Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems 

to Increase School Autonomy and Equity: 

Findings From a National Study

Volume 2 — Technical Appendices

Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding 

Systems to Increase School Autonomy and 

Equity: Findings From a National Study

Volume 2 — Technical Appendices

Prepared for:

Policy and Program Studies Service

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education

Prepared by:

Jesse Levin

Karen Manship

Steve Hurlburt

Drew Atchison

American Institutes for Research

Ryoko Yamaguchi

Adam Hall

Plus Alpha Research & Consulting, LLC

Stephanie Stullich

U.S. Department of Education

2019 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. GS-00F-347CA: ED-PEP-16-

A-0004 with American Institutes for Research. Joanne Bogart served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any 

product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be 

inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this publication contains information about and from outside 

organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an 

endorsement by the Department.

U.S. Department of Education

Betsy DeVos

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

James Blew

Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Greg Fortelny

Director

October 2019

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity: Findings 

from a National Study, Washington, D.C., 2019.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-

800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Content Contact:

Stephanie Stullich

Phone: 202-401-2342

Email: Stephanie.Stullich@ed.gov
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

iii

Contents

List of Exhibits....................................................................................................................................v 

Appendix A. Case Study District Profiles .............................................................................................1 

Appendix B. Authorizing Legislation for the Student-Centered Funding Pilot .....................................19 

Appendix C. Study Methods.............................................................................................................23 

Appendix D. Supplemental Tables....................................................................................................37 

Appendix E. Data Collection Instruments..........................................................................................59

Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

v 

Exhibits 

Exhibit C-1. Number of paper surveys sent and completed for the principal and district surveys ........ 25 

Exhibit C-2. Response rates for district and principal surveys................................................................ 27 

Exhibit C-3. Comparison of selected sample and respondents for district survey ................................. 29 

Exhibit C-4. Comparison of selected sample and respondents for school survey .................................. 30 

Exhibit C-5. Distribution of all known WSF districts, districts responding to the survey, and case 

study districts, by various demographic characteristics, 2015–16...................................... 31 

Exhibit D-1. Predicted percentages of district administrators reporting that various goals are a 

high priority for their district’s system of allocating resources to schools, in WSF 

and non-WSF districts.......................................................................................................... 38 

Exhibit D-2. Base per-pupil allocations and funding adjustments used to allocate funds to 

schools, by case study district.............................................................................................. 39 

Exhibit D-3. Predicted average percentage of unrestricted and restricted funding provided to 

schools to use at their discretion, in WSF and non-WSF districts........................................ 42 

Exhibit D-4. Predicted percentage of principals and districts that reported that decisions about 

hiring staff were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders, in WSF and non-WSF 

districts ................................................................................................................................. 43 

Exhibit D-5. Principal reports on degree to which decisions about hiring and selecting staff 

were made by districts versus school staff and stakeholders ............................................. 44 

Exhibit D-6. Predicted percentage of principals and district administrators reporting that 

decisions about selecting instructional materials and other nonpersonnel 

resources and services were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders, in WSF 

and non-WSF districts.......................................................................................................... 45 

Exhibit D-7. Principal reports on degree to which decisions about selecting instructional 

materials and other nonpersonnel resources were made by districts versus school 

staff and stakeholders.......................................................................................................... 46 

Exhibit D-8. Predicted percentage of principals and district administrators reporting that 

instructional programming and professional development decisions were mostly 

made by school staff and stakeholders, in WSF and non-WSF districts.............................. 47 

Exhibit D-9. Principal reports on degree to which instructional programming and professional 

development decisions are made by districts versus schools............................................. 48 

Exhibit D-10. Regression results used to generate implicit weights for each case study district ............. 49
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

vi

Exhibit D-11. Estimated base per-pupil amounts, additional per-pupil amounts, and implicit 

weights for poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities using the 

implicit weight approach and using only unrestricted spending......................................... 50 

Exhibit D-12. Estimated base per-pupil amounts and additional per-pupil amounts and implicit 

weights for poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities using the 

implicit weight approach and using total spending (unrestricted and restricted).............. 51 

Exhibit D-13. Estimates of the relationship between English learners and students with 

disabilities and per-pupil spending from unrestricted funds and total funds 

(unrestricted plus restricted), in eight WSF districts........................................................... 52 

Exhibit D-14. Difference between high- and low-poverty schools generated by tercile analyses, 

for each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation ................................................................................................................... 53 

Exhibit D-15. Implicit weights for students in poverty generated by regression analyses, for each 

case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation ................................................................................................................... 54 

Exhibit D-16. Difference between high- and low-English learner schools generated by tercile 

analyses, for each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and 

post-WSF implementation................................................................................................... 55 

Exhibit D-17. Implicit weights for English learner students generated by regression analyses, for 

each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation ................................................................................................................... 56 

Exhibit D-18. Difference between high- and low-students with disabilities schools generated by 

tercile analyses, for each case study district, for all years with available data preand post-WSF implementation............................................................................................ 57 

Exhibit D-19. Implicit weights for students with disabilities generated by regression analyses, for 

each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation ................................................................................................................... 58
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

1 

Appendix A. Case Study District Profiles
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

2 

Case Study District Profile: Baltimore City Public Schools

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19

First year of implementation FY 2009–10 

Years of full implementation 10 

Type of funding adjustment Per-pupil 

allocation 

Base per pupil E, M: $5,521 

H: $6,096 

Grade-level adjustment

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families 

English learners

Students with disabilities 

Homeless

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment

E = elementary school, M = middle school, H = high school.

Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) adopted its 

weighted student funding (WSF) system during 

the 2009–10 school year with the primary goals 

of principal autonomy, equity of resource 

allocation among schools, and transparency of 

budgeting and allocation practices.

WSF Formula

BCPS provided different base allocations that 

are adjusted by grade level. In 2018–19, 

elementary and middle schools received $5,521 

per student and high schools received $6,096 

per student. BCPS uses set per-pupil dollar 

amounts for funding adjustments in its WSF 

system. Student weights contained in the 

district’s WSF system included the following:

• Students from low-income families. 

Elementary and middle schools received $400 

for each student who was directly certified as 

eligible for free lunch. High schools received 

$700 per directly certified student. All 

elementary and elementary/middle schools 

with at least 80 percent directly certified 

students also received an additional $200 per 

student.

• Students with disabilities. Schools received 

$641 per student with disabilities (SWD) 

taught in a self-contained classroom.

• Performance. Schools received $400 for each

student identified as high performing or 

having high potential.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds and did 

not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

[IDEA]), grants, or other restricted funds. 

Charter schools received a higher base perpupil funding amount but did not receive 

most weighted funding. Separate public day 

schools that enrolled profoundly disabled 

students and alternative options programs or 

schools that enrolled over-age, undercredited students were funded by the district 

separately from the WSF system. Locked 

positions (school-based staff selected and 

funded centrally) were provided to schools 

throughout the district.

• Small-school supplement. The WSF system in 

BCPS provided for a baseline level of services 

for all schools. For schools in which the WSF 

allocation was lower than the baseline 

amount, additional funding was provided to 

offset the difference. In 2018–19, the district 

allocated roughly $4 million in baseline 

funding; 18 schools received supplements of 

more than $100,000 each.

• Hold-harmless provision. BCPS allocated 

$5.2 million in additional funding as a 

temporary measure to hold all schools 

harmless for the 2018–19 school year after the 

significant cuts experienced in the prior year.

• Use of actual versus average salaries. BCPS 

used average teacher salaries for budgeting 

under its WSF system.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

3 

Revising the WSF System

The 2018–19 school year marked the first time 

in 10 years that district leaders and 

stakeholders had revisited the model. “There 

wasn’t a lot of review in the past,” one district 

administrator remarked, adding, “The system 

[was] now mature enough for us to review the 

weights.” As part of this review cycle, BCPS used 

an iterative process that involved internal 

discussions with various stakeholders and 

weight modeling provided by an external 

nonprofit organization. Based on the results of 

this process, BCPS replaced funding 

adjustments for students at the basic or 

advanced level and high school students at risk 

of dropping out and added in adjustments for 

poverty and high-potential or high-performing 

students.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

4 

Case Study District Profile: Boston Public Schools 

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19

First year of implementation FY 2011–12 

Years of full implementation 8 

Type of funding adjustment Weight 

Base per pupil $4,291 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families 

English learners 

Students with disabilities 

Homeless 

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance 

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment 

Boston Public Schools (BPS) fully implemented its 

WSF system in 2011–12, following a pilot during 

the 2009–10 and 2010–11 school years. Strongly 

promoted by the former chief financial officer and 

superintendent, the district adopted WSF largely 

in reaction to concerns about the equity of 

resource allocation among schools.

WSF Formula

BPS set funding adjustments relative to the base 

per-pupil funding ($4,291 in 2018–19). Student 

weights contained in the district’s WSF system 

included:

• Grade level. There were six different grade-level 

weights, ranging between 1.2 for high schools 

(grades 9–12) and 1.6 and 1.8 for kindergarten 

and prekindergarten, respectively. Early 

elementary (grades 1–2) and middle school 

(grades 6–8) received a weight of 1.4, and late 

elementary (grades 3–5) received a weight of 1.3.

• Students from low-income families. Students 

who were directly certified (DC) as eligible for free 

lunch received a weight of 0.10. In addition, 

each DC student in a school with more than 

50 percent DC students received an additional 

weight of 0.10.

• English learners. English learner (EL) weights 

varied based on English language proficiency and 

grade level. Foundational students (at or below 

developing proficiency) received a weight of 0.24 

in the elementary grades, 0.51 in the middle 

school grades, and 0.61 in the high school grades. 

Transitional EL students received a weight of 0.02 

regardless of grade level. In addition, students 

with interrupted formal education — EL 

immigrant students who had not attended school 

on a regular basis or who had missed a significant 

amount of school — received a weight of 0.50 in 

grades 4 and 5, 0.84 in middle school grades, and 

0.94 in high school grades.

• Students with disabilities. There were 15 

different special education weights. Lowseverity students received a weight of 1.0. 

Moderate-severity students received a weight 

of 1.4. Thirteen different high-severity weights 

varied from 1.9 to 6.7.

• Homeless students. BPS assigned a weight of 

0.10 for the projected number of students 

experiencing homelessness and an additional 

weight of 0.10 for the projected number of 

homeless students above a 5 percent 

concentration threshold.

• Performance. BPS provided an additional 

weight for high school students in grades 9 and 

10 who were identified as having a high risk of 

dropping out as evidenced by chronic 

absenteeism, poor academic performance, and 

insufficient credit accumulation (a weight of 0.2 

for 9th-grade high-risk students and a weight of 

0.05 for 10th-grade students).

• Specialized programming. Students in 

vocational programs received a weight of 1.0. 

In addition, students in inclusive settings 

received a weight of 0.35.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula was 

responsible for distributing the majority of 

general fund dollars to schools, and it did not 

include federal funding (e.g., Title I, IDEA), 

grants, or other restricted funds. Additional 

general funds were distributed to schools 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

5 

outside of the WSF formula as well as for 

programmatic supports, including early 

childhood programs, dual language 

programming, extended learning time, 

inclusion, emotional impairment, and other 

programs. Alternative programs, 

nontraditional/specialized schools, and special 

education schools did not receive funds 

through the WSF system.

• Small-school supplement. To ensure provision 

of a minimum level of services needed to 

operate the school, each school received a 

foundation amount of $210,151. Schools with 

multiple buildings or sites received an 

additional allocation.

• Hold-harmless provision. Lower-performing 

schools with declining enrollment received 

additional funding to help alleviate the impact of 

the new funding mechanism. The amounts were 

allocated primarily in relation to the size of the 

budget decline caused by decreases in enrollment.

• Use of actual versus average salaries. BPS used 

district average salary figures for most schools 

when charging for personnel against school 

budgets. However, schools that were classified as 

autonomous may have chosen instead to use 

actual salaries. Schools that used actual salaries 

represented nearly 30 percent of WSF-funded 

schools and served approximately one-quarter of 

the students in BPS.

Revising the WSF System

BPS has reviewed and revised its WSF system 

annually. As part of this process, the district 

encouraged conversations about what the 

appropriate weights are or should be. Since WSF 

system inception, the weights for EL students 

have been increased substantially. In addition, 

BPS has experimented with integrating contextual 

need factors into its WSF formula. BPS introduced 

an Opportunity Index for the 2018–19 school 

year, which “incorporates a range of data 

representing factors that are outside of the 

schools’ control but are also predictive of 

students’ academic outcomes.” These factors 

consisted of indicators related to students’ 

neighborhood, including safety, socioeconomic 

status, education attainment, and physical 

environment, as well as factors specific to 

individual students and their families, such as 

participation in state-administered programs for 

economically disadvantaged populations, student 

academic achievement, student behavior, and 

chronic absenteeism. As of 2018–19, the 

Opportunity Index was not a part of the WSF 

system in BPS, although the index may be 

incorporated into the budget process in future 

years.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

6 

Case Study District Profile: Cleveland Metropolitan School District

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19

First year of implementation FY 2013–14 

Years of full implementation 5 

Type of funding adjustment Per-pupil 

allocation 

Base per pupil K–12: $4,887 

PK: $733 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families

English learners 

Students with disabilities 

Homeless

Other Mobility

Performance adjustment

Low performance 

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment 

After a one-year pilot in the 2013–14 school year, 

Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) 

implemented WSF districtwide in 2014–15. In 

adopting WSF, the district sought to promote 

principal autonomy at the school level, with the 

goal of enabling each school to align its resources 

with the needs of its own student population and 

increasing transparency of the budgeting and 

spending processes.

WSF Formula

In 2018–19, CMSD provided a base allocation of 

$4,887 for each K–12 student and $733 for each 

prekindergarten student. Cleveland used set perpupil dollar amounts for funding adjustments in 

its WSF system. Student weights contained in the 

district’s WSF system included the following:

• Grade level. Schools serving students in grades 

K–3 received an additional $489 per student, 

and schools serving students in grades 9–12 

received an additional $65 per student.

• English learners. Weights for students with 

limited English proficiency (LEP) varied based 

on degree of English proficiency and grade 

level. Schools received $2,399 per 

prefunctional LEP student. Per-pupil allocations 

for beginning-level LEP students were $2,000 

for grades K–8 and $2,240 for grades 9–12. 

Per-pupil allocations for intermediate- or 

advanced-level LEP students were $1,600 for 

grades K–8 and $2,000 for grades 9–12.

• Students with disabilities. SWD weights varied 

based on a student’s disability type/service 

model and grade level. SWDs in a selfcontained setting received a per-pupil 

allocation of $4,524 for grades K–8 and $2,545 

for grades 9–12. SWDs taught in a resource 

room or inclusion setting received a per-pupil 

allocation of $7,918 for grades K–8 and $5,938 

for grades 9–12. Students with emotional 

disturbances or requiring intensive behavior 

interventions received a per-pupil allocation of 

$729 regardless of grade level.

• Transfer students. Cleveland provided a 

student mobility weight of $750 to all K–8 

schools based on the percentage of students 

who moved two or more times in the previous 

year.

• Performance. Schools received $1,500 for 

students below proficient in reading (based on 

grades 3 and 8 proficiency). Schools serving 

students above proficient in reading (based on 

grades 3 and 8 proficiency) received $750 for 

grades K–8 and $1,500 for grades 9–12. In 

addition, high schools received $750 for students 

identified as chronically absent (10+ days). 

• Specialized programming. A small portion of 

WSF funds were reserved for distribution to 

specialty schools with reportedly more 

“resource-intensive” models (e.g., career and 

technical education [CTE]; science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics; and performing 

arts schools) and for new school transition 

funding, allocated for four years to aid newly 

created schools.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds and did 

not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, IDEA), 

grants, or other restricted funds.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

7 

• Small-school supplement. Cleveland established a 

“baseline services” level for schools serving 

students in grades K–8 and high schools, which 

included recommendations for minimum teacherto-student ratios; administrative, specialty teacher, 

and support staffing; supplies, textbooks, and 

materials; substitute teachers; and class size 

overages and differentials. Baseline services 

funding for each school was defined as a 

“minimum set of services the [WSF] allocation will 

provide for all schools, regardless of their size and 

characteristics.” Cleveland ensured—through 

supplements if necessary—that each school had 

enough funding to meet the baseline services 

level. The baseline services, however, were merely 

recommendations; school principals had discretion 

as to whether they followed these guidelines.

• Hold-harmless provision. In introducing WSF, 

Cleveland provided additional funding to 

schools facing large budget cuts caused by the 

reallocation of funds under WSF to help these 

schools adjust to the new funding system. As of 

2018–19, Cleveland was phasing out these 

protections, gradually increasing both the gains 

cap and loss limit (the amount of funding that 

schools can gain or lose in one year) each year. 

• Use of actual versus average salaries. 

Cleveland used average teacher and principal 

salaries in its WSF system.

Revising the WSF System

Cleveland has reviewed its WSF system annually. 

As part of this process, the district has used an 

external nonprofit organization to provide 

consultation on remodeling the formula and 

encourages conversations with key stakeholders 

about what the appropriate weights are or should 

be. No notable changes were identified for 2018– 

19; however, in 2017–18, Cleveland reduced 

grade-level allocations and special education 

allocations due to a decline in average teacher 

salaries and raised EL allocations due to an 

average salary increase for bilingual 

paraprofessionals. In addition, the district 

increased base per-pupil allocations by decreasing 

funds for small school and gain/loss protections.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

8 

Case Study District Profile: Denver Public Schools

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation FY 2007–08 

Years of full implementation 12 

Type of funding adjustment Per-pupil 

allocation 

Base per pupil $4,283 

Grade-level adjustment

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families 

English learners 

Students with disabilities 

Homeless

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance 

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment 

Denver Public Schools (DPS) adopted its WSF 

system in 2007–08. In making the decision to 

introduce WSF, district administrators cited a 

desire to provide more autonomy and control 

to schools, while allowing “money [to] follow 

the kids,” thereby shifting the focus from 

personnel to student needs. In addition, the 

district wanted to empower school 

communities to make financial and 

programmatic decisions for their students. 

Administrators in the DPS central office 

believed that principals and community 

members understood the specific needs of their 

students better than central office staff and 

that students would be positively impacted by 

devolving decision-making power to the school 

level. 

WSF Formula

In 2018–19, DPS provided a base allocation of 

$4,283 per DPS. DPS used set per-pupil dollar 

amounts for funding adjustments in its WSF 

system. Student weights contained in the 

district’s WSF system included the following:

• Students from low-income families. For each 

student receiving free or reduced-price lunch 

(FRPL), elementary schools received $498 and 

secondary schools received $537. Additional 

funds were provided for schools with at least 

60 percent FRPL-participating students ($183 

to $415 per FRPL participant). In addition, all 

schools received $80 for each student who 

was directly certified (DC) as eligible for free 

lunch, and schools with a high concentration 

of DC students received an additional $40 to 

$100 per DC student. 

• English learners. Schools received $431 per

EL student, as identified by the Colorado 

English Language Acquisition (CELA) program.

• Students with disabilities. Schools received 

$800 per student above the average caseload 

of students with mild or moderate 

disabilities. 

• Performance. Schools received $130 per 

student identified as gifted and talented. In 

addition, schools received between $65 and 

$115 per student for schoolwide improvement 

on Colorado’s district and school 

accountability system, the School Performance 

Framework (SPF). DPS also offered three to 

five years of phased funding to schools 

identified as low performing under the SPF.

• Specialized programming. Schools received 

$7,480 per Center Program at the school. 

Center Programs provide individualized 

support and instruction to students with 

special needs.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. WSF funding included 

the district’s general funds, mill levy, and Title I, 

and it excluded other federal funding, grants, 

and philanthropic funds and donations. 

Supplemental budget assistance was available to 

all schools on an application basis to help fund 

instruction, administrative needs, and other 

supports for students. In addition, DPS provided 

centrally budgeted expenses for services 

provided directly in schools, such as additional 

teacher pay (incentives, bonuses, leaves, etc.), 

school support (human resources, curriculum 

and instruction, textbooks, library), high school 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

9 

specific supports (athletics, CTE, dual 

enrollment), and operations (facilities, custodial, 

transportation, information technology).

• Small-school supplement. As part of its WSF 

system, DPS ensured all schools had baseline 

funding to adequately support 217 students. 

According to a district administrator, the 

district determined 217 students was the 

minimum threshold a school would need to 

justify “fund[ing] teachers, principals, and any 

other [basic] requirements.”

• Use of actual versus average salaries. DPS used 

district average salary figures for most schools 

when charging for personnel against school 

budgets. However, schools that were classified 

as Innovation Schools — select, autonomous 

schools — were able to choose instead to use 

actual salaries. Schools that used actual salaries 

against the budget represented roughly onethird of WSF-funded schools in the district in 

2018–19.

