Search

State summative assessments play an important role in measuring student learning and guiding educational improvement efforts, despite their limitations. But there is growing momentum in individual states and nationally to rethink these assessments with an eye toward reducing time spent on testing and increasing the tests' instructional relevance. "Multiple Choices: Weighing Updates to State Summative Assessments" helps policymakers and advocates understand what they may gain and what they may lose when considering potential shifts in assessments. The report examines several of the most common proposed changes -- including reducing test length, matrix sampling, student sampling, grade-band testing, performance assessment, and through-year assessment -- and summarizes the potential gains, losses, and unknowns of each. The report also offers recommendations for state policymakers, federal policymakers, and advocates working to ensure that summative assessments better address the needs of educators, families, and students.

At their best, K-12 public school systems can be engines of social and economic mobility. Unfortunately, schools in lower-income districts -- whose students have the greatest academic needs -- often receive less funding than their counterparts in more affluent districts. Discussions about closing these funding gaps usually zoom all the way out to the state level or all the way down to the district level. But a big part of the problem lies in how funding is distributed across districts in the same metro area -- and in state policies that allow wealthy communities to raise and keep large amounts of local revenue exclusively for their own schools. "Leveling the Landscape: An Analysis of K-12 Funding Inequities Within Metro Areas" takes a closer look at the scale and sources of education funding within 123 large metro areas in 38 states, focusing on funding disparities among districts serving the same region. Key takeaways include: (1) a majority of public school students (62%) live in large metro areas with more than five districts -- a level of fragmentation that makes funding disparities more likely; (2) within fragmented metro areas, wealthy districts often generate much more local funding per student than less affluent districts; (3) state policies, despite their progressive tilt, rarely bridge this gap -- and often don't even come close; (4) in 49 of the 123 large metro areas we examined, school districts in affluent areas receive the most funding per pupil; (5) closing the state and local funding gap between districts within the metro areas we examined would cost $26 billion in additional state funding per year; and (6) more ambitious policies can greatly reduce or even eliminate funding disparities. The report also explores policy tools state leaders can use to ensure all districts within the same metro area at the very least receive similar funding per student and ideally, set the stage for even greater levels of per-pupil funding to flow to higher-needs districts.

The majority of states with a weighted, student-based K-12 funding formula include weights that allocate additional funding based on the enrollment of students in poverty, students with special education needs, and English learners (ELs). Research shows that all three of these student groups need additional support and resources to succeed. Many states also include other weights that are not strictly student-based. These might reflect a policy priority or aim to account for different program costs and district context factors. Weights that go beyond a strict student-based definition are not necessarily a bad idea, but some weights can have unintended consequences for students and overall funding equity, and should be approached with care and caution by policymakers and advocates. This brief discusses the following weights that states should consider with caution: (1) gifted and talented; (2) grade level or grade band; (3) career and technical education; (4) class size reductions; and (5) cost of living adjustments.

Costs for transporting public school students have risen 33% from 2008 to 2018, reaching, on average, $1,152 per student transported. The reasons behind this shift include higher labor costs, various forms of school choice requiring longer commutes from students' neighborhoods, and environmentally friendly upgrades to bus fleets. As a result, some districts face tough choices: cut into classroom funds to keep buses running, look to other funding sources, reduce or eliminate bus service, or charge families for transportation. These challenges have put a spotlight on state funding for school transportation. This brief addresses the following questions: (1) Why is funding for school transportation important? and (2) Who is responsible for school transportation funding?

English learners (ELs) are one of the fastest-growing student groups in the U.S. K-12 system, making up about one in 10 students enrolled in public schools nationwide. Despite research showing that EL students need more resources and supports to be successful in school, funding at the federal, state, and local levels to provide those additional resources is largely inadequate and not well targeted to students' needs. This brief addresses the following questions: (1) Why is funding for EL students important? (2) What characteristics in the EL population are important to consider in funding systems? and (3) How are programs and services for EL students currently funded?

