U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief:

Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase 

School Autonomy and Equity: Findings From a National Study

October 2019

Over the past 25 years, a small but growing number of school districts have implemented weighted student funding (WSF) systems as 

a way to increase school-level autonomy and more equitably distribute resources among schools. In these districts, which are 

predominantly large urban school systems, education leaders have implemented policies that allocate dollars to schools rather than 

staffing positions, using weights to provide higher levels of funding for certain types of students who need additional support, such as 

students from low-income households, English learners, and students with disabilities. In addition, these systems are intended to shift 

more decision-making responsibility over resource allocation and school programming to principals and other school stakeholders.

This study identified 27 districts operating WSF systems as of the 2018–19 school year and used survey and case study data to examine 

how WSF districts have implemented these systems, the types of weights and other adjustments that they use, how they compare 

with districts that use more traditional resource allocation practices, and funding equity outcomes.

STUDY QUESTIONS 

1. How are resources allocated to schools in districts with 

WSF systems, and how do they compare with districts 

with more traditional resource allocation practices?

2. In what ways do schools have autonomy and control over 

resource allocation decisions, and how does this vary 

between WSF and non-WSF districts?

3. Do WSF districts have higher levels of per-pupil spending 

in their higher-need schools, and has funding equity 

increased since the adoption of the WSF system?

STUDY DESIGN 

This report is based on surveys of district administrators and 

principals in a nationally representative sample of WSF and 

non-WSF districts and more in-depth data from a purposive 

sample of nine WSF districts. Primary data collection was in the 

2017–18 school year; some additional data for the case study 

sites were collected in 2018–19.

The district survey was completed by 253 districts, including 13

WSF districts and 240 non-WSF districts. The principal survey 

was completed by 318 principals, including 104 WSF principals

and 214 non-WSF principals. Response rates were 63 percent

for districts and 47 percent for principals.

The nine case study districts were Baltimore City, Boston, 

Cleveland, Denver, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Nashville, Prince 

George’s County, and San Francisco. The case studies included

in-person interviews with district administrators and principals, 

examination of documents describing the WSF formulas, and 

analysis of longitudinal school-level expenditure data.

Because study findings are based on case studies and on 

surveys with relatively low response rates, they do not 

necessarily generalize to the nation as a whole. Additionally, 

observed differences between WSF and non-WSF districts were 

not necessarily caused by the use of WSF.

Highlights

• WSF districts were more likely than non-WSF districts to 

classify principal autonomy and transparency as highpriority goals for their system of allocating resources to 

schools.

• The most common student subgroups weighted in WSF 

formulas were students from low-income families, English 

learners, and students with disabilities.

• Although all WSF case study districts reported that their 

schools use average teacher salaries in developing their 

budgets, three districts also used actual teacher salaries, 

either for some of their schools or by incorporating them 

into their weighting scheme. 

• On average, WSF district administrators reported that 

over half (53 percent) of their total operational spending 

was under school discretion, compared with 8 percent in 

non-WSF districts.

• Despite flexibility to make decisions about resources, 

principals in all nine WSF case study districts reported that 

their effective autonomy was constrained by district 

requirements to fill certain “non-negotiable” staff 

positions, collective bargaining agreements, and resource 

limitations.

• In six of the nine WSF case study districts, higher-poverty 

schools had higher per-pupil spending levels than lowerpoverty schools, but after controlling for other school 

characteristics, only two had a positive relationship 

between poverty and spending, while three had a 

negative relationship. 

• Among the five WSF case study districts with sufficient 

trend data, three showed increases in relative funding 

levels for high-poverty schools after WSF implementation. 
GOALS AND STRUCTURE OF WSF SYSTEMS 

WSF districts were more likely than non-WSF districts to 

classify principal autonomy and transparency as high-priority 

goals for their system of allocating resources to schools.

For example, 95 percent of WSF district administrators reported 

that principal control over budgeting decisions was a high 

priority, compared with 49 percent of non-WSF districts. In case 

study interviews, respondents in seven of the nine case study 

districts indicated that improving equity in resource allocation 

was a driving motivation behind their WSF systems.