Revising the WSF System

DPS has reviewed its WSF system on a regular 

basis. Since the adoption of WSF, funding 

allocations have been added for economically 

disadvantaged students and ELs. For 2018–19, 

the district added progressive funding for 

schools with a high concentration of DC-eligible 

students, additional funds for schools with an 

above-average caseload of students with mild 

or moderate disabilities, and increased perpupil allocations for FRPL students, ELs, and 

gifted and talented students. DPS also revised 

its funding allocations for school accountability. 

Previously low-performing schools (identified as 

red or orange) received $100,000 to $250,000 

in additional funding. Under the revised 

approach, these schools received three to five 

years of phased funding so that “funding can be 

more consistent.” In addition, base funding 

amounts have been adjusted regularly to reflect 

changing compensation for teachers and has 

been tied to inflation.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

10

Case Study District Profile: Indianapolis Public Schools

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation FY 2017–18 

Years of full implementation 2 

Type of funding adjustment Per-pupil 

allocation 

Base per pupil $3,985 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families 

English learners

Students with disabilities 

Homeless

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment

Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) implemented 

WSF during the 2017–18 school year with the 

primary goals of ensuring equity of resource 

allocation among schools, the transparency of 

budgeting and allocation practices, and 

principal autonomy.

WSF Formula

In 2018–19, IPS provided a base allocation of 

$3,985 per student. IPS used set per-pupil dollar 

amounts for funding adjustments in its WSF 

system. Student weights contained in the 

district’s WSF system include the following:

• Grade level. Schools serving prekindergarten 

students received an additional $910 per 

student and schools serving students in grades 7 

and 9 received an additional $400 per student.

• Students from low-income families. All 

schools received $500 for each student who 

was directly certified as eligible for free lunch. 

• Students with disabilities. Schools serving 

special education students in self-contained 

classrooms received $910 in additional 

funding per student.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds, and it 

did not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, 

IDEA), grants, or other restricted funds. 

Resources for locked positions, including 

special education and EL instructors, and 

custodial and athletic staff, were not included 

under WSF. Likewise, additional FTEs or 

funding for specialty schools and school 

choice programs — including International 

Baccalaureate, Montessori, visual and 

performing arts, and early childhood 

programs — were provided outside of WSF. 

Innovation Network schools, a mix of charter 

schools, restart schools, conversions, and 

new schools were not all subject to WSF.

• Small-school supplement. The WSF system in 

IPS provided funding for a baseline level of 

services for all schools. For schools in which 

the WSF allocation was lower than the 

baseline amount, additional funding was 

provided to offset the difference.

• Hold-harmless provision. IPS established two 

policies to soften the initial shifts in funding 

caused by the introduction of WSF. First, for 

schools identified as “Priority” or 

“Transformation Zone” schools, the 

Superintendent’s Strategic Supplement held 

harmless the loss associated with any 

formula shift, although not loss of funding 

due to enrollment declines. The district also 

implemented a transition policy capping perpupil dollar losses at 10 percent and per-pupil 

dollar gains at 3 percent.

• Use of actual versus average salaries. IPS 

used average staff salaries for the WSF 

system.

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

11

Revising the WSF System

After its first year of implementation, IPS 

removed the funding allocation for grades K–2 

“due to the fact that all elementary schools 

have these grades, and reallocating dollars into 

the formula was another method of ensuring 

resources” to better reflect the district’s 

priorities as they relate to student need 

(Indianapolis Public Schools 2018). The district 

changed the definition for its funding 

adjustment for economically disadvantaged 

students from free and reduced-price lunch 

participation to direct certification “to more 

accurately reflect need” (Indianapolis Public 

Schools 2018).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

12

Case Study District Profile: Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation FY 2015–16 

Years of full implementation 4 

Type of funding adjustment Weight 

Base per pupil $4,600 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families 

English learners 

Students with disabilities 

Homeless

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance 

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) 

began using a WSF system districtwide during the 

2015–16 school year, following a two-year pilot.

WSF Formula

MNPS set funding adjustments relative to the 

base per-pupil funding ($4,600 in 2018–19). 

Student weights contained in the district’s WSF 

system included the following:

• Grade level. Elementary schools received a 

weight of 0.10; middle schools received a weight 

of 0.05. 

• Students from low-income families. Students 

who were directly certified as eligible for free 

lunch received a weight of 0.05, regardless of 

grade level. In addition, MNPS applied an 

extra 0.10 weight for elementary schools (for 

a total poverty weight of 0.15) as a proxy for 

prior academic performance because there is 

no prior performance for incoming students 

at this level.

• English learners. Schools received a weight of

0.24 per EL student, as identified by the 

WIDA ACCESS assessment. 

• Students with disabilities. SWD weights varied 

based on a student’s disability type/service 

model, ranging from 0.50 to 7.25.

• Performance. Low-performing students 

received a weight of 0.10 for middle schools 

and 0.05 for high schools.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds, and it 

did not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, 

IDEA), grants, or other restricted funds. MNPS

included several non-negotiables, positions 

required to be paid through each school’s 

WSF budget. These positions included a fulltime literacy specialist; a part-time, advanced 

academic resource teacher (elementary and 

middle schools only); a school finance and 

payroll records administrator; and at least 

one art, music, and physical education 

teacher. Essential services such as food, 

transportation, utilities, facilities, and 

information technology were provided to 

schools centrally and were not part of 

individual school budgets. Charter schools 

were not subject to WSF.

• Small-school supplement. MNPS provided 

supplemental funds to assist small schools. For 

schools in which the WSF allocation was lower 

than the baseline amount, additional funding 

was provided to offset the difference.

• Hold-harmless provision. In introducing WSF, 

MNPS provided additional funding to schools 

facing budget cuts caused by the reallocation 

of funds under WSF to help these schools 

adjust to the new funding system. As of 

2018–19, MNPS was phasing out these 

protections, gradually increasing both the 

gains cap and loss limit each year.

• Use of actual versus average salaries. MNPS

used average teacher salaries in its WSF 

system.

Revising the WSF System

MNPS has reviewed its WSF system annually, 

revising the system as necessary, based on the 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

13

recommendations of the review team, which 

consisted of district administrators, principals, and 

teachers. With the hiring of a new superintendent 

in 2016–17, the district introduced the full-time 

literacy specialist as an additional non-negotiable.

In addition, MNPS increased the weight for ELs 

from 0.10 to 0.21 and decreased the top range 

of special education weight from 8.10 to 7.25 in 

2016–17. In 2017–18, the district added a 

5 percent poverty weight (based on free and 

reduced-price lunch eligibility) for all schools 

and, in 2018–19, increased the EL weight 

from 0.21 to 0.24.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

14

Case Study District Profile: Milwaukee Public Schools 

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation 2001 

Years of full implementation 19 

Type of funding adjustment Per-pupil 

allocation

Base per pupil E: $3,465 

K–8: $3,469 

M: $3,163 

H: $3,294 

Grade-level adjustment

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families

English learners 

Students with disabilities

Homeless

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment 

E = elementary school, M = middle school, H = high school. 

Milwaukee has used WSF since at least 2001 (as 

reported by the Reason Foundation’s Weighted 

Student Formula Yearbook; Snell and Furtick 

2013), though interviewees during case studies 

reported the system began in the late 1990s. In 

the 1990s, MPS had a superintendent who 

believed strongly in decentralization, suggesting 

that school leaders are closest to students and 

thereby can make the best decisions about what 

they need. In the initial years of WSF, many funds 

and decisions were moved quickly under principal 

control. The district implemented a “chargeback/buyback” system, whereby all services that 

supported a school, even including a portion of 

the superintendent’s salary, were charged to 

school budgets (mandatory “charge backs”), and 

many other decisions, even including mail 

delivery, were left up to principals to choose or 

not (buybacks).

Since that time, the district has gradually 

recentralized several key decisions due to 

perceptions that varying principal decisions 

(such as a decision not to offer arts classes) 

have led to inequity in student experiences. 

WSF Formula

Milwaukee provides different base allocations 

that are adjusted by grade level. In 2018–19, 

elementary schools received $3,465 per 

student; K–8 schools, $3,469 per student; 

middle schools, $3,163 per student; and high 

schools, $3,294 per student. Milwaukee uses 

set per-pupil dollar amounts for funding 

adjustments in its WSF system. Student weights 

contained in the district’s WSF system include 

the following:

• English learners. Schools received $50 in 

additional funding per student participating 

in bilingual programs. In addition, English as a 

Second Language (ESL) school-based staff 

were allocated to schools based on a 

weighted formula that considers the 

proficiency level of EL students enrolled at 

that school.

• Specialized programming. Milwaukee 

featured several site allocations for items 

such as a 1.0 FTE teacher and $150 per 

student for specialty schools (e.g., art 

schools, International Baccalaureate schools, 

gifted and talented, career and technical 

education); 2.25 FTE paraprofessionals for 

Montessori, language immersion, and dual 

language schools; and a 1.0 FTE teacher for 

schools with culinary arts and Turnaround 

Arts programs.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds, and did 

not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, IDEA), 

grants, or other restricted funds. Over time, the 

proportion of district funds distributed directly 

to schools has declined as Milwaukee has 

shifted control and funding responsibility of 

more services (including school counselors, 

special education services, advanced 

academics, transportation, assessments, 

college and career centers, credit recovery, 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

15

art and music programs, school nurses, and 

substitutes) to the central office. 

• Use of actual versus average salaries. 

Milwaukee used average teacher salaries in 

its WSF system.

• Small-school supplement. Schools with an 

enrollment of 350 students or fewer were 

allocated the dollar value of a 0.5 FTE teacher in 

addition to base grade-level allocations.

Revising the WSF System

Milwaukee has reviewed its WSF system 

annually. Since 2014–15, Milwaukee has 

reduced base per-pupil funding in three out of 

four years, citing as explanations declines in 

available funding and centralization of funding 

for school-level positions such as assistant 

principals. In addition, the district has modified 

funding adjustments for bilingual students over 

recent years, changing from a 0.059 per-pupil 

weight to a $150 per-pupil allocation in 2016– 

17, which was then reduced to $50 per bilingual 

student in 2017–18.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

16

Case Study District Profile: Prince George’s County Public Schools 

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation FY 2012–13 

Years of full implementation 7 

Type of funding adjustment Weight 

Base per pupil $3,060 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment 

Students from low-income families

English learners 

Students with disabilities

Homeless

Other 

Performance adjustment

Low performance 

High performance 

Specialized programming adjustment 

Prince George’s County Public Schools (PGCPS) 

officially adopted its WSF system during the 

2012–13 school year, following a one-year pilot. 

The system was adopted to address financial 

shifts in the district, while providing more 

autonomy to school stakeholders to make 

decisions. With more constrained financial 

resources, the district determined that the most 

efficient way to fund their services was to 

determine how much money was required for 

central services, while devolving the remaining 

funding and decision-making down to school 

principals and communities. 

WSF Formula

PGCPS set funding adjustments relative to the 

base per-pupil funding ($3,060 in 2018–19). 

Student weights contained in the district’s WSF 

system included: 

• Grade level. Schools serving kindergarten

and grade 1 students received a weight

between 0.08 and 0.11 per student. 

• English learners. Schools may receive a

weight of 0.27 to 0.66 per EL student, based

on new student proficiency scores and

English for Speakers of Other Languages

enrollment. 

• Non-WSF resource factors. PGCPS provided a 

weight to account for differences in teacher 

salary levels across schools in the district, as 

well as the resources that schools receive in 

addition to their WSF dollars. The weight was 

based on three components: (1) the number 

of locked instructional positions (positions 

funded and staffed by the central district 

office) in a school, (2) the total of the average 

salaries of these locked positions, and (3) the 

three-year average variance between the 

average and actual salaries from unlocked 

instructional positions (positions purchased 

through WSF funds) in the school. 

• Performance. PGCPS performance weights 

ranged from 0.35 to 0.71 based on the 

proportion of at-risk students. Multiple factors 

were used to identify at-risk students, 

including state assessments, at-risk probability 

ratios for middle schools and high schools 

(based on grade point average, attendance, 

suspension and expulsion requests), and 

student retention. 

• Specialized programming. PGCPS reserved a 

limited amount of funds, from which schools 

were able to request specific, supplemental 

resources. All requests were submitted in 

tandem with the school budget and reviewed 

by the deputy superintendent. 

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds, and did 

not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, 

IDEA), grants, or other restricted funds. 

Locked positions, such as staffing for 

specialty programs, special education, food 

services, and custodial services, were funded 

and staffed by the central office. Early 

childhood centers, alternative and specialty 

schools, charter schools, and regional centers 

were not subject to WSF. 

• Use of actual versus average salaries. PGCPS 

used average teacher salaries in its WSF 

system and has introduced the use of actual 

salaries through its weighting scheme. As 

explained above, PGCPS provided a base
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

17

weight that is constructed, in part, using the 

three-year average variance between the 

average and actual salaries from unlocked 

instructional positions in the school.

• Hold-harmless provision. PGCPS has 

implemented a hold-harmless policy to 

ensure that potentially large changes in 

enrollment from year to year do not disrupt 

the school year and student experience. For 

the 2018–19 school year, the district capped 

the per-pupil dollar loss at –1.5 percent. 

Revising the WSF System

PGCPS has reviewed its WSF system annually to 

ensure, as one district administrator stated,

“that they adequately reflect the goals of the 

school system and [WSF].” In 2016–17, the

district transitioned from fixed to relative 

weights, meaning that each individual weight

varies from school to school “to reflect the

different student compositions of the district’s

various schools” (Miller 2018).

PGCPS also modified the performance weight to 

reflect relative student need, including 

performance on state assessments, at-risk

probability ratios, grade point average,

attendance, suspension and expulsion requests,

and student retention. For 2018–19, PGCPS

modified the EL weights to include

differentiated weights associated with 

newcomer students and added a variable base 

weight to account for non-WSF resource 

factors, as noted above. 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

18

Case Study District Profile: San Francisco Unified School District

WSF system at a glance, FY 2018–19 

First year of implementation FY 2001–02 

Years of full implementation 17 

Type of funding adjustment Weight 

Base per pupil $3,904 

Grade-level adjustment 

Student need adjustment

Students from low-income families 

English learners 

Students with disabilities 

Homeless 

Other

Performance adjustment

Low performance

High performance

Specialized programming adjustment

Since 2001–02, San Francisco Unified School 

District (SFUSD) has been implementing WSF to 

distribute resources to schools based on 

individual students’ attributes.

WSF Formula

SFUSD set funding adjustments relative to the 

base per-pupil funding ($3,904 in 2018–19). 

Student weights contained in the district’s WSF 

system included:

• Grade level. Schools serving students in 

grades K–3 received an additional $1,030 per 

student, schools serving students in grades 

6–8 received an additional $625 per student, 

and schools serving students in grades 9–12 

received an additional $702 per student.

• Students from low-income families. Schools 

received $351 per student eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch. 

• English learners. EL weights varied based on 

English language proficiency. Per-pupil 

allocations for beginner and intermediate EL 

students were $200 for grades K–5, $240 for 

grades 6–8, and $530 for grades 9–12. Middle 

and high schools received $240 per long-term 

EL student, and all schools regardless of grade 

level received $155 per advanced EL student.

• Students with disabilities. Schools received 

$50 per SWD and $100 per SWD in 

prekindergarten or with moderate to high 

severity disabilities.

• Homeless students. SFUSD provided $4,000 

in floor plan funding plus $96 per homeless 

student for schools with more than 25 

homeless students.

WSF Policy Decisions

• Coverage of the formula. The WSF formula 

applied to the district’s general funds, and did 

not include federal funding (e.g., Title I, 

IDEA), grants, or other restricted funds. Items 

such as special education staffing, noninstructional support staff, substitutes, 

athletic coaches, food and nutrition staff and 

services, custodial and maintenance services, 

transportation, information technology, and 

utilities, have been provided centrally.

• Use of actual versus average salaries. SFUSD 

used average teacher salaries in its WSF 

system.

• Small-school supplement. SFUSD has provided 

“floor plan” funding to allow all schools to 

achieve required basic staffing levels. For 

schools in which the WSF allocation was lower 

than the floor amount, additional funding was 

provided to offset the difference.

• Hold-harmless provision. WSF allocations 

included a hold-harmless buffer to help 

absorb potential midyear budget cuts in the 

event actual enrollments were lower than 

spring projections. In 2018–19, the buffer 

amount was $60,000 and applied to schools 

facing budget cuts. 

Revising the WSF System

SFUSD’s WSF formula has remained largely 

unchanged since its inception, except for the 

addition of a weight for homeless students. 

According to one district respondent, “the 

values for the base allocation have climbed” 

due to increased funding from the state.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

19

Appendix B. Authorizing Legislation for the 

Student-Centered Funding Pilot 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Title I, Part E

SEC. 1501. FLEXIBILITY FOR EQUITABLE PER-PUPIL FUNDING

(a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program under this section is to provide local educational agencies 

with flexibility to consolidate eligible Federal funds and State and local education funding in order to 

create a single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and 

otherwise disadvantaged students.

(b) AUTHORITY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to enter into local flexibility demonstration 

agreements— 

(A) for not more than 3 years with local educational agencies that are selected under subsection 

(c) and submit proposed agreements that meet the requirements of subsection (d); and

(B) under which such agencies may consolidate and use funds in accordance with subsection (d) 

in order to develop and implement a school funding system based on weighted per pupil 

allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students.

(2) FLEXIBILITY.—Except as described in subsection (d)(1)(I), the Secretary is authorized to waive, for 

local educational agencies entering into agreements under this section, any provision of this Act that 

would otherwise prevent such agency from using eligible Federal funds as part of such agreement.

(c) SELECTION OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may enter into local flexibility demonstration agreements with not 

more than 50 local educational agencies with an approved application under subsection (d).

(2) SELECTION.—Each local educational agency shall be selected based on such agency— 

(A) submitting a proposed local flexibility demonstration agreement under subsection (d);

(B) demonstrating that the agreement meets the requirements of such subsection; and

(C) agreeing to meet the continued demonstration requirements under subsection (e).

(3) EXPANSION.—Beginning with the 2019–2020 academic year, the Secretary may extend funding 

flexibility authorized under this section to any local educational agency that submits and has 

approved an application under subsection (d), as long as a significant majority of the demonstration 

agreements with local educational agencies described in paragraph (1) meet the requirements of 

subsection (d)(2) and subsection (e)(1) as of the end of the 2018–2019 academic year.

(d) REQUIRED TERMS OF LOCAL FLEXIBILITY DEMONSTRATION AGREEMENT.— 

(1) APPLICATION.—Each local educational agency that desires to participate in the program under 

this section shall submit, at such time and in such form as the Secretary may prescribe, an 

application to enter into a local flexibility demonstration agreement with the Secretary in order to 

develop and implement a school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations that meets 

the requirements of this section. The application shall include— 

(A) a description of the school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations, 

including— 

(i) the weights used to allocate funds within such system;
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

20

(ii) the local educational agency’s legal authority to use State and local education funds 

consistent with this section;

(iii) how such system will meet the requirements of paragraph (2); and 

(iv) how such system will support the academic achievement of students, including lowincome students, the lowest-achieving students, English learners, and children with 

disabilities; 

(B) a list of funding sources, including eligible Federal funds, the local educational agency will 

include in such system;

(C) a description of the amount and percentage of total local educational agency funding, 

including State and local education funds and eligible Federal funds, that will be allocated 

through such system;

(D) the per-pupil expenditures (which shall include actual personnel expenditures, including staff 

salary differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel expenditures) of State 

and local education funds for each school served by the agency for the preceding fiscal year;

(E) the per-pupil amount of eligible Federal funds each school served by the agency received in 

the preceding fiscal year, disaggregated by the programs supported by the eligible Federal 

funds; 

(F) a description of how such system will ensure that any eligible Federal funds allocated 

through the system will meet the purposes of each Federal program supported by such funds, 

including serving students from low-income families, English learners, migratory children, and 

children who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk, as applicable;

(G) an assurance that the local educational agency developed and will implement the local 

flexibility demonstration agreement in consultation with teachers, principals, other school 

leaders (including charter school leaders in a local educational agency that has charter schools), 

administrators of Federal programs impacted by the agreement, parents, community leaders, 

and other relevant stakeholders;

(H) an assurance that the local educational agency will use fiscal control and sound accounting 

procedures that ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting for, eligible Federal funds 

consolidated and used under such system;

(I) an assurance that the local educational agency will continue to meet the requirements of 

sections 1117, 1118, and 8501; and

(J) an assurance that the local educational agency will meet the requirements of all applicable 

Federal civil rights laws in carrying out the agreement and in consolidating and using funds 

under the agreement.