Many technical, test design, and implementation questions are involved in designing new statewide assessments. These are all critical, shaping often underexamined aspects of testing: student test experience and families' perceptions of testing in this new structure. Although the state outreach to students and families is needed generally, it is especially vital to elevate the experiences and perspectives of historically marginalized students and families, such as students of color, students with disabilities, and English learners (ELs), to understand how new test designs can best meet the needs of all students and help close inequitable achievement gaps. This report identifies four states that have taken different approaches in designing new through-year assessments: Delaware, Florida, Nebraska, and Texas. In each state, the authors spoke with state assessment directors and district leaders to learn more about how the tests worked for students, families, and educators. In all states except Texas, which is in the early stages of its pilot, the authors also spoke with Black and Latino parents and parents of students with disabilities to hear about their experiences with the new assessments.

Many recent critical reforms in state school finance systems have been catalyzed by the courthouse, not the statehouse. Advocates for equity-focused school finance reforms often consider legal action as the best path to significant policy changes. This brief discusses state-level lawsuits on adequacy and equity grounds and their outcomes.

As discussed in "Splitting the Bill: How Are State Education Funding Formulas Structured?," state school funding formulas generally fit one of three structures -- student-based, resource-based, or program-based. The cornerstone of a student-based funding formula is the per-student base amount (also appropriately called the "foundation amount"), meant to represent the cost of educating a student with no special needs or disadvantages. Resource-, program-based, or other hybrid funding formulas may have other versions of a per-pupil minimum but take different approaches to determine the level of funding needed to provide a comprehensive education. These kinds of formulas typically build up from inputs, like staffing ratios, or programs or services, like block grants for career and technical education.

Construction and maintenance of school facilities are big cost drivers for schools, and the quality of school facilities can make a difference in student learning and health. Notably, school building construction is the second-highest capital expenditure of state and local funds, trailing only investments in infrastructure like roads. Ensuring access to safe, modern learning environments for all students is a critical and often overlooked aspect of school funding policy at the state level. A 2021 analysis estimates an annual shortfall of $85 billion in school facilities funding and recommends districts nearly double their spending on maintenance, operations, and capital construction. This brief discusses: (1) the importance of school facilities for student equity; (2) local roles in capital funding; (3) states' differing approaches to facilities funding; and (4) funding charter school facilities.

Property taxes are the most common mechanism to generate local revenue for public school systems but are also a long-standing source of inequity. Policymakers and advocates should be aware of the challenges created by local funding mechanisms in their states and consider potential policy solutions to produce more equitable education funding. This brief covers: (1) How Property Taxes Fund Schools; (2) How Property Taxes Produce Education Finance Inequities; and (3) Making Local School Funding More Equitable.

State school finance systems can play an essential role in directing additional resources to schools serving economically disadvantaged students, and research suggests that these resources can make a measurable difference in student outcomes. The vast majority of states (45) allocate some funding to districts based on their enrollment of economically disadvantaged students, though approaches differ. An earlier brief in this series, "Splitting the Bill: How Can School Finance Systems Support Students With Additional Learning Needs?," covered some principles and best practices for funding for economically disadvantaged students, along with other groups of students with additional learning needs. This brief goes even deeper into the topic.

State funding formulas shape how much money school districts have to spend, but districts usually have considerable discretion with how they distribute funds to schools. Because of this discretion, even if districts receive funds through a highly equitable state system, there is no guarantee that districts will distribute funding equitably to schools. This brief discusses district budgeting methods.

Education finance shapes what is possible in every school in the country. And finance equity is a critical step toward enabling other forms of educational equity for students who are underserved in under-resourced schools. But in too many states, the system of funding for schools remains inequitable, inadequate, and opaque to all but a few. Even in states that adhere to high-level best practices in school finance equity, funding systems can be rife with technical pitfalls or loopholes that jeopardize equity. These systems are unlikely to give schools what they need to provide an excellent education for all students. Advocates at the state and local level have a powerful role to play. While school funding systems are politically and technically difficult to change, over the past few years, advocates across the country have successfully fought for change via legislation and lawsuits. To do so effectively, advocates need a solid understanding of how school finance works in their state and how it could work better.

Students with disabilities, English language learners, and economically disadvantaged students need additional resources and support to succeed in school. State school funding formulas should account for those additional needs so that every school can educate all its students. Weighted, student-based funding formulas are one of the most effective ways for states to direct funds to districts serving students with additional learning needs. In a weighted, student-based funding formula, all students generate a base amount of funding that is determined by the state. Then, school districts receive additional funding per enrolled student in a specific category so that the district has the resources to meet those additional learning needs.

