As an expert in the field of education funding, I am often asked about the role of the federal government in supporting public schools. Many people are surprised to learn that the federal government only provides 10.5% of funding for K-12 public education. The majority of funding comes from a combination of local and state sources. One of the main reasons for this confusion is the complex nature of state funding for public schools. Unlike local funding, which is relatively straightforward, state funding takes into account a variety of variables.
The baseline for state funding is known as the State Adequacy Objective (SAT), and it is used to determine how much funding each district will receive. The SAT is calculated by multiplying the weighted average of daily attendance (WADA) by the dollar value modifier (DVM) and the local effort. This adjusted number of students served by the school is then used to determine if additional funding is needed for students in programs such as Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL), Individualized Education Plans (IEP), or English Language Programs (ELP).If the adjusted number of students in these programs is greater than the actual number in the district, additional funding will be provided per student. This total number of students weighted to what serves a district is known as the Adjusted Multiplier Average (AMA).According to the U. S.
Department of Education, the Federal Government contributes approximately 8% to funding American public schools. This means that state and local governments are responsible for financing the remaining balance per student in the public education system. Each state has its own way of allocating funds, with some relying more heavily on sales and income taxes than others. The National Conference of State Legislatures outlines five key principles that guide state funding for public schools: structure, equality, fiscal responsibility, stability, and support. However, the level of support provided by each state can vary greatly.
Low-income areas, in particular, often struggle with lower property and income taxes, which can have a direct impact on school funding. Research has shown a strong causal relationship between increased school spending and student outcomes. In low-income areas where school performance is poor, this funding model can create a vicious cycle. The state adequacy goal, which is the reference amount given to each district per student, is based on average spending in schools that meet state standards. Despite the important role that state and local governments play in funding public schools, there is still a significant disparity in the amount of funding received by schools in different parts of the same state. This is due to variations in revenues and taxes from district to district. While federal funding for public schools may only represent a small percentage of total funding, it does play a crucial role in supporting important programs such as Title I, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and the Child Nutrition Act.
These programs help to ensure that all students have access to quality education regardless of their background or abilities. One potential solution to address the issue of unequal funding for public schools is to distribute wealth more evenly. This would allow for better funding models that could benefit all schools and students. The evidence from various studies supports the idea that increased school spending has a positive impact on student outcomes.