(2) REQUIREMENTS OF THE SYSTEM.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—A local educational agency’s school funding system based on weighted perpupil allocations shall— 

(i) except as allowed under clause (iv), allocate a significant portion of funds, including State 

and local education funds and eligible Federal funds, to the school level based on the 

number of students in a school and a formula developed by the agency under this section 

that determines per-pupil weighted amounts;

(ii) use weights or allocation amounts that allocate substantially more funding to English 

learners, students from low-income families, and students with any other characteristics 

associated with educational disadvantage chosen by the local educational agency, than to 

other students;

(iii) ensure that each high-poverty school receives, in the first year of the demonstration 

agreement— 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

21

(I) more per-pupil funding, including from Federal, State, and local sources, for lowincome students than such funding received for low-income students in the year prior to 

entering into a demonstration agreement under this section; and

(II) at least as much per-pupil funding, including from Federal, State, and local sources, 

for English learners as such funding received for English learners in the year prior to

entering into a demonstration agreement under this section;

(iv) be used to allocate to schools a significant percentage, which shall be a percentage 

agreed upon during the application process, of all the local educational agency’s State and 

local education funds and eligible Federal funds; and 

(v) include all school-level actual personnel expenditures for instructional staff (including 

staff salary differentials for years of employment) and actual nonpersonnel expenditures in 

the calculation of the local educational agency’s State and local education funds and eligible 

Federal funds to be allocated under clause (i).

(B) PERCENTAGE.—In establishing the percentage described in subparagraph (A)(iv) for the 

system, the local educational agency shall demonstrate that the percentage— 

(i) under such subparagraph is sufficient to carry out the purposes of the demonstration 

agreement under this section and to meet each of the requirements of this subsection; and 

(ii) of State and local education funds and eligible Federal funds that are not allocated 

through the local educational agency’s school funding system based on weighted per-pupil 

allocations, does not undermine or conflict with the requirements of the demonstration 

agreement under this section.

(C) EXPENDITURES.—After allocating funds through the system, the local educational agency 

shall charge schools for the per-pupil expenditures of State and local education funds and 

eligible Federal funds, including actual personnel expenditures (including staff salary

differentials for years of employment) for instructional staff and actual nonpersonnel 

expenditures.

(e) CONTINUED DEMONSTRATION.—Each local educational agency with an approved application under 

subsection (d) shall annually— 

(1) demonstrate to the Secretary that, as compared to the previous year, no high-poverty school 

served by the agency received— 

(A) less per-pupil funding, including from Federal, State, and local sources, for low-income 

students; or

(B) less per-pupil funding, including from Federal, State, and local sources, for English learners; 

(2) make public and report to the Secretary the per-pupil expenditures (including actual personnel 

expenditures that include staff salary differentials for years of employment, and actual 

nonpersonnel expenditures) of State and local education funds and eligible Federal funds for each 

school served by the agency, disaggregated by each quartile of students attending the school based 

on student level of poverty and by each major racial or ethnic group in the school, for the preceding 

fiscal year;

(3) make public the total number of students enrolled in each school served by the agency and the 

number of students enrolled in each such school disaggregated by each of the subgroups of 

students, as defined in section 1111(c)(2); and 

(4) notwithstanding paragraph (1), (2), or (3), ensure that any information to be reported or made 

public under this subsection is only reported or made public if such information does not reveal 

personally identifiable information.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

22

(f) LIMITATIONS ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES.—Each local educational agency that has entered 

into a local flexibility demonstration agreement with the Secretary under this section may use, for 

administrative purposes, an amount of eligible Federal funds that is not more than the percentage of 

funds allowed for such purposes under any of the following:

(1) This title.

(2) Title II.

(3) Title III.

(4) Part A of title IV.

(5) Part B of title V.

(g) PEER REVIEW.—The Secretary may establish a peer-review process to assist in the review of a 

proposed local flexibility demonstration agreement.

(h) NONCOMPLIANCE.—The Secretary may, after providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing 

(including the opportunity to provide supporting evidence as provided for in subsection (i)), terminate a 

local flexibility demonstration agreement under this section if there is evidence that the local 

educational agency has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and the requirements under 

subsections (d) and (e).

(i) EVIDENCE.—If a local educational agency believes that the Secretary’s determination under 

subsection (h) is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons, the local educational agency may 

provide supporting evidence to the Secretary, and the Secretary shall consider that evidence before 

making a final determination.

(j) PROGRAM EVALUATION.—From the amount reserved for evaluation activities under section 8601, 

the Secretary, acting through the Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, shall, in consultation 

with the relevant program office at the Department, evaluate— 

(1) the implementation of the local flexibility demonstration agreements under this section; and 

(2) the impact of such agreements on improving the equitable distribution of State and local funding 

and increasing student achievement.

(k) RENEWAL OF LOCAL FLEXIBILITY DEMONSTRATION AGREEMENT.—The Secretary may renew for 

additional 3-year terms a local flexibility demonstration agreement under this section if— 

(1) the local educational agency has met the requirements under subsections (d)(2) and (e) and 

agrees to, and has a high likelihood of, continuing to meet such requirements; and 

(2) the Secretary determines that renewing the local flexibility demonstration agreement is in the

interest of students served under this title and title III.

(l) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) ELIGIBLE FEDERAL FUNDS.—The term ‘eligible Federal funds’ means funds received by a local 

educational agency under— 

(A) this title;

(B) title II;

(C) title III;

(D) part A of title IV; and

(E) part B of title V.

(2) HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOL.—The term ‘high poverty school’ means a school that is in the highest 

2 quartiles of schools served by a local educational agency, based on the percentage of enrolled 

students from low-income families.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

23

Appendix C. Study Methods

Introduction

This appendix provides additional details on study methodology to supplement the briefer description 

provided in Volume 1. First we describe the methods used to select the district and school samples for 

the surveys and the district sample for the case study component. We then describe the data collection 

and analysis methods for the three components of the study: surveys of district administrators and 

principals, interviews and document reviews in the nine WSF case study districts, and school-level 

expenditure data provided by the nine case study districts.

Sample Selection

The target population for the nationally representative survey includes all public school districts in the 

United States serving a large enough number of schools that would make adoption of a WSF system a 

relevant option. The sample was designed to include all districts known to be currently implementing a 

WSF system, as well as those known to have previously implemented WSF. A list of 31 current and

former WSF districts was developed by consulting with school finance experts, drawing on other 

research such as the Reason Foundation Weighted Student Formula Yearbook (Snell and Furtick 2013) 

and a presentation at the July 2016 Future of Education Finance Summit (Koteskey and Snell 2016), and 

examining district websites. These 31 districts, which included 26 districts identified as implementing 

WSF in the 2017–18 school year and five other districts that had previously implemented WSF, were 

selected with certainty to guarantee their inclusion in the study sample. The smallest of these identified 

districts contained six schools in 2014–15; therefore, the target population for the survey was restricted

to those districts that had at least six schools.1 Districts with a mix of charter and noncharter schools 

were included; however, those districts consisting entirely of charter schools were excluded because 

they may have governance structures and resource allocation mechanisms that are different from and 

not applicable to those of traditional school districts.

The sampling frame was based on the 2014–15 Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary School 

Universe Survey, which provides a complete listing of all public elementary and secondary schools in the United 

States and includes a rich set of variables on school characteristics. Schools with no student enrollment were 

dropped from the study frame (5,654 schools), as well as remaining schools that were closed (3) and the 

following types of remaining schools: school type other than regular or vocational, online/virtual schools, 

detention/treatment centers, or homebound schools (6,748). As mentioned above, districts composed solely of 

charterschools and those with fewer than six schools were dropped from the sample; these districts contained 

a total of 29,834 schools. After all of these exclusions, the final sampling frame included 3,437 districts and 

58,662 schools located within those districts. 

 

1 The smallest district that we identified as a WSF district at the time of sample selection (New London School District, 

Connecticut) was later determined to be not in fact implementing WSF; the smallest WSF district in our final set of known WSF 

districts (Falcon School District 49, Colorado) had 22 schools in 2018–19 (see Exhibit 2 in Volume 1).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

24

The list of districts in the final study frame was stratified by three poverty categories (high, medium, and 

low, based on the Census Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates),2 three National Center for 

Education Statistics locale categories (city, suburb, and town/rural combined),3 and two size categories 

(large and medium/small) to allow for meaningful comparisons across these subgroups.4 In total, 17 

district strata were formed by the three stratifying variables.5

 The district sample size in each stratum 

was determined proportional to the number of schools within the stratum.

As noted above, the 31 districts identified as current or former WSF implementers, as of the 2017–18 

school year, were selected with certainty to guarantee their inclusion in the study (sampling selection 

probability equal to one). 

After district selection, 10 schools6 were randomly sampled from each of the 31 districts identified as 

currently implementing, or having previously implemented WSF, and one school was randomly sampled 

from each of the other selected districts. This approach resulted in a school sample of 306 WSF schools 

and 369 non-WSF schools.

For the case study component, we selected a purposive sample of nine districts that were implementing 

WSF systems in 2017–18. To facilitate the selection process, the study team reviewed the list of 26 

districts known to be implementing a WSF system, validating the list through documentation scans and 

follow-up calls to the districts to ensure that each are active WSF implementers with a funding allocation 

system that uses weights to adjust funding for student needs and is sufficiently different from a 

traditional model. The nine sites were purposively selected from this list to provide diversity with 

respect to geographic location, age of WSF system, and formula design. 

Survey Data Collection Methods

The key components of the survey data collection included the following: (1) obtaining district approval 

to perform research, where required; (2) respondent outreach including a prenotification letter followed 

by an email invitation to participate with a link to the survey; and (3) systematic follow-up efforts to 

boost response rates. This section also discusses definitions of survey completion, response rates, and 

weighting procedures and nonresponse adjustments.

 

2 Poverty levels — high, medium, and low — were determined using enrollment-weighted quartiles of the Census Small Area 

Income Population Estimates district-level poverty estimates. “High” represents the top quartile, “medium” consists of both 

the second and third quartiles, and “low” is made up of the bottom quartile. Quartiles were calculated according to PPSS 

guidelines before excluding districts with fewer than six schools. Less than four percent of districts do not have data on 

poverty level. Districts with missing data were imputed with the values of the neighboring districts on the list sorted by state, 

county, city, ZIP code, and district ID. The rationale for this imputation approach is that districts geographically close together

are likely to be similar to each other.

3 Town and remote rural districts were combined into a single locale category for the purpose of stratification due to the 

exclusion of large numbers of town and rural districts that have fewer than six schools.

4 PPSS guidelines define large districts as those with at least 10,000 students, medium districts as those with enrollments of at 

least 2,500 and fewer than 10,000 students, and small districts as having fewer than 2,500 students. The inclusion criterion of 

at least six schools substantially reduced the number of small districts available for sampling; therefore, small and mediumsized districts were combined into a single size category for the purposes of stratification.

5 One stratum was collapsed with the neighboring stratum due to its small number of districts (eight). 

6 One of the 26 districts identified as implementing WSF had only six schools in the 2017–18 school year, and all six schools 

were selected for the sample. 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

25

Obtaining District Approval to Perform Research

Prior to launching the surveys, the study team identified 68 districts in the sample that required 

research applications. Team members reviewed the application process on the district websites and 

then completed and submitted applications for the required districts. Upon approval of a research 

application, district administrators and principals were invited to participate in the study. 

Each school district had its own policy on whether an explicit consent question needed to be asked on the 

survey or if only informed-consent language could be used without requiring the respondent to answer a 

consent question. If a district required a consent question, it was placed at the beginning of the survey 

(before the survey items were asked). Respondents who were required to receive a consent question were 

required to choose “Yes” before they could move on and complete the rest of the survey. All respondents 

were notified that their participation was voluntary and that their answers would be used in aggregate 

form for reporting purposes.

Prenotification Letters and Survey Invitation Emails

Prenotification letters were sent by mail to all sample members to introduce the study and inform them 

that AIR was conducting the study on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. Invitation emails were 

next sent under the signature of the survey director via Illume, which included a unique link that 

enabled sample members to go directly to their individual survey. To encourage participation, 

respondents were offered an incentive in the form of a $25 e-gift code from a global retailer. We also 

prepared a hard-copy PDF version of the survey instrument to accommodate respondents who 

preferred to complete the survey on paper; a total of 27 surveys were completed using this approach

(Exhibit C-1). 

Exhibit C-1. Number of paper surveys sent and completed for the principal and district surveys

Sent Complete

District survey 141 5 

Principal survey 322 22

Total 463 27

Follow-Up Efforts to Boost Response Rates

A variety of reminders and other communications were included in the outreach to study participants:

• Emails. Reminder emails were sent to selected sample members who had not submitted a 

survey. Participants received reminder emails once a week at the beginning of data collection 

and twice a week afterward. In April 2017, the AIR research team sent emails to district 

administrators asking them to encourage their staff to participate and to complete their survey 

if they had not already done so. In addition, reminder emails were sent directly from 

Department staff email accounts to nonrespondents.7

 

7 Emails from the U.S. Department of Education were probably more likely to pass security checks and firewalls that might have 

prevented the original study emails from being received by respondents. In addition, educators may be more likely to open an

email from the Department than from a sender they do not recognize. 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

26

• Letters. Multiple reminder letters were mailed to the offices of district and principal 

nonrespondents explaining the purpose of the study and including the web address of the 

survey. Some follow-up letters also include paper copies of the survey along with a “frequently 

asked questions” document and a preaddressed, postage-paid envelope.

• Phone calls. To maximize survey response, the research team attempted to contact each 

nonresponsive sample member by telephone multiple times, at different times of the day, and on 

different days of the week.

Definitions of Survey Completion

Labeling a principal survey as complete was based on the following rules:

1. The respondent gave valid responses to survey items 6 and 8. Question 6 asks, Does your district 

allocate any funding to schools on a per-pupil basis? Question 8 asks, Which of the following 

best describes the discretionary per-pupil funding your school receives? Question 8 was asked 

only of respondents who answered “Yes” to question 6.

2. The respondent demonstrated progress on the survey by accessing items through 34b. This 

required principal respondents to click through the large majority of survey items (whether or 

not they actually provided responses to those items). This left only four of the 38 substantive 

items8 (excluding the three respondent characteristics items at the end of the survey) for which 

demonstrated progress was not required to qualify as complete.

If both of the above statements were true for a principal survey respondent, then their survey was 

considered complete.

Labeling a district administrator survey complete was based on the following rules:

1. The respondent gave valid responses to survey items 3, 5, and 7. Item 3 asks, Does your district 

allocate any funding to schools on a per-pupil basis? Question 5 asks, Which of the following 

best describes the discretionary per-pupil funding schools receive? and presented a list of 

options. Question 7 asks, How are per-pupil funds adjusted to account for students needs or 

demographics? and presents a list of options from which respondents may choose. 

2. Respondents progressed through item 25b or 34, depending on skip patterns. This required 

district respondents to click through all substantive survey items (whether or not they actually 

provided responses to those items). This left only four respondent characteristics items at the 

end of the survey for which demonstrated progress was not required to qualify as complete. 

If both of the above statements were true for a district survey respondent, then their survey was 

considered complete.

 

8 These four items were presented only to respondents who reported that discretionary dollars made up a majority of their 

school’s operational budget.


Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

29

responding sample would therefore have a different distribution than that of the study frame. Response 

propensity was estimated through a logistic model with response status as the dependent variable and all 

design variables as the predictors. The estimated response propensities for all sampled, eligible cases were 

divided into five weighting classes using quintiles by sorting the cases by the predicted response 

propensity and classifying the cases into five categories, because this produces smoother but still effective 

weights (see Cochran 1968). For each weighting class, a nonresponse adjustment factor was calculated so 

that the sum of adjusted weights for the respondents was equal to the sum of original sampling weights of 

all sampled eligible cases. As the last column of Exhibit C-3 shows, the nonresponse-adjusted percentage is 

very similar to the selected sample, including that of district urbanicity.

Exhibit C-3. Comparison of selected sample and respondents for district survey

District characteristics

District sample

(N = 400)

Responding districts

(N = 253)

Nonresponseadjusted 

Count Percentage Count Percentage percentage

By certainty district status

Certainty 31 7.8 17 6.7 7.6

Other 369 92.3 236 93.3 92.4

By urbanicity

Urban 145 36.3 77 30.4 35.1

Suburban 171 42.8 118 46.6 44.5

Town/rural 84 21.0 58 22.9 20.4

By district enrollment size

10,000 or more students 241 60.3 148 58.5 60.6

Less than 10,000 159 39.8 105 41.5 39.4

By district poverty level

High poverty 133 33.3 77 30.4 33.0

Medium poverty 178 44.5 117 46.3 43.8

Low poverty 89 22.3 59 23.3 23.3

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

Similarly, Exhibit C-4 shows the distribution of schools in the selected sample and the respondent 

sample by district WSF status (selected with certainty), school level, urbanicity, student enrollment, 

percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, and percentage of non-Hispanic white 

students. Again, the distributions of the respondent sample were generally similar to those of the 

selected sample, except for school urbanicity. These results suggest that schools in different urbanicity 

categories responded at different rates, and the responding sample would therefore have a different 

distribution than that of the study frame. Using the same nonresponse adjusting strategy as for districts, 

as the last column of Exhibit C-4 shows, the nonresponse-adjusted percentage is, in general, more 

similar to the selected sample, including that of school urbanicity.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

30

Exhibit C-4. Comparison of selected sample and respondents for school survey 

School characteristics

School sample

(N = 675)

Responding schools

(N = 318)

Nonresponse 

adjusted 

Count Percentage Count Percentage percentage

By school grade level 

Primary 437 64.7 205 64.5 66.4

Middle 97 14.4 51 16.0 14.3

High 111 16.4 47 14.8 14.8

Other 30 4.4 15 4.7 4.5

By urbanicity 

Urban 353 52.3 144 45.3 55.0

Suburban 199 29.5 103 32.4 28.3

Town/rural 123 18.2 71 22.3 16.7

By school enrollment size

Above the median 389 57.6 184 57.9 58.6

Less than or equal to median 286 42.4 134 42.1 41.4

By percentage of students eligible 

for free and reduced-price lunch

Above the median 408 60.4 182 57.2 62.1

Less than or equal to median 264 39.1 135 42.5 37.7

Missing 3 0.4 1 0.3 0.2

By percent of non-Hispanic white 

students

Above the median 192 28.4 98 30.8 25.3

Less than or equal to median 483 71.6 220 69.2 74.7

Note: Detail may not sum to total due to rounding.

After the nonresponse adjustment, the study team performed raking adjustments to adjust the 

nonresponse adjusted weights so that the adjusted weights summed to the marginal totals in the 

population.9 Raking, a poststratification method usually employed to avoid the problem of small cell 

sizes, is an iterative process in which some weights are adjusted up and some are adjusted down to 

match the sums of the weights in each category of each variable for the respondents to the marginal 

totals of each variable in population. The final weight was a product of the base weight, the 

nonresponse adjusting factor, and the raking factor. In general, use of the final weights should reduce 

nonresponse bias and variability in the survey estimates.

 

9 The marginal totals were for school year 2015–16 since newer data were available at the time of post-survey adjustments.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

31

After the survey collection was finalized, we performed a comparison of the characteristics of the group 

of 13 WSF districts that provided survey responses to the list of 27 districts that represents our best 

approximation of the population of WSF implementers.10 The comparison shows that the sample 

respondents differed somewhat from the larger group. Specifically, the 13 WSF districts responding to 

our survey tended to be less urban and to have lower levels of both poverty and ELs than the full list of 27 

known WSF districts. In contrast, the WSF case study districts tended to be more urban, to be larger, and 

to have higher levels of student needs than the known population of WSF implementers (Exhibit C-5). 

Exhibit C-5. Distribution of all known WSF districts, districts responding to the survey, and case study 

districts, by various demographic characteristics, 2015–16

Characteristic

All known

WSF districts

(n = 27)

WSF districts 

responding to 

survey

(n = 13)

WSF case study 

districts

(n = 9)

By urbanicity

City 78% 50% 89%

Suburb 22% 50% 11%

Town 0% 0% 0%

Rural 0% 0% 0%

By district enrollment size 

Very large (50,000 or more students) 63% 64% 78%

Large (25,000–49,999) 30% 30% 22%

Medium (10,000–24,999) 7% 7% 0%

Small (less than 10,000) 0% 0% 0%

By poverty rate

Highest poverty quartile (25% or more) 48% 32% 56%

Second highest poverty quartile (17– 

24%)

15% 16% 22%

Second lowest poverty quartile (10–16%) 11% 30% 22%

Lowest poverty quartile (less than 10%) 26% 22% 0%

By percentage of English learners

High EL (20% or more) 26% 16% 33%

Medium EL (5–19%) 59% 71% 56%

Low EL (less than 5%) 15% 12% 11%

Note: Classification of districts as WSF is based on the list in Exhibit 3 found in Chapter 1 of the main report. It is possible that some additional WSF 

districts exist that have not been identified; however, these are likely to be few in number. The reported percentages defining poverty quartiles are 

rounded approximations of the actual cutoffs between quartiles.

