Is ‘weighted-funding’ the answer?

In Public Agenda’s most recent research on the educational priorities of teachers, administrators, students and parents, there was broad general agreement that standards and testing isn’t enough to fix our public education system and that better funding and smaller class sizes are a greater priority now.

When it comes down to the reality of choosing to pay more in taxes for education, Americans often choose not to. So, it seems that much of the discussion on funding currently seems to be around how can we do more with the pot of money we have?

One answer being put forward is “weighted-funding formulas.” In a web-only article by edweek.org:

“A diverse group of leaders in K-12 education policy are advocating a dramatic change in the way schools are financed, saying they should receive money based on the number and types of students they serve and that principals should determine teacher pay, professional development, and many other matters currently set by districts.

The bipartisan coalition of more than 70 members—which includes three former

U.S. secretaries of education, former governors, and many of the significant players in the K-12 policy community—says that the new method fits the changing educational environment. Students now have the option of transferring out of their neighborhood school and schools educating the lowest-achieving students are under pressure to improve their educational attainment.

“This expanding range of options, and the possibility of even greater diversity of choice in the future, can be a key engine for reform within public education,” the group writes in Fund the Child: Tackling Inequity and Antiquity in School Finance, a 67-page report outlining the proposal”

But the edweek.org coverage notes that:

“While schools receive weighted per-pupil funding under most state and district financing methods, decisions made at the district level often wipe out any potential benefit for students attending those schools, the report says. Districtwide collective bargaining agreements, for example, usually give teachers with seniority the option of claiming faculty positions in whatever school they wish. If experienced teachers choose to work in schools with high-income students—as often happens—their higher salaries boost the amount of money flowing to that school.

With principals setting pay scales and hiring teachers on their own based on the schools’ ability to pay from their weighted-student grant, money wouldn’t be diverted away from the neediest schools”

I applaud the idea of allocating money to the schools based on where the kids are, and specifically where the neediest kids are. But I have no doubt that this is going to upset some apple carts among teachers and the unions that represent them.   Regardless, it is a concrete idea about rethinking how we fund schools. What do readers think are the merits/problems with this concept? What are some of the other ideas out there on funding that have merit?  Also, check out Public Agenda's Red Flag on more money for education.

Comments

[Owen Stiles]

I have been in three school districts in California; one of the largest and two very small. In neither of these districts do I recall the local principal basing their budgets upon the largess of "senior" teachers. As best as I can cee weighted-funding allocations are between the districts and the state. Richer districts and districts with the lobbying ability appear to get a larger weighted-funding allocations, for sure. Teachers union locally that I work with do not bargain in the manner mention in you article. It appears that more data searching needs to occur before an attempt to besmirch teachers and their efforts to obtain a fair wage. Name me one profession comparable to teaching preparation where one starts as low as teachers.