Weighted Student Formula

Stephen Franklin
EDAM 732 Fiscal Planning and Facilities Management
Dr. Jindra

1
 Large school districts have experienced budgeting problems since the baby-boomer

generation. Emphasis on various state and federal mandates, the accompanying accountability

measures, and the shift in public school funding, particularly in California have placed even

greater strains on already tight budgets. For many urban cities, the shift in demographics from

city centers to suburban areas resulted in a redirected or dwindling tax base away from urban

cities. This dwindling tax base manifests at a time in which urban school districts are faced with

a poorer student population with diverse and expensive educational needs. The costs of services,

mandated through the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (NEA, 2005) continue to increase while resources decrease.

Initially the federal government through IDEA and ESEA promised the necessary funding,

however, that funding to date has not fully materialized.

The awareness of student diversity created by IDEA and ESEA is not the problem. The

problem lies in the recognition of an increased need of additional funding to address and provide

the instructional services created by these federal enactments, combined with funding that has

not fully materialized. Weighted Student Formula (WSF) as a budgeting process is being

introduced across the United States to increase the equity of school site funding while living

within tighter state education budgets. WSF is also know by several other names, a partial listing

includes: results-based budgeting, student-based budgeting, backpacking, and fair-student

funding (Reasons Foundation, 2009).

Since the early 1970s there have been many attempts in California to address student

funding. In 1972 California Senate Bill 90 (Ed Source, 2005) designed to establish a ceiling on

the amount of general fund monies a district could spend on its students for educational

2
purposes. This move was designed to fill the bucket for districts that primarily served low

income communities, and shield school district funding from the vagrancies of local property

tax. In the landmark 1977 case, Serrano v. Priest it was determined that filling the bucket was

not enough, as inequities still existed across school districts pertaining to district student

spending. Proposition 13 passed in 1978 placed a limit on the amount of property tax that could

be apportioned to school districts. Proposition 98 passed in 1988 established minimum state

education funding levels at 40 percent. All of these legislative actions and court cases had one

thing in common, they all sought to address the continuing disparities in student spending across

school districts.

Weighted Student Formula (WSF) has been in use throughout the United Kingdom for

almost 2 decades and in several provinces of Canada (Reason Foundation, 2009). By 2009 WSF

initiatives existed in 14 school districts throughout the United States, and the state of Hawaii.

Since then states such as California, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, New Jersey, South

Carolina and the city of Philadelphia have either implemented WSF funding models or have

expressed interest in doing so. The central focus of WSF funding is that dollars versus staffing

follow students into schools, site principals are provided with more budgeting autonomy, and

pupil funding is weighted to ensure additional funding is allocated for students with more

expensive educational needs (Snell, 2013). In the state of California students who warrant

additional funding under WSF include: English learners (EL), Special education and low socio-

economic status (low SES). In California WSF initiatives are linked to the state implementation

of Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) that Governor Brown initiated with school year 2013-

2014 in which school districts receive additional funding based on the demographic make-up of

their student population.

3
 While distributing more funds to districts based on student demographics is a start, it

does not ensure these extra funds reach the actual schools or students themselves. Equity in

school funding relates to the concept of equal treatment of equals (NEA, 2005, p. 5).

Essentially, WSF funding is part of broader reform focused on decentralization in which funding

follows students in and out of whichever school they attend, as opposed to being based on an

aggregate of district-wide demographics. In the traditional model of school site staffing and

funding, the full-time teacher equivalent (FTE) model determined the amount of staffing and

funding based on the staffing a school site received. Using the following example;

Enrollment / Approved staffing ratio = Staffing needs

A school of 1,500 students staffed based on this model would look like the following

1,500 / 20:1 ratio = 75 staff positions

If a district allocates $ 5,000 per student, the school with 75 staff positions would receive

$375,000 in general funding. This may or may not be enough to address the unique needs of a

particular school site. Schools in wealthier areas of the district with possibly lower numbers of

special education or EL would receive the same amount of funding as schools with higher

percentages of students with increased needs. Under a WSF funding model the staffing formula

would remain the same, however, per student funding would be based (in California) on the

percentages of qualifying students such as: ELs, Special education and low SES. The table below

reflects how additional funding would be apportioned to each school based on site demographics,

not district aggregate demographics.