Sources: Urbanicity, enrollment, percentage of ELs, and number of schools are based on data provided from the National Center for Education 

Statistics, Common Core of Data Local Education Agency (School District) Universe Survey Data (2015–16). Poverty is based on the 2016 Census 

Small Area Income Poverty Estimate (SAIPE) data for school districts. 

 

10 At the time of sample selection, we had identified 26 districts that we believed were WSF districts. We later learned (during 

data collection) that two of those districts were not in fact implementing WSF (New London, Connecticut, and Washington, 

D.C.). Through the survey, we learned of one additional WSF district (Prince William, Virginia) that indicated that it had been 

implementing WSF for over 20 years. This randomly selected district self-identified as WSF on the survey, and the study team 

confirmed through review of district documentation that it was indeed a WSF district. In addition, two additional districts 

began implementing WSF systems in the 2018–19 school year (Atlanta, Georgia, and Shelby County, Tennessee). Thus, we 

started with 26 districts, subtracted two, and added three, resulting in our current tally of 27 known WSF districts.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

32

Survey Analysis Methods 

For the survey analysis, we conducted statistical significance testing between WSF and non-WSF districts 

using simple regression models with the survey item response as the outcome variable and a binary WSF 

indicator as the predictor variable. For continuous outcome variables, we used ordinary least squares 

(OLS) regression to do the statistical significance test. For binary outcome variables, we used logistic 

regression to perform the statistical significance test. For a small number of items, a statistical 

significance test using the preferred approach could not be performed. Specifically, for two of the 

subitems presented in Exhibit 18, the logistic regression perfectly predicted the outcome for WSF district 

administrators (meaning that all WSF district administrators provided the same response on a binary 

response outcome). In these cases, we resorted to using OLS to conduct the statistical significance test 

because the logistic regression model would not run.

In six additional cases, regression models would not run as specified due to the presence of a single 

response in certain survey strata (this was the case in three subitems presented in Exhibit 17 and three 

subitems in Exhibit 19). In these cases, we were able to conduct a statistical significance test by dropping 

the offending observations (the observations were not dropped in the reported averages). The dropped 

observations were all non-WSF districts, and the maximum number of observations dropped for any 

given subitem was three.

Note that in none of the cases described above did use of OLS or the dropping of responses change the 

percentages reported in Exhibits 17, 19, or 21.

Case Study Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Interviews and Collection of Extant Documentation

In each WSF case study district, research staff conducted interviews with up to seven respondents:

• District program officer 

• District finance officer 

• Three school principals11 

• Respondents in two of the following three groups — union representative, school board 

member, or additional district administrator — depending on the union’s presence in the district 

and which respondents were most knowledgeable about the WSF system 

A total of 59 interviews were conducted, and most were done in person during site visits. All interviews 

were recorded and transcribed. When necessary, research staff also conducted follow-up telephone 

interviews to obtain missing information. The protocols used for these interviews can be found in 

Appendix E. 

In addition, research staff collected a variety of documents and data from the case study districts, 

including documentation of the weighted student funding formula, documents describing how funding 

and other (personnel and nonpersonnel) resources were allocated to schools, and documents describing 

11 For each case study district, the three principal interviewees were purposively selected from the 10 randomly selected 

schools included in the survey sample, with the aim of including variation in school grade levels.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

33

the school-level budgeting process or other district budgeting guidelines (see “District Request for 

Documents” in Appendix E for further information).

Analysis of Interview Data and Extant Documentation

To analyze the interview data and extant documentation, the study employed the following three-phase 

approach.

Phase I: Preliminary data capture. The first phase of analysis consisted of initial site-specific data 

aggregation based on the data collected through the case study site visits alone. Site visitors completed 

the preliminary data capture using Microsoft OneNote, a flexible platform that enables site visitors to 

capture audio, enter interview notes, and code data. The purpose of the preliminary data capture was to 

ensure that the team’s first impressions and key data points were systematically documented while they 

were still vivid. These debriefs facilitated future analyses, ensured that site visitors communicated key 

features of the site visit to other study team members, highlighted unanticipated challenges 

encountered in the field, and noted gaps in the data collection that would require follow-up. The 

preliminary data capture template asked site visitors to report case study information related to four

topics: (1) goals and structure of the WSF system, (2) school autonomy over and stakeholder 

engagement in resource allocation decisions, (3) stakeholder perceptions regarding WSF 

implementation, and (4) challenges related to WSF. Site visitors were encouraged to complete all 

preliminary data capture activities while on-site but were required to finalize the preliminary data 

capture within three days of each site visit.

Phase II: Coding. Guided by the study’s research questions, the study team developed a preliminary draft 

code list in summer 2018, which were piloted with a subset of interview data to determine whether they 

covered the topics reflected in the data, were of an appropriate grain size, and had clear definitions.

To ensure the consistency and reliability of the coded data, the coding phase involved a multistep 

process that included coder training, regular debriefing, and review of coded data by senior staff. To 

train staff for the coding process and to assess interrater agreement, prior to coding, all coders 

independently tagged a small sample of the same document or transcript and then examined the results 

collectively to assess interrater agreement. In cases of disagreement, the team revisited the issue, 

referenced any applicable data sources, and refined the code definition for the item in question. To pass 

the interrater agreement check, analysts had to match at least 75 percent of their codes to a key created 

by the two senior staff, while limiting any additional codes added beyond those in the key to no more 

than 25 percent of the total number of codes in the key.

Research staff then coded the transcripts for all interviews, with senior researchers double-coding 

20 percent of all transcripts. The unit of coding was a segment of text reflecting a given construct, 

ranging in size from one or two sentences to one or two paragraphs. Research staff were trained to 

capture comparable segments of text for each coded passage, including enough adjacent text to enable 

a researcher to understand the data when a coded passage was retrieved from an interview. Prior to 

their use in the next stage of analysis, all coded data were reviewed by other research staff. Where 

inconsistencies were identified, the case study task lead communicated with the original analyst to 

make the necessary revisions. 

Phase III: Cross-case analysis. In the final phase of analysis, the study team reviewed the data across 

sites to assess the prevalence of various practices across the case study districts and to identify 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

34

examples of WSF practices that might be interesting or illuminating for practitioner and policy 

audiences. These activities enabled the study team to explore and examine themes and patterns across 

the WSF case study districts, as well as to more closely examine certain patterns we had observed in the 

survey data.

Fiscal Data Collection and Analysis Methods

Collection of School-Level Expenditure Data and Other Fiscal Data

From each of the nine case study districts, we collected detailed data on school-level expenditures for all 

schools in each district. As described in the “District Request for Documents” in Appendix E, we asked 

for end-of-year audited fiscal data according to each district’s chart of accounts. We asked for data from 

five years before WSF implementation and all years after implementation. However, due to the age of 

some districts’ WSF systems and changes in data collection and record keeping procedures over time, 

three districts were unable to provide us with any data prior to WSF implementation. In addition, one 

district had just one year of postimplementation data because it had recently adopted its WSF system.

We also asked each district to provide us with documentation of their chart of accounts. The chart of 

accounts is a series of account codes that provide information on what particular expenditures were 

used for, what funding source the dollars came from, and to which building (a particular school or the 

central district) expenditures should be attributed. In most cases, these chart of account codes clearly 

distinguished between expenditures coming from unrestricted funding sources (general funds) and from 

restricted funding sources (categorical funds). In the few cases where this distinction was not clear, we 

followed up with the districts to ensure that all spending was properly coded. After coding expenditures 

as restricted and unrestricted, we summed up the spending attributed to each school in each school 

year of data provided according to those categories and also calculated total spending by school and 

school year (i.e., summed together both unrestricted and restricted spending). Because WSF systems 

are most commonly used to distribute unrestricted (general fund) dollars to schools, our primary 

analyses included only spending from unrestricted funding sources. However, we also conducted 

analyses on total spending.

Last, we collected data on school-level total enrollment and enrollment by student need category 

(poverty, English learners [ELs], and students with disabilities [SWDs]). Using school enrollment, we 

converted all school-level spending figures to spending per student using total school enrollment as the 

denominator. We also converted student counts by need category to shares of total school enrollment 

by dividing the count in each individual need category by total enrollment. The shares of school 

enrollment by need category were the measures of school-level student needs used to determine the 

relationships between school spending per student and student needs.

Several data anomalies are worth noting. First, one district (labeled District 1 in Volume 1) did not 

provide data on restricted spending; therefore, this district was omitted from analyses of total spending 

(unrestricted plus restricted). District 4 indicated that their school-level expenditure data did not 

represent audited expenditures, because fiscal auditing in this district is performed on aggregate district 

expenditures and not school-level expenditures. Finally, in District 8, charter schools were omitted from 

the analysis due to unreasonably low per-pupil spending data for those schools, suggesting that 

spending on charter schools in this district is not fully captured in the district’s expenditure data.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

35

Fiscal Analysis Methods

To examine the extent to which student-needs factors are related to school-level per-pupil spending 

within districts, we used two approaches. The first approach was simply to divide schools in each district 

for each year into three equally sized groups — or terciles — based on the level of a specific studentneed characteristic (percent poverty, EL, and SWD) and then calculate the percentage difference in 

average per-pupil spending between the highest and lowest terciles. 

The second approach used regression analysis to estimate models that directly relate school-level, perpupil spending to various measures of student need and other school characteristics.12 Specifically, we 

estimated the following regression equation for each district in each school year of data that was 

provided to us:

(1) Spendings = β0 + β1Povertys + β2ELs + β3SWDs + β4Middles + β5Highs + β6Enrolls + ε

In Equation 1, Spendings represents spending per pupil in school s from unrestricted funding sources in 

our preferred model and represents total spending per pupil in our secondary model; Povertys

represents the proportion of students in poverty (represented by free and reduced-price lunch 

eligibility); ELs represents the proportion of English learners; SWDs represents the proportion of students 

with disabilities; Middles represents the proportion of students in middle school grades (6–8); Highs

represents the proportion of students in high school grades (9–12); Enrolls is the mean-centered natural 

log of total enrollment; and ε is a random error term. The subscript s is an index denoting individual 

schools within the district. The school observations included in each regression used were weighted by 

total school enrollment.

The coefficient β0 in Equation 1 is the constant term and represents the estimated school-level spending 

for a school of average enrollment with all other coefficients set at zero. This means it represents the 

estimated school-level spending for a school with no students in poverty, no EL students, no SWDs, all 

students served in elementary grades, and average enrollment. The coefficients β1, β2, and β3 represent 

the differential spending for a school where all students are in poverty, are ELs, or are SWDs, respectively. 

Using the coefficient on poverty as an example, an alternative interpretation of the poverty coefficient is 

the additional spending for the average impoverished student compared with spending for the average 

nonpoverty student attending an otherwise similar school. This student-level interpretation is particularly 

policy relevant because it has the same interpretation as explicit weights specified in WSF formulas.

To convert the regression results into implicit weights, the estimated student need coefficients were 

divided by the estimated constant term, providing a measure of the additional amount spent in a given 

district on an elementary student with a particular need relative to the amount spent on the average 

student who has no additional needs. In the case of student poverty, the implicit poverty weight is 

represented as β1 divided by β0. As an example, for values of β0 equal to 5,000 and β1 equal to 1,250, the 

implicit poverty weight would equal 0.25, which can be interpreted as the additional expected expenditure 

on a student in poverty relative to spending on an otherwise similar student who was not in poverty.

 

12 The regression modeling used is consistent with the body of research on school finance equity analysis (Chambers et al. 2008; 

Duncombe and Yinger 2005, 2011; Gronberg et al. 2004; Gronberg, Jansen, and Taylor 2011; Imazeki 2008; Levin et al. 2013;

Taylor et al. 2018).

Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

37

Appendix D. Supplemental Tables
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

38

Exhibit D-1. Predicted percentages of district administrators reporting that various goals are a high 

priority for their district’s system of allocating resources to schools, in WSF and non-WSF 

districts 

Note: Predictions generated from estimated regression models of probability of principal responding goal was a high priority for their district

controlling for district-level characteristics including enrollment size, urbanicity, and incidence of FRPL and using average WSF covariate values. 

Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference between WSF and non-WSF districts (**p < .05).

Source: District survey, Q20 (n = 12 WSF, 229 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

39

Exhibit D-2. Base per-pupil allocations and funding adjustments used to allocate funds to schools, 

by case study district

Base per-pupil 

allocation 

Grade-level 

adjustments 

Students from low-income 

families English learners

Baltimore1 $5,521 (E, M)

$6,096 (H)

Student directly certified (DC) as 

eligible for free school lunch: 0.07 

(E, EM) or 0.11 (H)

Additional weight for each DC 

student in school with at least 

80% DC students: 0.04 (E, EM)

Boston $4,291 PK: 1.8

K–2: 1.6

1–2: 1.4

3–5: 1.3

6–8: 1.4

9–12: 1.2

DC student: 0.10

Additional weight for each DC 

student in a school with more 

than 50% DC students: 0.10

Student with limited or formal 

education (SLIFE): 0.50 (4–5), 0.84 

(6–8), or 0.94 (9–12) 

Foundational English Learner (EL) 

student: 0.24 (K–5), 0.51 (6–8), or 

0.61 (9–12) 

Transitional EL student: 0.02 

Cleveland1 $4,887 (K–12) 

$733 (PK)

K–3: 0.10

9–12: 0.01 

Prefunctional Limited English 

Proficiency (LEP) student: 0.49

Beginning-level LEP student: 0.41 

(K–8) or 0.46 (H)

Intermediate- or advanced-level 

LEP student: 0.33 (K–8) or 0.41 (H)

Denver1 $4,283 FRPL-eligible student: 0.12 (E) or 

0.13 (H)

Additional weight for each FRPLeligible student in a school with 

at least 60% FRPL students: 0.04– 

0.10 per student (with cut points 

at 60%, 65%, and 90%) 

FRPL-eligible student who was

directly certified: An additional 

weight of 0.02 

Additional weight for each DC 

student in a school with a high 

concentration of DC students (at 

or above 50th percentile): 0.03 to 

0.045 per DC student

English language learner (ELL) 

student (as identified by the 

Colorado English Language 

Acquisition [CELA] program): 0.10 

Indianapolis1 $4,985 PK: 0.23

7, 9: 0.10

DC student: 0.13

Milwaukee1 $3,465 (E)

$3,469 (K–8) 

$3,163 (M)

$3,294 (H)

Bilingual program participant: 

0.01 (E, K–8) or 0.02 (M, H)

Nashville $4,600 E: 0.10

M: 0.05

FRPL-eligible student: 0.15 (E)2 or 

0.05 (M, H)

ELL student (as identified by WIDA 

ACCESS assessment): 0.24 

Prince 

George’s

$3,060 K–1: 0.08–0.11 ELL student (based on new student 

proficiency scores and English for 

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) 

student projections): 0.27–0.66 

San Francisco $3,904 K–3: 0.26

6–8: 0.16

9–12: 0.18

FRPL-eligible student: 0.09 Beginner/intermediate English 

learner (EL) student: 0.0512 (E), 

0.0615 (M), 0.1358 (H)

Long-term EL student: 0.0615

Advanced EL student: 0.0397
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

40

Exhibit D-2. Base per-pupil allocations and funding adjustments used to allocate funds to schools, 

by case study district (continued from previous page)

Students with disabilities Homeless students Other Performance adjustments

Baltimore1 Student with disability (SWD) 

taught in a self-contained 

classroom: 0.12 (E, M) or 

0.11 (H)

Student identified as high 

performing or having high 

potential: 0.07

Boston SWD with low-severity 

disability: 1.0

SWD with moderate-severity 

disability: 1.4

SWD with high-severity 

disability: 1.9–6.7 

Homeless student: 0.10

School with 5% or 

more homeless 

students: 0.10 per 

homeless student

High-risk student3: 0.20 

(grade 9) or 0.05 (grade 10) 

Cleveland1 Student with emotional 

disturbances or requiring 

intensive behavioral 

interventions: 0.15

SWD taught in a resource room 

or inclusion setting: 1.63 (K–8) 

or 1.22 (H)

SWD taught in a self-contained 

classroom: 0.93 (K–8) or 0.52 (H)

Student who 

moved two or 

more times in 

the previous

year: 0.15 (K–8) 

Chronically absent student (10+ 

days) in grades 9–12: 0.15

Student below proficient in 

reading (based on proficiency in 

grades 3 and 8): 0.30

Student above proficient in 

reading (based on proficiency in 

grades 3 and 8): 0.15 (K–8) or 

0.30 (9–12)

Denver1 SWD above the average 

caseload of students with 

mild/moderate disabilities: 0.19

Gifted and talented student: 

0.03 

School identified as low

performing under School 

Performance Framework 

(SPF): 3- to 5-year phased 

funding

Student in school showing

schoolwide improvement 

under SPF: 0.02–0.03 

Indianapolis1 SWD in self-contained 

classroom within an alternative 

school: 0.23

Milwaukee1

Nashville SWD: 0.50–7.25 (varies by 

disability type)

Low-performing student:

0.10 (M) or 0.05 (H) 

Prince 

George’s

0.35–0.71 per student (based 

on multiple factors including 

state assessments, at-risk 

probability ratios, grade point 

average, attendance, 

suspensions/

expulsion requests), and 

student retention4

San Francisco SWD with low-severity 

disability: 0.0128

SWD with moderate- or highseverity disability or in 

prekindergarten: 0.0256 

Homeless student: 

$4,000 plus $96 per 

homeless student for 

schools with more than 

25 homeless students 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

41

Exhibit D-2. Base per-pupil allocations and funding adjustments used to allocate funds to schools, 

by case study district (continued from previous page)

Specialized programming Miscellaneous adjustments

Average or 

actual salaries

Hold 

harmless 

Small 

schools

Baltimore1 Average Yes Yes

Boston Vocational program: 

1.0 per student

Student in inclusive 

setting: 0.35

Both6 Yes Yes

Cleveland1 Additional funding for 

specialty schools (CTE, 

STEM, and performing 

arts schools) and newly 

created schools

Average Yes Yes

Denver1 Center Program at a 

school5: $7,480

Both6 Yes

Indianapolis1 Average Yes Yes

Milwaukee1 Specialty schools: 1.0 full 

time-equivalent (FTE) 

teacher and $150 per 

student

Montessori, language 

immersion, and dual 

language: 2.25 FTE 

paraprofessionals

Culinary arts, Turnaround 

Arts: 1.0 FTE teacher

Average Yes

Nashville Average Yes Yes

Prince 

George’s

Non-WSF resource factors (based 

on number of locked instructional 

positions, total of average salaries 

of these locked positions, and 

3-year average variance between 

average and actual salaries from 

unlocked instructional positions): 

0.86–1.22 per student

Both6 Yes

San 

Francisco

Average Yes Yes

Note: WSF system descriptions are based on information for 2018–19. 1 For districts that reported funding adjustments as additional per-pupil amounts (Baltimore, Denver, Indianapolis, and Milwaukee), we 

mathematically converted them to equivalent weights in order to show a consistent metric across districts. 2 For middle and high schools, Nashville applied a weight based on prior academic performance. Because there is no prior performance for 

incoming students at the elementary level, Nashville applied an extra 0.10 poverty weight to elementary schools as a proxy for prior academic 

performance in addition to the 0.05 poverty weight applied to all schools in the district.

3 Boston defined high-risk students as high school students at high risk of dropping out as evidenced by chronic absenteeism, poor academic 

performance, and insufficient credit accumulation. 4 Prince George’s calculated the performance weight by standardizing and normalizing each factor by grade and then averaging all data points 

by school. The district then added 0.25 to the resulting value to ensure all schools received a performance weight to support their students. 5 Center Programs were defined as programs that provide individualized support and instruction to students with special needs. 6 In Boston and Denver, select autonomous schools were provided the option to use actual salaries rather than average salaries for charging 

expenditures against their budgets. Prince George’s provides a base weight that is constructed, in part, based on the three-year average 

variance between the average and actual salaries from unlocked instructional positions in the school. 

E = elementary school, EM = elementary/middle school, M = middle school, H = high school. 

Source: Extant documentation from case study districts. 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

42

Exhibit D-3. Predicted average percentage of unrestricted and restricted funding provided to schools 

to use at their discretion, in WSF and non-WSF districts

Exhibit reads: On average, WSF districts were predicted to provide 55 percent of their unrestricted funds to 

schools to use at their discretion, compared with 13 percent in non-WSF districts; this difference was statistically 

significant.

