Special Report
Equity & Diversity

Targeted Spending

By Jennifer Park — January 04, 2005 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Most school finance experts agree that it costs more to educate students from poor families or those who are at risk of academic failure. “Districts and schools are now, for the first time, being held specifically accountable for helping at-risk students learn. States have an obligation to provide them with sufficient funding to accomplish the task,” says Kevin Carey, a senior policy analyst with the Education Trust, a research and advocacy group in Washington.

See Also

Return to the main story, A Level Playing Field

State policymakers seem to agree.

According to a survey by the Education Week Research Center, 43 states and the District of Columbia have some kind of mechanism in place to provide extra money for students who are deemed at risk. The Education Week survey of the education departments in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, conducted in the fall of 2004, sought to learn more about such state efforts.

While the term “at risk” could be applied to many different student groups, including those in special education and English-language learners, the survey focuses just on students living in poverty or those failing academically.

See Also

See the accompanying item, Chart: State Strategies

That definition of at-risk students captures a significant number of youngsters.

U.S. Census Bureau data show that 16 percent of children live below the poverty level. And, according to the U.S. Department of Education, more than 36 percent of students are eligible for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program.

In addition, almost a third of high school students are not graduating. According to Jay P. Greene, a senior research fellow for the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a New York City-based think tank, the national graduation rate is just 71 percent.

Weights and Categorical Programs

In general, states have used two methods to provide extra funding for students considered to be at risk. Under one method, states adjust the per-pupil aid level through a weight or an adjustment in the school finance formula. The other method uses what are known as categorical programs to channel grants to school districts that typically must be spent on specific services.

States are pretty evenly divided between those two measures, with nine states and the District using a weight or an adjustment, 17 using categorical programs, and 17 relying on both methods, according to the Education Week survey.

Only seven states do not have an adjustment in their finance formulas or a categorical program specifically for students at risk, the survey found.

For states that have weights or adjust funding in their state aid formulas, the amount of funding each district receives is usually calculated with a weighted-pupil-enrollment formula, in which students in poverty or those otherwise deemed at risk are counted as more than one student.

For example, each Kansas student eligible for free lunch is counted as 1.1 student, adding an additional 10 percent in funds.

The weights for students deemed at risk are typically applied to the number of students in poverty, but there is no consensus on how to count those students. Most states rely on the number of students eligible for federal free or reduced-price lunches. Others use the number of students eligible for free lunches, a slightly tougher standard.

A few states use the number of students in remedial programs or those falling short of academic standards to set weighted student enrollments. Georgia, for example, counts each student in remedial education programs as 1.2917 student.

State categorical programs focus on a wide range of issues and populations, from substance abuse and prison education to students who are pregnant or have been expelled. They also include programs such as early-childhood education, remedial education, alternative schooling, dropout prevention, and summer school.

Ohio is an example of a state with one program that serves multiple purposes.

The state’s Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid, or DPIA, program provides additional funds to districts based on each district’s concentration of families in public-assistance programs. The state has specific rules for how districts spend the money; it requires programs such as full-day kindergarten, remediation, and class-size reduction. Ohio allocated more than $344 million to the program during fiscal 2004.

Colorado has a grant program designed to help expelled students. Districts are provided with extra resources to help those students return to school or earn the General Educational Development credential. The program also provides services, such as counseling or substance-abuse treatment, for students deemed to be at risk of expulsion, but it leaves the decisions about which students need those services to the districts.

Virginia has adopted a new categorical program for students considered at risk. Called the At-Risk Student Academic Achievement Program, it aims to improve such students’ performance on state assessments, decrease their dropout rates, and increase the number earning advanced diplomas.

The legislature did not, however, appropriate any fiscal 2005 money for the program, which was estimated to cost $200 million annually.

Calculating Costs

Although most states are making an effort to provide additional funds for helping students who are judged to be at risk, there is little agreement about how much extra money is needed. Across the 26 states and the District with weights or adjustments in their finance formulas for such students, the numeric values of those weights vary greatly. In turn, there is a lot of variation in how much money the weights bring to school districts.

Carey of the Education Trust says that research shows it may cost twice as much to bring at-risk students up to academic standards as it does for other students, but no state has a weight that high. Most states provide no more than a 25 percent increase in state aid per student in poverty. Only New Hampshire, with a 60 percent increase, and Maryland, with its 97 percent boost in funding per student in poverty, come close to doubling the spending for nonweighted students.

According to Bruce D. Baker, an associate professor of education at the University of Kansas, state legislators usually rely on two factors to determine the numeric value of the weights: the revenue available and which districts win or lose as the weights are applied. “Rarely is there any empirical evidence to influence weighting. … [T]here are many layers of arbitrary and political decisions applied in each weight,” he says.

Events

School & District Management K-12 Essentials Forum Get a Strong Start to the New School Year
Get insights and actions from Education Week journalists and expert guests on how to start the new school year on strong footing.
Reading & Literacy Webinar A Roadmap to Multisensory Early Literacy Instruction: Accelerate Growth for All Students 
How can you develop key literacy skills with a diverse range of learners? Explore best practices and tips to meet the needs of all students. 
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
College & Workforce Readiness Webinar
Supporting 21st Century Skills with a Whole-Child Focus
What skills do students need to succeed in the 21st century? Explore the latest strategies to best prepare students for college, career, and life.
Content provided by Panorama Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Equity & Diversity Two Okla. Districts Get Downgraded Accreditations for Violating State's Anti-CRT Law
The Tulsa and Mustang public school systems are the first to feel the sting of a state law that restricts discussion of race and racism in schools.
8 min read
Superintendent Deborah Gist speaks during a Tulsa Public Schools board meeting in Tulsa, Okla. on March 5, 2018.
Superintendent Deborah Gist speaks during a Tulsa Public Schools board meeting in Tulsa, Okla., in March 2018.<br/>
Joey Johnson/Tulsa World via AP
Equity & Diversity Florida to Schools: Don't Follow Federal LGBTQ Protections
Florida advised school districts to ignore protections for LGBTQ students the Biden administration is trying to implement.
1 min read
Participants with the Alliance for GLBTQ Youth march at the annual Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade in Miami Beach, Fla.
Participants with the Alliance for GLBTQ Youth march at the annual Miami Beach Gay Pride Parade in Miami Beach, Fla.
Lynne Sladky/AP
Equity & Diversity The Case of the Missing Data on AP Students
The College Board raised eyebrows by removing public racial and ethnic data on AP students. It will restore the data this fall.
5 min read
Image of data and demographics.
melitas/iStock/Getty
Equity & Diversity Backlash, Hostility, and Safety Fears: What It's Like to Be a Chief Equity Officer in the Anti-CRT Era
Three equity officers faced scrutiny, criticism, and personal threats, which intensified during the anti-critical race theory push.
14 min read
Dena Keeling, a former equity officer for the Orange County (NC) School District, now works for the University of North Carolina, which partners with Durham Public Schools for equity work.
Dena Keeling, the former chief equity officer for the school district in Orange County, N.C., now works for the University of North Carolina, which partners with a different K-12 school system on issues of equity.
Kate Medley for Education Week