4
Figure 1 WSF Variations in Funding When Other Categories are Added (NEA, 2005)

Under WSF authority over the use of funds would rest with the principal to attain

educational goals, for which s/he would be accountable. Along with this increased accountability

is increased parent choice based on educational outcomes at specific schools. Part of this

budgetary authority would be tied to actual versus average salaries. In the traditional FTE

funding model, teacher and presumably other staff salaries are averaged out, which means more

popular schools with more senior teachers are often subsidized by less popular school with less

senior teachers (Reason Foundation, 2009). Under the FTE model, and in most districts school

site funding is based on an average teacher salary, lets use $50,000. If one school has ten first

year teachers, and another school has ten fifth year teachers, both schools are charged $500,000.

Under WSF funding, a school with less senior teachers, and therefore less expensive, would be

charged actual salaries. This would result in extra funding being made available to that school, in

5
addition to the WSF, allowing the principal discretion to invest in more teacher training, the arts

or even hire additional teachers based on site need. In their report Reason Foundation (2009)

determined, the more unlocked dollars a principal controls, the more autonomy that principal

has over designing the school to meet the needs of the students in the school (p. 3).

WSF provides additional funding based on the demographics at a particular school,

however, to improve student learning outcomes families must have increased choice between

schools. School choice acts as an additional accountability measure, in that parents are able to

leave schools that are not serving their students effectively, and enroll at higher performing

school. Schools that are less popular due to varied reasons have an incentive to improve to attract

and retain students and families. This increased choice would also inform the district which

school are being more successful and are therefore valued by families.

Additionally, schools which are not improving or fail to consistently meet the objective

established jointly between the principal and district, could be closed or merged with higher

performing schools. The end result would be increased student learning outcomes, and a

redirection of increased resources to higher performing schools based on fewer district schools to

fund and staff. Discussion of WSF should also include the companion component of School-

Based Management (SBM). Both WSF and SBM are both linked to decentralization, the two are

not the same nor do both components need to be implemented to achieve increased student

learning outcomes under WSF. WSF is a method for allocating resources to school sites, whereas

SBM is a method for managing resources once they are at the school site. While both

components do not need to coexist, using SBM in a district that employs WSF has been linked to

greater efficiency and effectiveness (NEA, 2005). Incorporating SBM along with WSF does

require a well-designed training for principals (Ouchi et al, 2002 as cited by NEA, 2005).

6
 In conclusion WSF funding has not been in existence long enough in the United States to

determine its effectiveness at achieving a more balanced funding playing field. WSF does show

promise as it places focus on the individual student, as opposed to the average student. While

WSF seeks to address equity in funding, it does not address adequacy. Equity places focus on

fairness, adequacy places focus on whether funding is sufficient to meet stated educational

outcomes. A final concern mirrors the concern with SBM and well-designed training. For the

implementation of WSF the question asks, are there enough resources to provide the level of

training necessary to effectively and successfully implement WSF funding practices. That said

WSF is a huge step in the right direction and is worthy of further pursuits to implement.

References

EdSource. (2005). In A. Editor, A chronology of school finance: Legislation, court cases,

and initiatives. Mountain View, CA: EdSource

National Education Association. (2005, April). Weighted student formula (wsf): What is it

and how does it impact educational programs in large urban districts? Retrieved from

http://www.nea.org/books

Ouchi, W.G., Cooper, B.S., Segal, L.G., DeRoche, T., Brown, C., & Galvin, E. (2003).

Organizational configuration and performance: The case of primary and secondary

school systems. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Anderson School of

Management (cited in NEA 2005, April)

Reason Foundation. (2009). Weighted student formula overview. Retrieved from

http://www. reason.org/files/wsf/overview

7
Snell, L. (2013, May). Weighted student funding for California: Three reasons governor browns

school funding plan is better than the status quo and three reasons to make the plan even

better. Retrieved from http://www.reason.org/news/show/wsf-ca