Note: Predictions generated from estimated regression models of percentage of funding used at school discretion controlling for district-level 

characteristics including enrollment size, urbanicity and incidence of FRPL and using average WSF covariate values. Asterisks denote a 

statistically significant difference between WSF and non-WSF districts (**p < .05). 

Source: District survey, Q12 (n = 9 WSF, 165 non-WSF).

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

43

Exhibit D-4. Predicted percentage of principals and districts that reported that decisions about hiring 

staff were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders, in WSF and non-WSF districts

Principals District administrators

WSF Non-WSF WSF Non-WSF

Regular classroom teachers 85% 77% 95% 81% * 

Resource teachers and other special area 

teachers (e.g., music, technology)

70% 59% 78% 59%

Special education teachers 70% 71% 10% 43% ** 

Instructional aides 83% 86% 75% 81%

Instructional coaches 71% 40% ** 65% 21% ** 

Pupil support staff 31% 30% 40% 23%

Assistant principals 52% 29% 43% 19%

Principals 16% 8% 8% 1%

Note: Predictions generated from estimated regression models of probability of respondent reporting that decisions about hiring and selecting 

staff were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders controlling for district-level characteristics including enrollment size, urbanicity and 

incidence of FRPL, and using average WSF covariate values. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference between WSF and non-WSF 

districts. Values for WSF and non-WSF respondents are estimated at WSF average values for district size, poverty, and urbanicity (**p < .05, 

*p < .10). 

Source: Principal survey, Q10 (n = 104 WSF, 213 non-WSF); District survey, Q13 (n = 13 WSF, 237 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

44

Exhibit D-5. Principal reports on degree to which decisions about hiring and selecting staff were 

made by districts versus school staff and stakeholders

Source: Principal survey, Q10 (n = 104 WSF, 213 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

45

Exhibit D-6. Predicted percentage of principals and district administrators reporting that decisions 

about selecting instructional materials and other nonpersonnel resources and services 

were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders, in WSF and non-WSF districts

Principals District administrators

WSF Non-WSF WSF Non-WSF

Instructional software 45% 7% ** 53% 10% ** 

Curricular materials 31% 7% ** 31% 10%

Textbooks 25% 6% ** 24% 7%

Office supplies 96% 84% 100% 94%

Contracted services 36% 9% ** 65% 18% ** 

Food services 1% 0% ** 0% 2%

Note: Predictions generated from estimated regression models of probability of respondent reporting that decisions about instructional materials 

and other nonpersonnel resources and services were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders controlling for district-level characteristics 

including enrollment size, urbanicity and incidence of FRPL and using average WSF covariate values. Asterisks denote a statistically significant 

difference between WSF and non-WSF districts (**p < .05). 

Source: Principal survey, Q11 (n = 99 WSF, 207 non-WSF); District survey, Q14 (n = 13 WSF, 237 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

46

Exhibit D-7. Principal reports on degree to which decisions about selecting instructional materials 

and other nonpersonnel resources were made by districts versus school staff and 

stakeholders

Source: Principal survey, Q11 (n = 104 WSF, 213 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

47

Exhibit D-8. Predicted percentage of principals and district administrators reporting that instructional 

programming and professional development decisions were mostly made by school staff 

and stakeholders, in WSF and non-WSF districts

Principals District administrators

WSF Non-WSF WSF Non-WSF

Before- or after-school programming 57% 23% ** 51% 30%

Elective or non-core classes 54% 20% ** 83% 26% ** 

Summer programming 34% 4% ** 11% 4%

Professional development for staff 28% 9% * 25% 3%

Daily schedule 65% 56% 55% 43%

Note: Predictions generated from estimated regression models of probability of respondent reporting that decisions about instructional 

programming and professional development were mostly made by school staff and stakeholders controlling for district-level characteristics including 

enrollment size, urbanicity and incidence of FRPL and using average WSF covariate values. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference 

between WSF and non-WSF districts (**p < .05, *p < .10). 

Source: Principal survey, Q12 (n = 99 WSF, 207 non-WSF); District survey, Q15 (n = 13 WSF, 237 non-WSF).
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

48

Exhibit D-9. Principal reports on degree to which instructional programming and professional 

development decisions are made by districts versus schools

Source: Principal survey, Q12 (n = 104 WSF, 213 non-WSF). 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

49

Exhibit D-10. Regression results used to generate implicit weights for each case study district

District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 

Student poverty 1,426.2** –1,289.9 –507.1 –1,649.6** –225.7 –1,426.8 –1,720.7** 2207.6** –2,310.5* 

percentage (375.4) (879.2) (891.0) (686.0) (283.4) (1,076.8) (661.4) (818.4) (1,336.4) 

EL -502.4 2,284.3** 901.1 2,015.3** 266.9 –1,233.2 –264.3 –1,219.1 716.8 

percentage (487.0) (898.0) (606.7) (798.8) (301.5) (1,044.1) (853.5) (1,056.0) (828.1) 

SWD 1,781.2** 14,790.7** 17,098.9** 17,277.5** –3,325.6** 7,316.2** 11,834.7** 5,180.2* 12,236.1** 

percentage (892.4) (2,383.1) (2,275.9) (860.0) (1,084.9) (3,399.0) (2,241.4) (3,020.1) (1,537.0) 

Middle school –506.3** 4,789.0 257.7 992.5** 154.2 –2,428.1** –377.7 –1,373.5** 124.1 

proportion (174.7) (3,273.9) (505.4) (232.0) (138.6) (1,178.3) (621.2) (480.1) (459.9) 

High school 874.8** 2,228.0** 344.7 1,880.0** 1,084.4** 2,072.8** 492.7 -260.4 589.7 

proportion (309.5) (1,015.4) (320.2) (324.6) (199.4) (553.6) (370.0) (327.0) (453.7) 

Enrollment (ln) –1,564.2** –3,100.6** –931.6** –1,913.9** –624.7** –1,740.5** –65.27 –42.08 –1,415.1** 

(235.7) (357.3) (260.9) (218.6) (129.0) (402.6) (309.2) (270.3) (364.8) 

Constant term 5,487.0** 5,115.8** 6,108.3** 6,429.4** 4,667.6** 5,921.3** 8,623.0** 5,451.9** 7,726.2** 

(175.7) (949.8) (598.3) (363.6) (194.0) (923.7) (452.5) (355.8) (946.9) 

n 126 91 114 187 94 63 159 154 127 

R2 0.684 0.568 0.713 0.735 0.485 0.530 0.271 0.261 0.535 

Notes: The constant term represents the base amount, which is the amount that elementary students with no additional needs receive. The 

regression coefficients represent the additional dollar amounts received for a one-unit increase. For the student-need variables, this can be 

interpreted as the increase for a student with that particular characteristic. The implicit weights are calculated as the coefficient divided by the 

constant term. Data are for 2016–17 for eight districts and 2015–16 for one district. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference from 

zero (**p < .05, *p < .10). Standard errors are in parentheses.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures, student enrollment, and other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

50

Exhibit D-11. Estimated base per-pupil amounts, additional per-pupil amounts, and implicit weights 

for poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities using the implicit weight 

approach and using only unrestricted spending

School 

district

Base 

amount 

Poverty English learners Students with disabilities

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

District 1 $5,487 $1,426 0.26** –$502 –0.09 $1,781 0.32* 

District 2 $5,116 –$1,290 –0.25 $2,284 0.45** $14,791 2.89** 

District 3 $6,108 –$507 –0.08 $901 0.15 $17,099 2.80** 

District 4 $6,429 –$1,650 –0.26** $2,015 0.31** $17,278 2.69** 

District 5 $4,668 –$226 –0.05 $267 0.06 –$3,326 –0.71** 

District 6 $5,921 –$1,427 –0.24 –$1,233 –0.21 $7,316 1.24* 

District 7 $8,623 –$1,721 –0.20** -$264 –0.03 $11,835 1.37** 

District 8 $5,452 $2,208 0.40** –$1,219 –0.22 $5,180 0.95 

District 9 $7,726 –$2,311 –0.30** $717 0.09 $12,236 1.58** 

Notes: For the implicit weight analysis, “base amount” represents the amount that elementary students with no additional needs receive. 

“Additional amount” represents the additional dollar amount received for students with a particular need (free and reduced-price lunch, special 

education, or English learner). “Implicit weight” represents the proportional change from the base amount for a student with a particular need. 

Additional adjustments to the base amount included in the implicit weight analysis but not included in this table include adjustments for 

students in middle and high school grades and adjustments based on school size. Data are for 2016–17 for eight districts and 2015–16 for one 

district. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference from zero (**p < .05, *p < .10).

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures, student enrollment, and other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

51

Exhibit D-12. Estimated base per-pupil amounts and additional per-pupil amounts and implicit 

weights for poverty, English learners, and students with disabilities using the implicit 

weight approach and using total spending (unrestricted and restricted)

School 

district

Base 

amount 

Poverty English learners Students with disabilities

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

Additional 

amount 

Implicit 

weight

District 1 $5,487 $1,426 0.26** –$502 –0.09 $1,781 0.32* 

District 2 $4,900 –$900 –0.18 $1,640 0.33 $21,279 4.34** 

District 3 $6,104 $335 0.05 $854 0.14 $17,171 2.81** 

District 4 $5,890 –$1,060 –0.18 $2,403 0.41** $21,885 3.72** 

District 5 $4,337 $477 0.11 $568 0.13 $662 0.15

District 6 $6,814 –$827 –0.12 –$951 –0.14 $9,173 1.35* 

District 7 $8,455 –$215 –0.03 –$42 –0.01 $12,898 1.53** 

District 8 $5,687 $2,843 0.50** –$1,606 –0.28 $6,761 1.19* 

District 9 $7,153 $198 0.03 $245 0.03 $12,381 1.73** 

Notes: For the implicit weight analysis, “base amount” represents the amount that elementary students with no additional needs receive. 

“Additional amount” represents the additional dollar amount received for students with a particular need (free and reduced-price lunch, special 

education, or English learner). “Implicit weight” represents the proportional change from the base amount for a student with a particular need. 

Additional adjustments to the base amount included in the implicit weight analysis but not included in this table include adjustments for 

students in middle and high school grades and adjustments based on school size. Data are for 2016–17 for eight districts and 2015–16 for one 

district. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference from zero (**p < .05, *p < .10).

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures, student enrollment, and other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

52

Exhibit D-13. Estimates of the relationship between English learners and students with disabilities and 

per-pupil spending from unrestricted funds and total funds (unrestricted plus restricted), 

in eight WSF districts

English learners Students with disabilities

Tercile difference Implicit weight Tercile difference Implicit weight

Unrestricted 

funds

Unrestricted 

+ restricted

Unrestricted 

funds

Unrestricted 

+ restricted

Unrestricted 

funds

Unrestricted 

+ restricted

Unrestricted 

funds

Unrestricted 

+ restricted 

District 2 4% −2% 0.45** 0.33 30% 40% 2.89** 4.34** 

District 3 8% 9% 0.15 0.14 41% 39% 2.80** 2.81** 

District 4 −7% −4% 0.31** 0.41** 22% 24% 2.69** 3.72** 

District 5 2% 14% 0.06 0.13 −2% 9% −0.71** 0.15 

District 6 −18% −14% −0.21 −0.14 20% 19% 1.24* 1.35* 

District 7 −5% −6% −0.03 −0.01 18% 19% 1.37** 1.53** 

District 8 14% 17% −0.22 −0.28 18% 24% 0.95 1.19* 

District 9 −7% −10% 0.09 0.03 23% 24% 1.58** 1.73** 

Notes: “Tercile difference” represents the percentage difference between per-pupil spending in the highest and lowest poverty terciles of 

schools. “Implicit weight” represents the relative difference from the base amount associated with each FRPL student. District 1 is not included 

in this table because it did not provide data on school-level spending from restricted revenue sources. Data are for 2016–17 for eight districts 

and 2015–16 for one district. Asterisks denote a statistically significant difference from zero (**p < .05).

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures, student enrollment, and other demographic characteristics.

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

53

Exhibit D-14. Difference between high- and low-poverty schools generated by tercile analyses, for 

each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 6% 

Pre –6 4% −6% 

Pre –5 7% −15% 

Pre –4 8% 4% 18% −18% 

Pre –3 10% 4% 3% 9% −15% 

Pre –2 7% 5% −1% 5% −6% −23% 

Pre –1 9% 6% 0% −1% −5% −15% 

Post +1 16% 13% 13% −3% 6% −22% 

Post +2 18% 18% 3% −6% 8% 

Post +3 15% 10% −5% 7% 

Post +4 20% 11% −6% 10% −8% 

Post +5 22% −4% 8% −10% 

Post +6 20% 4% −10% 15% 

Post +7 5% −13% 32% 

Post +8 2% 1% 30% 

Post +9 1% −5% 25% 

Post +10 0% 18% 

Post +11 −1% 

Post +12 0% 1% 

Post +13 2% 4% 

Post +14 5% 6% 

Post +15 6% 

Post +16 7% 

Post +17 5% 

Notes: For the tercile analysis, we defined high-poverty schools as the top third of schools and low-poverty schools as the bottom third of 

schools based on the percentage of students eligible for FRPL.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

54

Exhibit D-15. Implicit weights for students in poverty generated by regression analyses, for each case 

study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF implementation 

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 0.09 

Pre –6 0.04 0.62 

Pre –5 −0.02 −0.24 

Pre –4 0.11 −0.22 −0.30 −0.23 

Pre –3 0.13 −0.05 −0.47 −0.12 −0.24 

Pre –2 0.18 −0.32 −0.54 −0.24 −0.32 −0.04 

Pre –1 0.21 −0.21 −0.46 −0.21 −0.15 −0.26 

Post +1 0.31 −0.21 −0.24 −0.23 −0.03 −0.24 

Post +2 0.26 −0.17 −0.22 −0.23 −0.05 

Post +3 −0.36 −0.08 −0.19 −0.05 

Post +4 −0.25 −0.03 −0.25 −0.01 −0.18 

Post +5 −0.05 −0.26 −0.17 −0.28 

Post +6 −0.08 −0.08 −0.29 0.21 

Post +7 −0.07 −0.31 0.56 

Post +8 −0.11 −0.21 0.39 

Post +9 −0.23 −0.20 0.27 

Post +10 −0.22 0.40 

Post +11 −0.17 

Post +12 −0.19 −0.15 

Post +13 −0.16 −0.08 

Post +14 −0.05 −0.09 

Post +15 −0.15 

Post +16 −0.17 

Post +17 −0.30 

Notes: The implicit weight represents the relative change from the base spending for students in poverty. The implicit weight analysis also 

includes additional spending adjustments not shown in this table for EL, SWD, total school enrollment, and shares of enrollment in the middle 

and high school grades.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

55

Exhibit D-16. Difference between high- and low-English learner schools generated by tercile analyses, 

for each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 −9% 

Pre –6 −14% 1% 

Pre –5 −12% 4% 

Pre –4 −12% 6% 3% −10% 

Pre –3 −11% −1% 8% 2% −5% 

Pre –2 −13% 4% 3% −5% 0% −3% 

Pre –1 −12% 4% −1% −5% 1% −7% 

Post +1 −7% 1% 1% −6% 8% −18% 

Post +2 −12% −1% 4% −9% 9% 

Post +3 1% 6% −12% 7% 

Post +4 4% 7% −9% 9% −2% 

Post +5 6% −7% 12% −5% 

Post +6 8% 5% −5% 9% 

Post +7 9% −7% 22% 

Post +8 4% −6% 23% 

Post +9 2% −5% 15% 

Post +10 5% 14% 

Post +11 2% 

Post +12 1% 5% 

Post +13 1% 2% 

Post +14 2% −2% 

Post +15 −3% 

Post +16 −5% 

Post +17 −7% 

Notes: For the tercile analysis, we defined high-EL schools as the top third of schools and low-EL schools as the bottom third of schools based 

on the percentage of EL students.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

56

Exhibit D-17. Implicit weights for English learner students generated by regression analyses, for each 

case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF implementation

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 −0.20 

Pre –6 −0.22 −0.08 

Pre –5 −0.06 −0.01 

Pre –4 −0.24 0.54 0.24 −0.03 

Pre –3 −0.30 0.44 0.33 0.43 0.12 

Pre –2 −0.32 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.07 −0.07 

Pre –1 −0.32 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.02 0.07 

Post +1 −0.15 0.31 −0.04 0.26 0.03 −0.21 

Post +2 −0.09 0.49 0.02 0.27 0.07 

Post +3 0.53 0.03 0.28 0.03 

Post +4 0.45 0.02 0.29 0.10 0.36 

Post +5 0.04 0.31 0.18 0.18 

Post +6 0.15 0.03 0.16 −0.01 

Post +7 0.07 0.10 −0.21 

Post +8 0.04 −0.02 −0.01 

Post +9 0.12 −0.03 −0.04 

Post +10 0.13 −0.22 

Post +11 0.10 

Post +12 0.11 0.15 

Post +13 0.12 0.08 

Post +14 0.06 −0.01 

Post +15 0.03 

Post +16 0.01 

Post +17 0.09 

Notes: The implicit weight represents the relative change from the base spending for ELs. The implicit weight analysis also includes additional 

spending adjustments not shown in this table for student poverty, SWD, total school enrollment, and shares of enrollment in the middle and 

high school grades.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

57

Exhibit D-18. Difference between high- and low-students with disabilities schools generated by tercile 

analyses, for each case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF 

implementation

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 21% 

Pre –6 25% −3% 

Pre –5 23% 4% 

Pre –4 24% 9% 31% 6% 

Pre –3 20% 8% 33% 28% 7% 

Pre –2 17% 13% 28% 29% 1% 5% 

Pre –1 14% 15% 31% 32% −6% 24% 

Post +1 12% 18% 30% 25% −9% 20% 

Post +2 18% 25% 27% 27% −5% 

Post +3 31% 31% 28% −4% 

Post +4 30% 28% 22% −6% 20% 

Post +5 38% 22% −7% 16% 

Post +6 41% −7% 16% 29% 

Post +7 −6% 13% 31% 

Post +8 0% 15% 22% 

Post +9 3% 18% 23% 

Post +10 0% 18% 

Post +11 −2% 

Post +12 0% 28% 

Post +13 −3% 30% 

Post +14 −2% 22% 

Post +15 26% 

Post +16 24% 

Post +17 23% 

Notes: For the tercile analysis, we defined high-SWD schools as the top third of schools and low-SWD schools as the bottom third of schools 

based on the percentage of SWDs. 

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

58

Exhibit D-19. Implicit weights for students with disabilities generated by regression analyses, for each 

case study district, for all years with available data pre- and post-WSF implementation

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9

Pre –7 0.59 

Pre –6 0.96 0.10 

Pre –5 1.51 0.02 

Pre –4 1.33 1.90 2.58 −0.24 

Pre –3 1.07 1.36 2.47 2.79 0.31 

Pre –2 0.18 1.85 2.28 3.52 −0.33 −0.06 

Pre –1 0.36 1.63 2.39 3.39 −0.72 0.98 

Post +1 0.01 1.77 2.87 2.50 −0.88 1.24 

Post +2 0.33 2.01 1.59 2.58 −0.51 

Post +3 3.67 1.71 2.46 −0.77 

Post +4 2.91 0.92 2.97 −0.92 1.10 

Post +5 2.88 2.69 −0.67 0.79 

Post +6 2.80 −0.92 1.03 4.29 

Post +7 −0.96 0.89 2.91 

Post +8 −0.70 0.90 2.09 

Post +9 −0.39 1.37 1.89 

Post +10 −0.80 0.95 

Post +11 −0.45 

Post +12 −0.11 2.21 

Post +13 −0.51 2.20 

Post +14 −0.71 1.85 

Post +15 2.01 

Post +16 1.93 

Post +17 1.59 

Notes: The implicit weight represents the relative change from the base spending for SWDs. The implicit weight analysis also includes additional 

spending adjustments not shown in this table for student poverty, ELs, total school enrollment, and shares of enrollment in the middle and high 

school grades.

Source: Calculations based on district-provided data on school-level expenditures from unrestricted revenue sources, student enrollment, and 

other demographic characteristics.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

59

Appendix E. Data Collection Instruments

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

60

District Administrator Survey

1. What is the total number of schools in your district?

Please provide a number in the box below.

Number of schools in your district

2. Are there policies in place that enable students and their families to apply for enrollment in 

schools of their choice that are within the district but outside of their neighborhood?

Please select all that apply, or check “No, there is no school choice mechanism in this district”.

 No, there is no school choice mechanism in this district.