Nearly every state has flaws in how it funds public education, particularly when it comes to equitable funding for historically underserved students. While challenges vary by state, there are five common pitfalls in education finance equity: (1) Formulas do not fully account for differences in student learning needs; (2) There are too many school districts segregated by wealth; (3) Some schools are funded in an entirely different way; (4) States do not provide enough funding to adequately address student learning needs; and (5) States used outdated or insufficient methods to account for local tax revenue.

All states have a formula that determines how state funding is distributed to school districts. Most state formulas anticipate or require that school districts raise some funds locally and adjust state allocations based on that anticipated local share of school funding. In theory, state funding formulas attempt to provide school districts with the resources needed for a high-quality education while also accounting for differences in student populations and economic conditions from district to district, among other factors. In practice, few state formulas achieve these goals, resulting in inequitable, inadequate, and inefficient spending. To better understand these disparities, it is important to understand how state school funding formulas typically work.

Public schools receive funding from three different government sources: local, state, and federal. Local and state governments contribute the majority of funding to support public school systems, while the federal government provides a small fraction (only about 8% on average). Even with recent infusions of federal funding related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal share remains the smallest. Three factors determine how much funding districts receive and from which sources: (1) Property value of homes and businesses within school district boundaries; (2) How many students the school district serves and their educational needs (e.g., special education services for students with disabilities or language supports for students learning English); and (3) State policies, including if and by how much the state funding formula adjusts for differences in student population among districts and in the ability of local districts to raise funding through local taxes.

School finance equity is an essential component of educational equity. In an equitable system, public schools receive funds to provide a high-quality education for all based on the needs of students, not on the property wealth of communities. Funding inequity also disproportionately affects students of color. Districts serving the largest populations of Black, Latino, or Native American students received 16% less funding per student in state and local funding than those serving the fewest students of color.4 Achieving both adequacy and equity in school finance will not solve every educational problem, but it is a significant part of solving deeply rooted challenges.

To prepare for the future, state policymakers can learn from the past -- specifically, the Great Recession and the COVID-19 Recession. Drawing on lessons learned from both time periods, the authors of this brief set out to answer the following questions: (1) What lessons from past economic crises might help state policymakers and advocates prepare for the future? (2) How can states take this moment of heightened uncertainty to strengthen their education finance systems against future financial shocks? and (3) How can states maintain or improve the equity of their funding systems for students and communities most in need of resources? This brief identifies four key insights from recent economic crises and recommends state policy actions aligned with each. These recommendations build upon one another, so states can begin by shoring up state revenue sources and build up to planning for further federal aid in the future.

State education finance sets the stage for what is possible in schools. Too many state education finance systems today are inequitable, outdated, and inadequate, and there are often significant political barriers to change. Advocates for educational equity can and should play an essential role in shaping the allocation and structure of state funding for pre-K through grade 12 public schools. For this report, the authors interviewed advocacy leaders in six states -- California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, and Nevada -- to learn more about the conditions that enabled and influenced big changes in their education finance systems. Leaders reflected on their policy wins and losses and offered advice to other advocates interested in pushing for funding reform. These conversations revealed five common conditions that emerged in different ways across states and paved the way for state policy changes. In order of frequency, they were: (1) Coalitions; (2) Champions; (3) Research; (4) Economics; and (5) Lawsuits. This playbook is about the contexts and conditions that facilitated those changes.

The vast majority of funds for pre-K through grade 12 public schools in the United States -- nearly $800 billion or over 90% -- come from state and local funding sources. States, not school districts, are obligated to ensure that all students have access to the resources they need to succeed. States can take steps to reduce disparities between districts based on their property wealth. This brief outlines three broad ways that states can allocate state and local revenue more equitably, as well as examples from states that have enacted these policies. The three policy approaches are as follows: (1) Accurately calculating and incorporating measures of local wealth into funding formulas; (2) Allocating additional funding to less wealthy districts; and (3) Exerting state control over property tax policy.