabody Journal of Education, 97(4), 479–496.

56.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). Racial and ethnic diversity in the U.S. on the 2010 census and 2020 census. www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/racial-and-ethnic-diversity-in-the-united-states-2010-and-2020-census.html.

57.

Uzzell

E. M.

Ayscue

J. B.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Jackson

M. M.

(2024). “Fighting an uphill battle”: The pursuit of equity through the every student succeeds act in North Carolina. Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(5), 624–667.

58.

Vaught

S. E.

(2009). The color of money: School funding and the commodification of black children. Urban Education, 44(5), 545–570.

59.

Warren

C. A.

(2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Gubrium

Holstein

(Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 83–101). Sage.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

Weighting for Equity: The Impact and Challenges of Weighted Student Funding Implementation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material