 Yes, but parents may only apply for their child to transfer to another district school outside of their 

neighborhood under certain circumstances.

 Yes, parents can choose from schools throughout the district (open enrollment), and students are 

assigned based on parent choices and other factors such as availability of seats.

 Yes, they can apply to magnet schools based on the student’s interests and/or qualifications.

 Yes, they can apply to charter schools that the district operates.

 Yes, they can apply to charter schools in the area that are not run by our district.

 Yes, there is a local or state voucher program to support students’ attendance at private schools.

 Yes, we have another type of public school choice program. Please specify:

3. Does your district allocate any funding to schools on a per-pupil basis? 

Please select only one answer

 Yes, GO TO QUESTION 4

 No, GO TO QUESTION 12

4. For the current school year (2017-18), what percentage of your total district operational budget 

is distributed in the form of dollars to schools on a per-pupil basis? 

Your best estimate is fine. Please enter a percentage greater than 0 using a whole number in the box below. 

% Percentage of total district budget distributed as dollars on a per-pupil basis

5. Which of the following best describes the discretionary per-pupil funding schools receive?

Discretionary funds are those over which school leaders have authority to make spending decisions.

Please select only one answer

 Discretionary per-pupil funding covers the majority of the school-level operational budget, including 

core staff. GO TO QUESTION 6

 Discretionary dollars are largely for purchasing supplies and materials and/or supplemental staff 

positions. Core staff positions are determined by staffing formulas maintained by the district.

GO TO QUESTION 12

6. What is the base per-pupil allocation amount for schools in your district?

Please enter a dollar amount in the box below. Your best estimate is fine.

$ Base per-pupil allocation amount 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

61

7. How are per-pupil funds adjusted to account for student needs or demographics? 

Please select only one answer. 

 A base per-pupil amount is weighted according to student needs (for example, economically 

disadvantaged students count as an additional 0.5 students for funding allocations.) GO TO QUESTION 8a 

 An additional flat per-pupil allocation is provided for certain types of students (for example, $1,000 of 

additional funding is provided for each economically disadvantaged student.) GO TO QUESTION 8b 

 They are not adjusted. The per-pupil allocation is the same regardless of student needs. 

GO TO QUESTION 9 

8a. We are interested in the weights used by your district to allocate funds for the student needs 

categories that receive additional resources (for example, economically disadvantaged students, 

English learners, or students with disabilities).

Do you already have a document available that you can upload that provides the weights used by 

your district, or would you prefer to enter the information into the table at Question 8a.1 below?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, I have a document with this information that I will attach with my completed survey. GO TO 

QUESTION 9 

 No, I do not have a document that I can upload; I will fill in the table below. GO TO QUESTION 8a.1 

8a.1. Please enter the weights used to allocate funds to schools for each of the following student 

needs categories that receive additional resources.

Please enter a value between 1 and 10, or select “Not applicable” in each row. For example, 1.5 means 

students in this group generate 50% more funding than the base student amount. 

Weight Used Not Applicable

a. Economically disadvantaged students  Not applicable

b. English learners  Not applicable

c. Students with disabilities  Not applicable

d. Students in foster care  Not applicable

e. Homeless students  Not applicable

f. Students with low academic performance  Not applicable

g. Gifted and talented students  Not applicable

h. Elementary school students  Not applicable

i. Middle school students  Not applicable

j. High school students  Not applicable

k. Other; please specify: ___________________________

l. Other; please specify: ___________________________

m. Other; please specify: ___________________________
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

62

8b. We are interested in the additional dollar amount allocated by your district for each of the 

following student needs categories that receive additional resources (for example, economically 

disadvantaged students, English learners, or students with disabilities).

Do you already have a document available that you can upload that provides the additional 

dollar amount certain student groups receive, or would you prefer to enter information into the 

table at Question 8b.1 (see below)?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes, I have a document with this information that I will attach with my completed survey. GO TO 

QUESTION 9

 No, I do not have a document that I can attach; I will fill in a table on the next screen. GO TO Question 8b.1

8b.1 Please enter the additional dollar amount allocated to schools for each of the following student 

needs categories that receive additional resources. 

Please enter a value or select “Not applicable” in each row. For example, $100 means that students in this

group generate an additional $100 dollars of funding on top of the base student amount.

Additional Dollar Amount Not Applicable

a. Economically disadvantaged students $  Not applicable

b. English learners $  Not applicable

c. Students with disabilities $  Not applicable

d. Students in foster care $  Not applicable

e. Homeless students $  Not applicable

f. Students with low academic performance $  Not applicable

g. Gifted and talented students $  Not applicable

h. Elementary school students $  Not applicable

i. Middle school students $  Not applicable

j. High school students $  Not applicable

k. Other; please specify: $ 

l. Other; please specify: $ 

m. Other; please specify: $ 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

63

9. Does your system of school-level per-pupil funding provide additional dollars to small schools?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

10. In your district, are school funding levels adjusted during the year to account for increases or 

decreases in school enrollment?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes

 No

11. In which school year did your district begin its current system of distributing per-pupil funding to 

schools? 

Please enter the start of the School Year using the following format. Example 1999 or 2012.

Start of the school year district began distributing per-pupil funding to schools

12. Please indicate your district’s total general/unrestricted and categorical/restricted operational 

spending in the previous school year (2016-17), and the amount in each category that was 

provided to schools for their discretionary use.

General / Unrestricted refers to state and local funding that is notintended for a specific program or student group.

Categorical / Restricted refers to state and federal funding that is intended to be used on a specific program 

or set of students.

Please enter your best estimate in each box below. Enter $0 if applicable. The amount for discretionary use 

by schools should be less than the amount for the total operational spending.

General /

Unrestricted 

Categorical /

Restricted Total

a. Total operational spending (district + 

schools in total)

$ $ 

b. Amount for discretionary use by schools 

(amount should be less than the total 

operational spending)

$ $ 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

64

13. How much influence does the district have with respect to hiring the following staff compared 

with schools and their communities (principals, teachers, other school staff, and committees 

including parents and/or community members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If hiring decisions are made at a level above the district (e.g., by the 

state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by districtlevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared by 

district and 

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

a. Regular classroom teachers 

(core grades/subjects) 1 2 3 4 

b. Special education teachers 1 2 3 4 

c. Special area or resource 

teachers (e.g., English learner, 

art, music, technology)

1 2 3 4 

d. Instructional aides 1 2 3 4 

e. Instructional coaches 1 2 3 4 

f. Pupil support staff 

(e.g., counselors, psychologists, 

social workers)

1 2 3 4 

g. Assistant principals 1 2 3 4 

h. Principals 1 2 3 4 

14. How much influence does the district have with respect to selecting the following materials or 

services compared with schools and their communities (principals, teachers, other school staff, 

and committees including parents and/or community members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If hiring decisions are made at a level above the district (e.g., by the 

state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by 

district-level 

staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared by 

district and schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

a. Textbooks 1 2 3 4 

b. Curricular materials 1 2 3 4 

c. Instructional software 1 2 3 4 

d. Office supplies 1 2 3 4 

e. External non-district service 

providers (contracted services) 1 2 3 4 

f. Food services 1 2 3 4 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

65

15. How much influence does the district have with respect to making the following decisions about 

school instructional programs, compared with schools and their communities 

(principals, teachers, other school staff, and committees including parents and/or community 

members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If hiring decisions are made at a level above the district (e.g., by the 

state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by districtlevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared by 

district and 

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

a. Daily schedule 1 2 3 4 

b. Elective or non-core classes 

offered 1 2 3 4 

c. Before/after school 

programming 1 2 3 4 

d. Summer programming 1 2 3 4 

e. Professional development for 

staff 1 2 3 4 

16. Which of the following types of services and materials, if any, are schools in your district 

permitted to purchase from external (non-district) vendors?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 Professional development services

 Pupil support student services (such as mental health, nursing)

 Supplemental educational services (such as before/after school program, tutoring)

 Facilities/janitorial services

 Food services

 Security services

 Technology/communications services

 Computer software/hardware/equipment

 Instructional materials

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

66

17. Thinking about the schools in your district that serve the highest proportion of economically 

disadvantaged students, please indicate whether those schools receive less or more resources 

than other schools to support the following areas?

Please select one answer in each row.

Substantially

less

Somewhat

less

About 

the same

amount

Somewhat

more

Substantially

more

a. School operational budget per pup 1 2 3 4 5 

b. Provision of high-quality, 

rigorous courses 1 2 3 4 5 

c. Access to more experienced 

teachers 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Access to more effective 

teachers 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Smaller class sizes 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Timely professional development 

opportunities for staff 1 2 3 4 5 

g. Up-to-date curricular and 

instructional materials 1 2 3 4 5 

h. Computers and other technology 

to support student learning 1 2 3 4 5 

i. Safe and adequate facilities 1 2 3 4 5 

18. Which of the following types of information do you provide to principals regarding the resources 

their school will receive?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, select “None of the above.”

 The amount of discretionary funding the school will receive from general unrestricted funding sources.

 The amount of discretionary funding the school will receive from restricted funding sources (such as 

Title I, Title II, Title III and/or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

 The number of staffing positions the school will receive from the general budget.

 The number of staffing positions the school will receive from restricted funding sources (such as Title I, 

Title II, Title III, and/or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

 The cost of district-provided services received by the school.

 The total school-level operational budget consisting of all discretionary and non-discretionary resources 

from all funds.

 A general description of how funding or staffing levels for their school were determined.

 The specific calculation of how funding or staffing levels were determined for their school (e.g. a 

spreadsheet showing how the calculations were made).

OR 

 None of the above.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

67

19. How does your district communicate information to schools about the resources they will 

receive? 

Please select all that apply. 

 A meeting with principals once a year 

 Multiple meetings with principals 

 Training for principals 

 Training for other school staff 

 E-mails or other written notices 

 Posting information on internal district website 

 Posting information publicly on district website 

 Other, please specify: 

20. To what extent are each of the following a priority in your district’s system of allocating 

resources to schools? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Not a 

priority

Low

priority

Moderate 

priority

High 

priority

a. Transparency in how resources are allocated to 

schools 1 2 3 4 

b. Principal control over budgeting decisions at their 

schools 1 2 3 4 

c. Principal accountability for student outcomes 1 2 3 4 

d. Equitable resource allocation between high- and 

low-needs schools 1 2 3 4 

e. Participation in school decision-making by 

stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, community 

members) 1 2 3 4 

21. To what extent are each of the following a districtwide challenge? 

Please select one answer in each row. 

Not a

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Major

challenge 

a. Inequity in resource allocation across schools in the 

district 1 2 3 4 

b. Insufficient transparency in how resources are 

allocated to schools 1 2 3 4 

c. Concerns from school-level staff about the process 

of allocating resources to schools 1 2 3 4 

d. Unpredictable levels of student needs that could 

affect the allocation of resources to schools 1 2 3 4
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

68

22. With regard to principals, to what extent are each of the following a districtwide challenge?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Major

challenge 

a. Principals need additional training on how to make 

effective decisions regarding instructional 

programming for their school

1 2 3 4 

b. Principals need additional training on how to make 

budgeting and resource allocation decisions for their 

school 

1 2 3 4 

c. Principals need additional training on compliance with 

regulations surrounding the use of categorical funding

for particular student populations (e.g., English 

learners, special education, etc.)

1 2 3 4 

23. During the previous school year (2016-17, including summer 2017), which of the following best 

describes the professional development offered to school-level staff involved in budget 

development/management? 

Please select only one answer.

 Professional development on budget development/management was not offered to school-level staff.

 Professional development on budget development/management was offered on an optional basis to 

school-level staff.

 Professional development on budget development/management was required for staff from some (but 

not all) schools.

 Professional development on budget development/management was required for staff from all schools.

24. Other than formal professional development, what additional training or support on budget 

development/management are available to schools from the district?

Please select all that apply, or if none of the statements apply, select “None of the above.”

 There is a specific district staff person assigned to each school to assist with budget development/management. 

 District-level staff are available for in-person technical assistance as needed. 

 District-level staff are available by phone to provide technical assistance as needed. 

 Online resources are available, including documents, videos, and/or training modules.

 Other, please specify: 

OR 

 None of the above.

25. How many full-time equivalent staff in total in your district office support schools with their 

budget development/management? 

Enter number of full-time equivalent staff (FTEs)

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

69

26. How much of a challenge are each of the following with respect to the per-pupil funding system 

in your district?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a

Challenge 

Minor 

Challenge 

Moderate 

Challenge 

Major

Challenge 

a. Inadequate data to help inform principal decisions 1 2 3 4 

b. Inadequate communication from the district to principals 1 2 3 4 

c. Insufficient training for principals (e.g., none 

available, poor quality training) 1 2 3 4 

d. Inadequate principal knowledge/skill to make 

budgeting decisions 1 2 3 4 

e. Inadequate principal knowledge/skill to make 

instructional decisions 1 2 3 4 

f. Difficulty predicting school resources from year to year 1 2 3 4 

g. Difficulty obtaining buy-in from school-level staff 1 2 3 4 

h. Difficulty obtaining community buy-in 1 2 3 4 

i. Unsteady commitment to the system from districtlevel staff 1 2 3 4 

27. What could happen if a school’s spending is more than its discretionary per-pupil budget?

Please select all that apply, or the “Not Applicable” option. If none of the statements apply, please select 

“None of the above.”

 As a penalty, the amount overspent could be deducted from the school’s budget the following year.

 Principal could receive additional training on budget development.

 Principal could receive additional training on budget monitoring.

 Principal could be given control over a smaller portion of their school’s total budget the following year.

 Other, please specify:

 Not Applicable. Administrative budgeting and accounting system safeguards are in place that prevent 

schools from spending more than their discretionary budget. 

 None of the above.

 

25a. Please refer back to Question 3. Did you answer “yes” or “no” to the question “Does your 

district allocate any amount of funding to schools on a per-pupil basis?” 

 Yes [My district allocates funding to schools on a per-pupil basis.] GO TO QUESTION 25b

 No [My district does not allocate funding to schools on a per-pupil basis.] GO TO QUESTION 35

25b. Please refer back to Question 5. Which option did you select?

 Discretionary per-pupil funding covers the majority of the school-level operational budget, 

including core staff. GO TO QUESTION 26

 Discretionary dollars are largely for purchasing supplies and materials and/or supplemental staff 

positions. Core staffing positions are determined separately. GO TO QUESTION 35
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

70

28. What could happen if a school’s spending is less than its discretionary per-pupil budget?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, select “None of the above.”

 Funds could roll over to the next year.

 Schools could lose the funds that were not spent.

 The principal could receive additional training on budget development. 

 The principal could receive additional training on budget management. 

 The principal could be given control over a smaller portion of their school’s total budget the following 

year.

 Other, please specify:

 None of the above.

29. What could happen if a school does not meet performance targets?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 Principals could be given less autonomy over hiring and personnel decisions.

 Principals could be given control over a smaller portion of their school’s total budget.

 The district could more closely evaluate the school’s proposed budget and site plans.

 The district could more closely monitor the implementation of next year’s budget and site plans.

 Other, please specify:

 None of the above.

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

71

30. Comparing the current school year (2017-18) with the school year before your 

per-pupil funding system was implemented, please indicate the extent to which the following 

changes occurred in your district.

Please select one answer in each row.

Decreased 

Substantially 

Decreased 

Slightly 

Stayed 

About the 

Same

Increased 

Slightly 

Increased 

Substantially Unsure

a. Level of funding in 

schools with a greater 

proportion of highneeds students relative 

to schools with fewer 

high needs students

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Level of funding for 

small schools relative to 

larger schools

1 2 3 4 5  6 

c. Level of funding for 

charter schools relative 

to traditional schools

1 2 3 4 5  6 

d. Quality of the 

instructional program 

in schools with higher 

concentrations of highneeds students

1 2 3 4 5  6 

e. Share of total schoollevel resources under 

principals’ control

1 2 3 4 5  6 

f. Principals’ ability to use 

their school resources 

to address the needs of 

their students

1 2 3 4 5  6 

g. Principals’ ability to 

implement new and/or 

innovative approaches 

to educate their 

students 

1 2 3 4 5  6 

h. Teacher involvement in 

decisions about how to 

use staff and funding at 

their schools

1 2 3 4 5  6 

i. Parent involvement in 

decisions about how to 

use staff and funding at 

their schools

1 2 3 4 5  6 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

72

31. Please indicate whether your district used a hold-harmless provision to protect schools from a 

sudden decline in funding level at the time of initial implementation or your per-pupil funding 

system?

A hold-harmless provision ensures that no school is funded at a lower level than the prior year.

Please select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 32

 No GO TO QUESTION 33

32. For how many years are schools in your district held harmless, or gradually phased out of being 

held harmless, under this provision?

Please enter a number in the box below, or if there is no defined number of years check the box that the 

hold-harmless provision will continue indefinitely.

Years schools held harmless. 

OR

 Hold-harmless provision will continue indefinitely

33. Has your district discussed or engaged in applying actual rather than average teacher salaries to 

school budgets?

Please select only one answer.

 No, this has not been discussed. Our district applies average teacher salaries to school budgets.

 Yes, this has been discussed, but there are no firm plans to do so. Our district applies average teacher 

salaries to school budgets.

 Yes, this has been discussed and there are plans in place to move from average to actual teacher 

salaries in the near future.

 Yes, this has been discussed and we currently apply actual teacher salaries to school budgets.

34. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements regarding schoollevel per-pupil funding systems and school choice systems. 

Please select only one answer per row.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree

a. In districts with school choice, having a schoollevel funding system helps ensure schools of 

different types are funded fairly.

1 2 3 4 

b. Having a school-level per-pupil funding system 

promotes increased use of school choice 

policies.

1 2 3 4 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

73

34a. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statement regarding your 

district’s school-level per-pupil funding system and charter schools. 

Please select only one answer per row.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree

Strongly

Agree Don’t know

Not 

Applicable

Charter schools receive 

funds through the 

school-level per-pupil 

funding system 

according to the same 

formula that other 

schools do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 

35. Please select the title that best represents your primary position within your district.

Please select only one answer. If you have more than one job title, please select the title for the job in which 

you spend a majority of your time.

 Assistant Superintendent

 Budget Director

 Chief Academic Officer

 Chief Budget Officer/Chief Financial Officer

 Communications or Public Information Director

 Federal Program Administrator

 Finance Director

 Non-Federal Program Administrator

 Research Administrator

 Superintendent

 Other, please specify:

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

74

36. How long have you held this position in this district? 

Please count the current school year as one full year. Please select only one answer.

 1 year or less

 2 - 3 years

 4 - 6 years

 7 - 10 years

 More than 10 years

37. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to support up 

to 50 school districts in piloting new or revised weighted student funding systems that provide 

resources to schools largely in the form of dollars allocated on a per-pupil basis, using funding 

adjustments for certain student subgroups in order to provide more resources to schools with 

greater needs. In such systems, school principals typically have discretion (in consultation with 

other staff and stakeholders) over how these dollars are used, giving schools more autonomy 

regarding the instructional programming and services provided to students.

Might your school district be interested in applying to participate in piloting new or improved 

weighted student funding systems?

 Yes

 No

 Unsure at this time

38. Please select the titles of all of the staff that assisted you in completing this survey.

Please select all that apply. If no one provided assistance, please select “None of the above.”

 Administrative Assistant/Secretary

 Assistant Principal/Vice Principal

 Assistant Superintendent

 Budget Director

 Chief Academic Officer

 Chief Budget Officer/Chief Financial Officer

 Communications or Public Information Director

 Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Finance Director

 Non-Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Principal

 Research Administrator

 School Board President/Member

 Superintendent

 Other, please specify:

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

75

Principal Survey

1. Which of the following best describes your school?

Please select only one answer.

 Regular elementary and/or secondary school (a public elementary or secondary school that does not

focus primarily on vocational, special, or alternative education)

 Magnet school

 Charter school

 Innovation school (or other public school with more flexibility 

given)

 Vocational/technical school (a public elementary or secondary 

school that focuses primarily on vocational or career and 

technical education and provides education in one or more 

semiskilled technical operations)

 Special education school

 Adult day school

 Other alternative school

 Preschool or early childhood education center that 

does not serve grades above kindergarten

 Other, please specify:

2. On or around the first of October 2017, how many students in total were enrolled in your school?

Please provide a number in the box below.

Total number of students enrolled

3. Of all the students enrolled in your school on or around the first of October 2017, how many 

were in each of the following categories?

Please provide a number for each row. If “0,” select the box “None.” Students can be counted in more than 

one category. However, the total number of students in each row should not exceed the number of students 

enrolled that you provided in question 2).

Number of Students 

a. Eligible for free or reduced-price lunches  None

 Check here if this school is implementing the 

Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).

b. Students with individualized education 

plans (IEPs)

 None

c. English learners (ELs)  None

 

Thank you for responding to the 

survey.