The most common student subgroups weighted in WSF 

formulas were students from low-income families, English 

learners, and students with disabilities.

Ten out of 14 WSF districts used weights for low-income 

students, while nine used weights for English learners (ELs) and 

seven had weights for students with disabilities. Six of the 14 

districts had weights for students performing below grade level, 

while three had weights for gifted and talented students.

The size and structure of these weights varied considerably 

among the nine case study districts. For example, weights for 

individual low-income students ranged from 0.02 to 0.15, and 

three of the districts provided additional funding for schools 

with high concentrations of these pupils. For EL students, some

districts used a single weight for all ELs, while others varied the 

weights by English proficiency level.

Among the nine case study districts, seven provided larger perpupil amounts for lower grade levels, but they differed in the 

specific grades that were favored. Six case study districts 

supplemented their WSF allocations with additional allocations 

for specialized programming.

Although all WSF case study districts reported that their 

schools use average teacher salaries in developing their 

budgets, three districts also used actual teacher salaries, 

either for some of their schools or by incorporating them into 

their weighting scheme. 

Previous research has found that more qualified teachers with 

higher salaries often cluster in schools serving more affluent 

neighborhoods, while high-poverty schools tend to employ 

less experienced teachers with lower salaries; this has been 

referred to as an implicit subsidy from schools with low 

teacher salaries to schools with higher teacher salaries. 

To address this issue, Boston and Denver allowed schools with 

below-average salaries to “opt in” to using actual teacher 

salaries for budgeting purposes, which effectively frees up 

additional funds the schools can use to purchase additional 

resources such as an instructional coach, professional 

development, or instructional materials.

SCHOOL AUTONOMY

On average, WSF district administrators reported that over 

half (53 percent) of their total operational spending was 

under school discretion, compared with 8 percent in nonWSF districts.

WSF principals reported that decisions about hiring teachers 

and other instructional staff, selecting instructional materials, 

and making decisions about instructional programming and 

professional development were mostly made at the school 

level by the principal and other school staff and stakeholders

(such as teachers, parents, and other community members).

Despite this flexibility, principals in all nine WSF case study 

districts reported that their effective autonomy was 

constrained by district requirements to fill certain nonnegotiable staff positions, collective bargaining agreements, 

and resource limitations. 

District and principal interviewees also discussed challenges 

related to principals’ budgeting skills and workload, and the 

need for additional training and support for principals.

FUNDING EQUITY

In six of the nine WSF case study districts, higher-poverty 

schools had higher per-pupil spending levels than lowerpoverty schools, but after controlling for other school 

characteristics, only two had a positive relationship between 

poverty and spending, while three had a negative 

relationship. 

Two of the districts had a positive relationship between 

percentage of ELs and spending levels; the other seven 

showed no relationship. Eight districts had substantially higher 

spending levels in schools with higher proportions of students 

with disabilities.

Among the five WSF case study districts with sufficient data

to examine trends, three showed increases in relative 

funding levels for high-poverty schools after WSF 

implementation, after controlling for other variables. 

For high-EL schools, three of the five districts showed gains in 

relative funding levels after WSF implementation. Four of the 

five districts largely maintained their distribution of resources 

with respect to students with disabilities in the post-WSF time 

period.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, WSF districts reported allocating over half of their total 

operational spending to schools to be used under principals’ 

discretion. Principals in WSF districts reported that many key 

decisions in their schools were mostly made by school staff and 

stakeholders, although their autonomy was constrained in some 

ways. 

Analyses of expenditure data found that while some WSF case 

study districts had progressive equity outcomes and showed

equity gains after WSF implementation, others did not. Although 

WSF is a tool that may be used to direct higher levels of funding 

to schools with greater needs, its effectiveness in improving 

equity will be affected by the types and sizes of weights used,

the share of total funding distributed through the formula, and 

whether schools may use actual or average salaries for 

budgeting and spending the funds that are allocated to them.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The complete report is available online:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#s

chool-finance.