This is the only question we have for 

adult day schools, alternative 

schools, or preschools/early 

childhood education centers that do 

not serve upper grades at this time.

Please return this survey using the 

return envelope.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

76

4. Does your school enroll any students from outside the school’s attendance area (i.e., students 

who applied or chose to attend)?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 5

 No GO TO QUESTION 6

5. In the current school year (2017-18), how many students are enrolled in your school from 

outside the school’s attendance area (i.e., who applied or chose to attend)?

Your best estimate is fine. Please provide a number in in the box below.

Total number of students that choose to attend your school in school year 2017-18

6. Does your district allocate any funding to your school on a per-pupil basis? 

Please select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 7

 No GO TO QUESTION 10

7. For the current school year (2017-18), what percentage of your school budget was provided on a 

per-pupil basis? 

Your best estimate is fine. Please enter a percentage greater than 0 using whole numbers in the box below.

% Percentage of funds provided to your school on a per-pupil basis

8. Which of the following best describes the discretionary per-pupil funding your school receives?

Please select only one answer. Discretionary funds are those over which school leaders have authority to 

make spending decisions.

 Discretionary per-pupil funding covers the majority of the school-level operational budget, including 

core staff. GO TO QUESTION 9 

 Discretionary dollars are largely for purchasing supplies and materials and/or supplemental staff 

positions. Core staff positions are determined by staffing formulas maintained by the district. GO TO 

QUESTION 10

9. How are per-pupil funds distributed to schools in your district adjusted to account for student 

needs or demographics?

Please select only one answer.

 A base per-pupil amount is weighted according to student needs. For example, economically 

disadvantaged students count as an additional 0.5 students for funding allocations. 

 An additional flat per-pupil allocation is provided for certain types of students. For example, $1,000 of 

additional funding is provided for each economically disadvantaged student. 

 They are not adjusted. The per-pupil allocation is the same regardless of student needs. 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

77

10. How much influence does the district have with respect to hiring the following staff compared 

with your school community (school administrators, teachers, other school staff, and 

committees including parents and/or community members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If decisions are made at a level above the district 

(e.g., by the state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by districtlevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared 

by district and 

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

a. Regular classroom teachers

(core grades/subjects) 1 2 3 4 

b. Special education teachers 1 2 3 4 

c. Special area or resource teachers 

(e.g., English learner, art, music, 

technology) 

1 2 3 4 

d. Instructional aides 1 2 3 4 

e. Instructional coaches 1 2 3 4 

f. Pupil support staff (e.g., counselors, 

psychologists, social workers) 1 2 3 4 

g. Assistant principals 1 2 3 4 

h. Principals 1 2 3 4 

11. How much influence does the district have with respect to selecting the following materials or 

services compared with your school community (school administrators, teachers, other school 

staff, and committees including parents and/or community members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If decisions are made at a level above the district 

(e.g., by the state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by districtlevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared 

by district and 

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

a. Textbooks 1 2 3 4 

b. Curricular materials 1 2 3 4 

c. Instructional software 1 2 3 4 

d. Office supplies 1 2 3 4 

e. External (non-district) service 

providers (contracted services) 1 2 3 4 

f. Food services 1 2 3 4 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

78

12. How much influence does the district have with respect to making the following decisions about 

school instructional programs, compared with your school community (school administrators, 

teachers, other school staff, and committees including parents and/or community members)?

Please select one answer in each row. If decisions are made at a level above the district 

(e.g., by the state), please select “Decision mostly made by district-level staff and/or stakeholders.”

Decision mostly 

made by districtlevel staff and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision shared 

by district and 

school-level staff 

and/or 

stakeholders 

Decision mostly 

made by schoollevel staff and/or 

stakeholders Unsure

f. Daily schedule 1 2 3 4 

g. Elective or non-core classes 

offered 1 2 3 4 

h. Before/after school 

programming 1 2 3 4 

i. Summer programming 1 2 3 4 

j. Professional development for 

staff 1 2 3 4 

13. Which of the following types of services and materials, if any, is your school permitted to 

purchase from external (non-district) vendors?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 Professional development services

 Pupil support services (such as mental health, nursing)

 Supplemental educational services (such as before/after school program, tutoring)

 Facilities/janitorial services

 Food services

 Security services

 Technology/communications services

 Computer software/hardware/equipment

 Instructional materials

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

79

14. Thinking about the schools in your district that serve the highest proportion of economically 

disadvantaged students, please indicate whether those schools receive less or more resources 

than other schools to support the following areas.

Please select one answer in each row.

Substantially

less

Somewhat

less

About the

same

amount 

Somewhat

more

Substantially

more

a. School operational budget per 

pupil 1 2 3 4 5

b. Provision of high-quality, 

rigorous courses

1 2 3 4 5 

c. Access to more experienced 

teachers 1 2 3 4 5 

d. Access to more effective 

teachers 1 2 3 4 5 

e. Smaller class sizes 1 2 3 4 5 

f. Timely professional 

development opportunities for 

staff 

1 2 3 4 5 

g. Up-to-date curricular and 

instructional materials 1 2 3 4 5 

h. Computers and other technology 

to support student learning 1 2 3 4 5 

i. Safe and adequate facilities 1 2 3 4 5 

15. Does your school have a school site council (including parents, teachers, and/or other 

community members) that provide input on budget or programming decisions for the school?

Please select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 16

 No GO TO QUESTION 17

16. On which of the following decisions does the school site council (including parents, teachers, 

and/or other community members) provide input?

Please select all that apply.

 Budget allocations

 Curriculum

 School scheduling

 Hiring teachers

 Hiring administrators

 Library resources

 After school activities

 School events

 Other decisions; please specify below.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

80

17. How much influence do each of the following stakeholders have on budget decisions at your 

school?

Please select one answer in each row.

No Influence

Limited 

Influence

Moderate 

Influence

Significant 

Influence

a. District staff 1 2 3 4 

b. Principal (you) 1 2 3 4 

c. Other school administrative staff 1 2 3 4 

d. Teachers 1 2 3 4 

e. Other school support staff 1 2 3 4 

f. Parents 1 2 3 4 

g Students 1 2 3 4 

h. Other community stakeholders 1 2 3 4 

18. How clear to you are the following in your district?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not at all 

clear 

Somewhat 

clear 

Moderately 

clear 

Extremely 

clear 

a. How the amounts of funding 

distributed to each school is 

determined by the central district 

office. 

1 2 3 4 

b. How the numbers of different staff 

types are allocated to schools. 1 2 3 4 

c. How specific staff are assigned to 

particular schools. 1 2 3 4 

d. Where to obtain details about how my 

school’s budget allocation was 

calculated this year.

1 2 3 4 

e. Who I can ask for more information 

about how my school’s budget 

allocation was determined.

1 2 3 4 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

81

19. Which of the following types of information do you receive from the district regarding the 

resources provided to your school?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 The amount of discretionary funding your school will receive from general unrestricted funding sources.

 The amount of discretionary funding provided to your school from restricted funding sources (such as 

Title I, Title II, Title III and/or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

 The number of staffing positions your school will receive from general unrestricted funding sources.

 The number of staffing positions provided to your school from restricted funding sources (such as Title I, 

Title II, Title III, and/or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act).

 The cost of district-provided services received by your school.

 Your total school-level operational budget consisting of all funding from discretionary and nondiscretionary sources.

 A general description of how funding or staffing levels for your school were determined.

 The specific calculation of how funding or staffing levels were determined for your school (e.g. a 

spreadsheet showing how the calculations were made).

OR

 None of the above.

20. How does your district communicate information about your school budget to your school?

Please select all that apply.

 Annual principal meeting

 Ongoing principal meetings

 Training for principals

 Training for other school staff

 E-mails or other written notices

 Posting information on internal district website

 Posting information publicly on district website

 Other, please specify:

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

82

21. Is the primary responsibility for developing your school budget handled by your school, the 

district, or is this responsibility shared by your school and the district?

Please select only one answer.

 School GO TO QUESTION 22

 District GO TO QUESTION 24

 Shared by school and the district GO TO QUESTION 22

22. Which staff member in your school assumes primary responsibility for developing your school 

budget?

Please select only one answer.

 Principal

 Assistant principal

 School budget officer, bookkeeper, or secretary

 Another staff member, please specify:

23. For the current school year (2017-18), how many hours did all staff at your school spend 

developing your school budget?

Please select only one answer. 

 Less than 5 hours

 5 - 10 hours

 11 - 15 hours

 16 - 30 hours

 More than 30 hours

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

83

24. Is the primary responsibility for managing the budget handled by your school, the district, or is 

this responsibility shared by your school and the district?

Please select only one answer.

 School GO TO QUESTION 25

 District GO TO QUESTION 27

 Shared by school and the district GO TO QUESTION 25

25. Which staff member in your school assumes primary responsibility for managing your school budget?

Please select only one answer.

 Principal

 Assistant principal

 School budget officer, bookkeeper, or secretary

 Another staff member, please specify:

26. What is the expected number of hours all staff at your school will spend managing your school 

budget in the current school year (2017-18)?

Please select only one answer. Your best estimate is fine.

 Less than 5 hours

 5 - 10 hours

 11 - 15 hours

 16 - 30 hours

 More than 30 hours

27. During the previous school year (2016-17, including summer 2017), did you receive any hours of 

professional development in school planning/program design? 

Only include workshops, coursework, and conferences offered or paid for by your district or state. Please 

select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 28

 No GO TO QUESTION 29

28. How many hours of professional development in school planning/program design did you 

receive during the previous school year (2016-17, including summer 2017)?

Only include workshops, coursework, and conferences sponsored by your district or state. Please select only 

one answer.

 Less than 5 hours

 5 - 10 hours

 11 - 15 hours

 16 - 30 hours

 More than 30 hours

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

84

29. During the previous school year (2016-17, including summer 2017), did you receive any hours of 

professional development on budget development/management? 

Only include workshops, coursework, and conferences offered or paid for by your district or state. Please 

select only one answer.

 Yes GO TO QUESTION 30

 No GO TO QUESTION 31

30. How many hours of professional development in budget development/management did you 

receive during the previous school year (2016-17, including summer 2017)?

Only include workshops, coursework, and conferences sponsored by your district or state. Please select only 

one answer.

 Less than 5 hours

 5 - 10 hours

 11 - 15 hours

 16 - 30 hours

 More than 30 hours

31. What additional training or support is available to your school from the district on budget 

development/management outside of formal professional development?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 There is a specific district staff person assigned to our school to assist with budget 

development/management.

 District-level staff are available for in-person technical assistance as needed. 

 District-level staff are available by phone to provide technical assistance as needed. 

 Online resources are available, including documents, videos, and/or training modules.

 Other, please specify:

OR 

 None of the above.

32. On which of the following topics do you feel you need additional training or information? 

Please select all that apply.

 Technical aspects of budget development/management

 Rules and regulations surrounding use of categorical funds

 Conducting a needs assessment

 Using resources more efficiently

 Selecting programs/resources for at-risk students

 Selecting programs/resources for English learners

 Selecting programs/resources for special education students

 Other, please specify:
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

85

33. How much of a challenge is each of the following with respect to the system of school-level 

funding in your school?

Please select one answer in each row.

Not a

challenge 

Minor 

challenge 

Moderate 

challenge 

Major

challenge 

a. Insufficient training for principals (e.g., lack of availability 

or poor quality training) 1 2 3 4 

b. Inadequate data to help inform principal decisions 1 2 3 4 

c. Inadequate communication from the district 1 2 3 4 

d. Difficulty predicting school resources from year to year 1 2 3 4 

e. Difficulty coordinating with district staff regarding 

resource allocation decisions 1 2 3 4 

f. Difficulty obtaining community buy-in 1 2 3 4 

g. Difficulty obtaining buy-in from school staff 1 2 3 4 

h. Unsteady commitment to the system from district-level 

staff 1 2 3 4 

34.

35. What could happen if your end-of-year spending is more than your school's discretionary budget?

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 As a penalty, the amount overspent could be deducted from my school’s total budget the following year.

 I could receive additional training on budget development. 

 I could receive additional training on budget management. 

 I could be given discretion over a smaller part of my school’s total budget the following year.

 Not Applicable. Administrative budgeting and accounting system safeguards are in place that prevent 

schools from spending more than their discretionary budget. 

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above.

36. What could happen if your end-of-year spending is less than your school's discretionary budget? 

34a. Please refer back to Question 6. Which option did you select?

 Yes [My district allocates funding to schools on a per-pupil basis.] GO TO QUESTION 34b

 No [My district does not allocate funding to schools on a per-pupil basis.] GO TO 

QUESTION 39

34b. Please refer back to Question 8. Which option did you select?

 Discretionary per-pupil funding covers the majority of the school-level operational budget, 

including core staff. GO TO QUESTION 35

 Discretionary dollars are largely for purchasing supplies and materials or supplemental 

staff positions. Core staff positions are determined by staffing formulas maintained by the 

district. GO TO QUESTION 39
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

86

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 Funds could roll over to the next year.

 I could lose the funds that were not spent.

 I could receive additional training on budget development. 

 I could receive additional training on budget management. 

 I could be given discretion over a smaller part of my school’s total budget the following year.

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above.

37. What could happen if your school does not meet its performance targets? 

Please select all that apply. If none of the statements apply, please select “None of the above.”

 I could be given less autonomy over hiring and personnel decisions.

 I could be given control over a smaller portion of my school’s total budget.

 The district could more closely evaluate my school’s proposed budget and site plans for next year.

 The district could more closely monitor the implementation of next year’s budget and site plans.

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above.

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

87

38. Comparing the current school year (2017-18) to the school year before your per-pupil funding 

system was implemented, please indicate the extent to which the following changes occurred in 

your district.

Please select one answer in each row.

Decreased

substantially

Decreased

slightly

Stayed

about the

same

Increased

slightly

Increased

substantially Unsure

a. Level of funding in 

schools with a greater 

proportion of highneeds students relative 

to schools with fewer 

high-needs students

1 2 3 4 5 6 

b. Level of funding for 

small schools relative to 

larger schools

1 2 3 4 5 6 

c. Level of funding for 

charter schools relative 

to traditional schools

1 2 3 4 5 6 

d. Quality of the 

instructional program 

in schools with higher 

concentrations of fewer 

high-needs students

1 2 3 4 5 6 

e. Share of total schoollevel resources under 

principals’ control

1 2 3 4 5 6 

f. Principals’ ability to use 

school resources to 

address the needs of 

their students

1 2 3 4 5 6 

g. Principals’ ability to 

implement new and/or 

innovative approaches 

to educate their 

students 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

h. Teacher involvement in 

decisions about how to 

use staff and funding at 

their schools

1 2 3 4 5 6 

i. Parent involvement in 

decisions about how to 

use staff and funding at 

their schools

1 2 3 4 5 6 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

88

39. Please select the title that best represents your primary position within your district.

Please select only one answer. If you have more than one job title, please select the title on the job that you 

spend a majority of your time.

 Principal

 Assistant Principal/Vice Principal

 Bookkeeper

 Budget Director at the District office

 Budget Director at your school

 Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Finance Director

 Non-Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Research Administrator

 Teacher

 Other, please specify:

40. How long have you held this position in this district? 

Please select only one answer. Please count the current school year as one full year.

 1 year or less

 2 - 3 years

 4 - 6 years

 7 - 10 years

 More than 10 years

41. Please select the titles of all of the staff that assisted you in completing this survey.

Please select all that apply. If no one provided assistance, please select “None of the above.”

 Administrative Assistant/Secretary

 Assistant Principal/Vice Principal

 Assistant Superintendent

 Bookkeeper

 Budget Director at the district office 

 Budget Director at your school 

 Chief Academic Officer

 Chief Budget Officer/Chief Financial Officer

 Communications or Public Information Director

 Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Finance Director

 Non-Federal Program Administrator/Manager

 Principal

 Research Administrator

 School Board President/Member

 Secretary

 Superintendent

 Teacher

 Other, please specify:

OR

 None of the above.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

89

District Request for Documents (RFD)

We are requesting the following documents and materials:

1. Materials describing the annual school-level budgeting/planning process. We are interested in any 

documents you can share that explain how school budgets in your district are developed annually, 

who is involved, and how resource allocation decisions are made. Ideally, this information would 

include a description of the weighted student funding formula, the types of services and staff/

nonpersonnel resources the central district office provides to schools, a list of personnel and 

nonpersonnel resources that are under the discretion of the school principal, and any guidance to 

principals regarding budgeting and planning. If this has changed over the past five years, please 

include historical as well as current documents.

2. Documentation of the weighted student funding formula. We are interested in any documents that 

describe how funds are distributed to schools, including base per pupil amounts, funding weights for 

particular groups of students or other factors related to the cost of services, the identification of 

revenue sources that are distributed through the WSF system, any hold harmless agreements/ 

provisions that have been established, and any other information you think might be helpful for us 

to understand your system and processes. If any of these have changed over the past five years,

please include historical as well as current documents.

3. Complete school-level budgets for three years before WSF implementation, and all years since WSF 

implementation. We are interested in understanding planned spending in schools in your district before 

and after WSF implementation. If your district is small (i.e., fewer than 10 schools), we would like to 

request budgets from all schools. If your district is larger, we will work with you to request budgets from a 

sample of schools representing different levels of student need and schooling levels. If your district began 

implementing WSF before 2010, we will work with you to request budgets from a sample of WSF years.

4. Audited expenditure files for your district for five years before WSF implementation, and all years since

WSF implementation. In these files, please include the standard codes used in your chart of accounts 

(object, function, etc.) and site codes that identify individual schools. We are interested in 

understanding expenditures overall and by school in your district before and after WSF implementation.

5. Chart of Accounts. Lists of the chart of accounts codes for your district covering all budget and 

expenditure file years requested. To interpret and analyze budgets and audited expenditures, we are 

requesting from schools in your district who are participating in the study, we would like to request the 

account codes used by your district (e.g., State Accounting Manual) and/or district — particularly the 

revenue and fund codes, object of expenditure codes, and function codes. If the current chart of 

accounts differs from the fiscal years covered in the expenditure and budget files you share with us, 

please provide a chart of accounts for prior years as appropriate.

6. School Enrollments. School enrollment figures for each of the schools in your district for each school 

year for which you are providing a budget and/or audited expenditure files, by student category. We 

would like to know total student enrollment for these schools so that we can understand budgeted 

expenditures (being requested from schools directly) in per-pupil terms. We are also interested in 

counts of students in each category that your WSF formula considers in allocating funds.

7. Any other written documentation. It would also be useful for us to see any other written planning 

documentation, budget narratives, or funding applications related to your district’s weighted 

student funding system.
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

90

District Pre-Interview Survey

1. We are interested in the structure of your funding formula to distribute funds from the district 

to schools.

a. What is the base per-pupil allocation amount for schools in your district? 

Please enter dollar amounts in the box below.

Elementary school: $ Base per-pupil allocation amount 

Middle school: $ Base per-pupil allocation amount 

High school: $ Base per-pupil allocation amount 

b. Please attach a copy of your funding formula documentation.

c. Please indicate the student needs categories that receive additional resources in the school 

funding allocation formula by entering the weights used (in Column A)

OR additional dollar amounts prescribed by the formula (in Column B). 

Then in Column C, please provide the definition of each applicable student needs category. If a 

category is not applicable, please check “Not Applicable in Column D.

Please enter a value in either column A, column B, or select “Not applicable” in column D for each 

row. Enter the definition in column C for all applicable categories 

Column A Column B Column C Column D

Weight Used (for 

example, 1.5 means 

students in this group 

generate 50% more 

funding than the base 

amount)

Additional Dollar Amount 

(for example, $100 means 

that students in this group 

generate an additional $100 

dollars of funding on top of 

the base student amount)

Definition of 

student needs 

category Not applicable

Economically 

disadvantaged 

students 

 Not applicable

English learners  Not applicable

Students with 

disabilities

 Not applicable

Students in foster care  Not applicable

Homeless students  Not applicable

Students with low 

academic performance

 Not applicable

Gifted and talented 

students 

 Not applicable

Elementary school 

students 

 Not applicable

Middle school 

students 

 Not applicable

High school students  Not applicable

Other, please specify:  Not applicable

Other, please specify:  Not applicable
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

91

d. Please add any explanations or additional notes on your student weights here:

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

2. Are there other factors that generate additional funding for schools? Please explain:

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

____________________________________________________________________________ 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

92

Interview Protocol for District Finance Officer and District 

Administrator

Note to interviewer: Items marked with ‘*’ indicate topics that require the respondent to reflect on 

circumstances and activities before and around the initial implementation of the WSF system. If the 

respondent was not employed by the district at the time or does not recall historical details, consider 

reframing the item to focus on current implementation or skip the item, as appropriate.

WSF Goals and Strategies

Question 

1. As we understand, your district 

adopted a WSF system in [list school 

year]. Is that correct?

Are you aware of how the WSF system 

came about in your district? Were 

school leaders or other school-level 

staff involved in the decision-making 

process about the design and/or launch 

of the WSF system? If so, how? * 

Probe for:

• Which particular school staff were involved?

• [If applicable] What, if any, role did the teachers’ union have 

in the process? The school board? External stakeholders?

• Were you involved in the process? Who else at the district 

level was involved? How?

2. In introducing a WSF system, what 

issues was your district intending to 

address? * 

[For districts with mature WSF systems 

only] Have the aims of the system 

changed at all since then? If so, how 

and why? * 

Listen for:

• Flexibility/autonomy of general funds, categorical funds; 

equity with which general or categorical funds are distributed 

to schools

• School choice

• Per-pupil allocations; actual versus average teacher salaries; 

staff mobility

• Transparency, predictability; innovation

• Staff and community engagement

3. How does your district’s WSF system 

relate to the issues you mentioned? 

[If respondent indicated changes in aims 

of the system in Q2] Have you adapted 

the system to respond to its shifting 

aims? If so, how and why? * 

Probe for:

• What are the most important components of your district’s 

WSF system?

• Do you think these pieces make/will make a difference in 

addressing these issues? Why or why not?

4. How [do/will] you know if your district 

is successful in reaching these goals?

Probe for:

• What benchmarks or indicators [are/will] be used to measure 

progress toward these goals? What are the data sources? 

How [do/will] you use the data?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

93

Initial Implementation of WSF

Question 

5. What was the original reaction from 

schools about implementing the WSF 

system? Has this reaction changed over 

time? If so, how? * 

Probe for:

• Did the district experience a problem of schools feeling like 

there were “winners” and “losers” under the WSF system, as 

some schools got more money and others got less? 

• Was there any opposition to the new WSF system? If so, from 

whom (principals, teachers, parents)? What were their 

objections? 

6. [If information on the WSF formula is 

collected prior to the interview in preinterview survey or elsewhere] 

I understand that [summarize basic 

structure of the WSF formula, including 

the base per-pupil amount and weights 

included]. 

Do you know how the weights for 

different students were originally 

determined? Have the weights changed 

since their original development? * 

[If information on the WSF formula is 

NOT collected prior to the interview] 

Can you describe how the WSF formula 

is structured, including what the base 

per-pupil amount is, what weights are 

included, and if there any other 

foundational amounts?

Do you know how the weights for 

different students were originally 

determined? Have the weights changed 

since their original development? 

Probe for:

• How was the base funding amount determined? 

How did the district develop the weights? * 

• What data or information (literature, student outcome data, 

emulation of federal or state formula to districts) did you use 

to develop the weights? 

• Are there weights included in the formula other than those for 

specific student needs (e.g., based on school size, location, 

student outcomes)?

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] How often are the 

weights reviewed and modified? 

• [For districts with new WSF systems] Are there plans to 

review and adjust the weights, as necessary? If so, how 

frequent will these reviews be? 

7. Which federal and state funds are 

distributed to schools through the 

WSF? 

8. What other funding sources can schools 

receive outside of funds received 

through the WSF? 

Probe for:

• Federal funds like Title I, II, or III? 

• State categorical funds? 

Probe for: 

• Examples, if needed: 

– Private education foundations that support schools?

– Federal grants? 

– Private grants? 

• How do these other funding sources interact with the WSF? 

Does it affect how much schools might get through the WSF?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

94

Question 

9. How are funding allocation decisions 

different under the WSF system 

compared to the previous system? * 

Probe for:

• Which services, if any, were devolved to the schools? Why? 

• How did the distribution of funds to schools change after WSF 

implementation? 

• How did changes in the distribution of funds affect small 

schools and other less traditional schools such as charters? 

Successes, Challenges, and Effects of the WSF System

Question 

10. What successes has your district 

experienced in implementing the WSF 

system? Can you describe any factors 

that may have enabled these 

successes? 

Probe for:

[For districts with mature WSF systems] Have the successes in 

implementation changed over time? If so, in what ways? * 

11. What challenges has your district faced 

in implementing a WSF system? How 

well has your district been able to 

address these challenges, and how? * 

Probe for:

• Obtaining buy-in from district- or school-level staff, unions, 

school board, parents, other community stakeholders? 

• Technical capacity? 

• Challenges for small schools or charter schools? 

• Were there any unpredicted challenges? 

12. How has the distribution of funding 

under the WSF system affected the 

opportunities of students with 

particular educational needs to succeed 

relative to others? 

Probe for: 

• For which groups of students? 

• Has the budgeting/planning process created an incentive for 

schools to attract students who require additional resources 

to educate? Why or why not? Has it created any 

disincentives?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

95

Ongoing Implementation of WSF / Decision-making Process

Question 

13. Could you please walk me through your 

district’s annual planning and 

budgeting process, from when it begins 

to when key decisions are made?

Probe for:

• When does this process begin?

• When and how is information on school allocations provided 

to schools?

• When are schools’ initial spending plans due? How does the 

amount of planning time compare to the amount before WSF 

was introduced? * 

• When and how does the district review these initial plans and 

work with schools to revise the plans?

• When are schools’ final plans due?

• Who are the key stakeholders involved in the process? What 

are their roles?

• As part of the process, do you conduct a needs assessment? 

What other data are used?

14. How would you describe your district’s 

approach to giving principals autonomy 

in decision-making?

Over what proportion of their total 

school budgets do principals typically 

have decision-making autonomy? Are 

there any limitations or guidelines on 

how they may use these funds? If so, 

what? 

Listen for:

• Autonomy for all: All principals have autonomy

• Earned autonomy: Autonomy granted to higher-performing, 

but not lower-performing schools; district more active in 

managing resources for lower-performing schools

• Tiered autonomy: Tiered levels of autonomy based on 

performance, growth, and school capacity; struggling schools 

provided more support, resources, and guidance

Probe for:

• How consistent is the level of discretion across schools? Are 

there any differences in the district’s approach to autonomy 

for smaller schools and other less traditional types of schools 

such as charters?

• How does the level of discretion and autonomy under the WSF 

system compare to the level under the previous system? Has it 

changed since the beginning of the WSF system? * 

• Would you like to see the district or schools have more control 

over school-level expenditures?

• Which revenue sources are pushed through the WSF formula 

and what share of these sources does the amount flowing 

through the WSF represent?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

96

Question 

15. What kinds of accountability 

mechanisms, if any, has your district 

implemented in conjunction with the 

WSF system? 

How does the district review and 

monitor school plans and budgets?

Probe for:

• What tracking systems, if any, does the district have in place 

to understand how funds are spent at the school level?

• Are there any consequences for particular budget decisions 

made by schools? For declines in student outcomes (such as 

decreased autonomy)?

• Are the consequences consistent across schools? 

[If applicable] Are charter schools held to the same 

accountability standards?

• [If applicable] How has principal accountability changed 

under the WSF system, if at all?

[If not implemented] Why were new accountability 

mechanisms not implemented?

• [If applicable] Does the district require modifications of plans 

to ensure resources are being used responsibly?

16. How transparent is the current 

resource allocation process to 

stakeholders, including school board 

members, principals, teachers and 

other school staff, parents, and other 

community members?

Probe for:

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to increase 

transparency?

• [If applicable] What successes or failures have you 

encountered in attempting to increase transparency? 

• Have changes in transparency affected the degree to which 

schools are held accountable for results?

• What kinds of questions have you and your staff received 

from schools about fund allocations?

• Are school budgets sufficiently predictable or stable for schools to 

effectively plan and budget from year to year?

Support and Training on WSF 

Question 

17. How well do principals, teachers, and 

school leadership team members 

understand the WSF system? How 

prepared are they to make decisions 

about program planning, budgeting, 

and resource allocation?

Probe for:

• [If not clear understanding]

– What do they know? What do you wish they knew?

– What perceptions or misperceptions do they have?

• [If not prepared]

– What additional resources or supports do you think 

schools need to successfully implement the WSF system? 

Are there any plans to provide these?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

97

Question 

18. How would you characterize the 

district’s approach to supporting 

schools with making resource 

allocation decisions?

Listen for:

• Providing schools directives versus disseminating best 

practices

Probe for:

• Has your department provided any technical assistance or 

training to the schools in your district on budgeting? If yes:

– If yes: Who was the intended audience for the training 

(principals, other school administrators, school leadership 

teams, teachers)? What was the focus?

• Has the role of the district in assisting schools around 

budgeting changed at all since implementation of the WSF 

system? If yes, how? * 

Concluding Questions

Question 

19. Are there any district-, state-, or 

federal-level policies that promote or 

create barriers to more effective 

implementation of the 

budgeting/planning policy for your 

school? If so, what are they?

Probe for:

• Is there an impact from:

– [If applicable] The district’s collective bargaining 

agreements?

– District mandates and policies, such as:

– [If applicable] School choice policies?

– Hiring and placement policies?

– Use of average versus actual salaries in charging against 

school budgets?

– State school finance system?

– State charter school policies?

– Other federal or state policies (e.g., accountability, 

curriculum and standards)?

If so, what do you feel is the impact?

• For those policies that have created barriers, have you been able to 

find ways of overcoming the issues they present?

• What, if anything, would you like to see changed about these 

policies?

20. What changes would you make to the 

budgeting/planning process or the funding 

formula to improve its implementation or 

its benefits to schools? Why?

21. Is there anything I haven’t asked you 

about your district’s budgeting/ planning 

process or the WSF system that you would 

like to comment on? 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

98

Interview Protocol for District Program Officer

Note to interviewer: Items marked with ‘*’ indicate topics that require the respondent to reflect on 

circumstances and activities before and around the initial implementation of the WSF system. If the 

respondent was not employed by the district at the time or does not recall historical details, consider 

reframing the item to focus on current implementation or skip the item, as appropriate. 

District Context 

Question 

1. How would you describe your district 

to someone who has never been there 

before, including your district’s 

strengths and challenges? 

Probe for:

• What are the district’s recent successes? 

• How would you describe the degree of teacher and staff 

turnover? How does this compare to other nearby districts? 

• What are your students’ greatest or most unique needs? 

WSF Goals and Strategies

Question 

2. In introducing a WSF system, what 

issues was your district intending to 

address? * 

[For districts with mature WSF systems 

only] Have the aims of the system 

changed at all since then? If so, how 

and why? * 

Listen for:

• Flexibility/autonomy of general funds, categorical funds; 

equity with which general or categorical funds are distributed 

to schools 

• School choice 

• Per-pupil allocations; actual versus average teacher salaries; 

staff mobility 

• Transparency, predictability; innovation 

• Staff and community engagement 

3. How does your district’s WSF system 

relate to the issues you mentioned? 

[If respondent indicated changes in 

aims of the system in Q2] Have you 

adapted the system to respond to its 

shifting aims? If so, how and why? * 

Probe for:

• What are the most important components of your district’s 

WSF system? 

• Why do you think these pieces [make/will make] a difference 

in addressing these issues? 

4. How [do/will] you know if your district 

is successful in reaching these goals? 

Probe for:

• What benchmarks or indicators [are/will] be used to measure 

progress toward these goals? What are the data sources? 

• How [do/will] you use the data? 

Initial Implementation of WSF

Question 

5. As we understand, your district 

adopted a WSF system in [list school 

year]. Is that correct? 

Are you aware of how the WSF system 

Probe for:

• Which particular school staff were involved? 

• [If applicable] What, if any, role did the teachers’ union have 

in the process? The school board?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

99

Question 

came about in your district? Were 

school leaders or other school-level 

staff involved in the decision-making 

process about the design and/or launch 

of the WSF system? If so, how? *

• Were you involved in the process? Who else at the district 

level was involved? How? 

6. What was the original reaction from 

schools about implementing the WSF 

system? Has their response changed 

over time? If so, how? * 

Probe for:

• Did the district experience a problem of schools feeling like there 

were “winners” and “losers” under the WSF system, as some 

schools got more money and others got less? 

• Was there any opposition to the new WSF system? If so, what 

were their objections? 

7. I understand the following categories 

of students are given weights under 

your WSF system: [list student weight 

categories] 

Are there categories of student needs 

(e.g., at-risk, English learners, special 

education) that you think should be 

included in the formula, but are not? 

Why? 

Probe for:

• [For all WSF districts] 

How were the values of the weights determined? * 

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] How often are the 

weights reviewed and modified? 

• [For districts with new WSF systems] Are there plans to 

review and adjust the weights, as necessary? If so, how 

frequent will these reviews be? 

8. How are funding allocation decisions 

different under the WSF system 

compared to the previous system? * 

Probe for:

• How did the distribution of funds to schools change after WSF 

implementation? 

• How did changes in the distribution of funds affect small 

schools and other less traditional schools such as charters? 

Successes, Challenges, and Effects of the WSF System

Question 

9. What successes has your district 

experienced in implementing the WSF

system? Can you describe any factors

that may have enabled the successes? 

Probe for:

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] Have the successes in 

implementation changed over time? If so, in what ways? * 

10. What challenges has your district faced 

in implementing a WSF system? How 

well has your district been able to 

address these challenges, and how? * 

Probe for:

• Obtaining buy-in from district- or school-level staff, unions, 

school board, parents, other community stakeholders? 

• Technical capacity? 

• Challenges for small schools or charter schools? 

• Were there any unpredicted challenges? 

11. How has the distribution of funding 

under the WSF system affected the 

opportunities of students with 

particular educational needs to succeed 

relative to others? 

Probe for: 

• For which groups of students? 

• Has the budgeting/planning process created an incentive for 

schools to attract students who require additional resources 

to educate? Why or why not?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

100

Question 

12. What, if anything, did the 

budgeting/planning process allow 

schools to do that they would not have 

been able to do otherwise? We are 

specifically interested in:

• Supporting students with special 

subgroups

• Using different programs or 

instructional practices

Probe for:

• Were any additional non-academic supports added?

• How much have these changes varied across schools within 

your district?

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to promote different 

programs or instructional practices? Are there any future 

plans?

• Are there any specific instructional or related services needed 

to meet the needs of the students in your district that are 

lacking?

Ongoing Implementation of WSF / Decision-making Process

Question 

13. Could you please walk me through your 

district’s annual planning and 

budgeting process, from when it begins 

to when key decisions are made?

Probe for:

• When does this process begin?

• When and how is information on school allocations provided 

to schools?

• When are schools’ initial spending plans due? How does the 

amount of planning time compare to the amount before WSF 

was introduced? * 

• When and how does the district review these initial plans and 

work with schools to revise the plans?

• When are schools’ final plans due?

• Who are the key stakeholders involved in the process? What 

are their roles?

• As part of the process, do you conduct a needs assessment? 

What other data are used?

14. At the school level, are school-level 

stakeholders other than principals— 

school leadership teams, teachers, 

other school staff, parents, students, 

and other community members— 

involved in the budgeting and program 

planning process? How would you 

describe their level of involvement?

Probe for:

• How has the level of involvement of these stakeholders 

changed in response to the WSF policy?

• How does the level of involvement of these other school-level 

stakeholders vary across schools in your district? Why?

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to promote the 

involvement of school staff in the WSF process? Parents and 

community members? Are there any future plans? [If 

respondent indicates parents are involved] How do the district 

and schools ensure the involvement of a diverse and 

representative set of parents?

• What are benefits and challenges of involving school-level 

staff and community stakeholders in the process? 

15. How would you describe your district’s 

approach to giving principals autonomy 

in decision-making?

Listen for:

• Autonomy for all: All principals have autonomy

• Earned autonomy: Autonomy granted to higher-performing, 

but not lower-performing schools; district more active in 

managing resources for lower-performing schools
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

101

Question 

• Tiered autonomy: Tiered levels of autonomy based on 

performance, growth, and school capacity; struggling schools 

provided more support, resources, guidance

Probe for:

• How consistent is the level of discretion across schools? Are 

there any differences in the district’s approach to autonomy 

for smaller schools and other less traditional types of schools 

such as charters? 

16. What kinds of accountability 

mechanisms, if any, has your district 

implemented in conjunction with the 

WSF system? 

How does the district review and 

monitor school plans and budgets?

Probe for:

• Are there any consequences for particular budget decisions 

made by schools or for declines in student outcomes (such as 

decreased autonomy)?

• Are the consequences consistent across schools? 

[If applicable] Are charter schools held to the same 

accountability standards?

• [If applicable] How has principal accountability changed 

under the WSF system, if at all?

• [If not implemented] Why were new accountability 

mechanisms not implemented?

• [If applicable] Does the district require modifications of plans 

to ensure resources are being used responsibly?

17. What educational services or decisions 

are provided to schools by the district? 

Which are available for them to 

purchase from your district, and which 

can schools purchase from outside 

vendors? Why?

Listen for:

• Complexity of state and federal law (e.g., special education)

• Economies of scale

• School leadership capacity and preference

• District philosophy

Probe for:

• Does your district have a “central services” market—that is, a 

menu of network and central services where you can choose 

whether to buy services from the district or from outside 

vendors? If so, what services are included? How does it 

operate?

• How would you describe the current balance between district 

and school control?

• Would you like to see the district or schools have more control 

over school-level expenditures?

18. How transparent is the current 

resource allocation process to 

stakeholders, including school board 

members, principals, teachers and 

other school staff, parents, and other 

community members?

Probe for:

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to increase 

transparency?

• [If applicable] What successes or failures have you 

encountered in attempting to increase transparency?

• Have changes in transparency affected the degree to which 

schools are held accountable for results?

• What kinds of questions have you and your staff received 

from schools about fund allocations?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

102

Question 

• Are school budgets sufficiently predictable or stable for schools to 

effectively plan and budget from year to year?

19. Are school budgets sufficiently 

predictable or stable for schools to 

effectively plan and budget from year 

to year? Why or why not?

Probe for:

• Are schools able to retain staff from year to year? 

• [If respondent was in the district prior to the start of WSF] 

How does the level of stability compare to the process prior to 

the new WSF system? 

Support and Training on WSF 

Question 

20. How well do principals, teachers, and 

school leadership team members 

understand the WSF system? How 

prepared are they to make decisions 

about program planning, budgeting, 

and resource allocation?

Probe for:

• [If not clear understanding]

– What do they know? What do you wish they knew?

– What perceptions or misperceptions do they have?

• [If not prepared]

– What additional resources or supports do you think 

schools need to successfully implement the WSF system? 

Are there any plans to provide these?

21. How would you characterize the 

district’s approach to supporting 

schools with making resource 

allocation decisions?

Listen for:

• Providing schools directives versus disseminating best 

practices 

Probe for:

• Has your department provided any technical assistance or 

training to the schools in your district on budgeting? If yes:

– Who was the intended audience for the training 

(principals, other school administrators, school leadership 

teams, teachers)?

– What was the focus?

• Has the role of the district in assisting schools around 

budgeting changed at all since implementation of the WSF 

system? If yes, how? *

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

103

Concluding Questions

I would like to end this conversation with a few questions about “lessons learned” to date about the 

implementation of the WSF policy.

Question 

22. Are there any district-, state-, or 

federal-level policies that promote or 

create barriers to more effective 

implementation of the 

budgeting/planning policy for your 

school? If so, what are they?

Probe for: 

• Is there an impact from:

– [If applicable] The district’s collective bargaining 

agreements?

– District mandates and policies, such as:

– Hiring and placement policies?

– Use of average versus actual salaries in charging against 

school budgets?

– State school finance system?

– State charter school policies?

– Other federal or state policies (e.g., accountability, 

curriculum and standards)?

If so, what do you feel is the impact?

• For those policies that have created barriers, have you been 

able to find ways of overcoming the issues they present?

• What, if anything, would you like to see changed about these 

policies?

23. Does your district have a school choice 

policy? How is it structured? Are there 

ways in which the WSF system supports 

or discourages school choice? If so, 

please describe.

Probe for: 

• In what ways, if any, does the district consider school choice in 

the implementation of the WSF system?

• Do the following enter into school assignment decisions?

– Sibling preference (if student has a sibling in school 

already)

– Neighborhood school (if school is close to home)

– Other

24. What changes would you make to the 

budgeting/planning process to improve 

its implementation or its benefits to 

schools? Why? 

25. Is there anything I haven’t asked you 

about your district’s 

budgeting/planning process or the WSF 

system that you would like to comment 

on?

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

104

Interview Protocol for School Board Member

Note to interviewer: Items marked with ‘*’ indicate topics that require the respondent to reflect on 

circumstances and activities before and around the initial implementation of the WSF system. If the 

respondent was not employed by the district at the time or does not recall historical details, consider 

reframing the item to focus on current implementation or skip the item, as appropriate. 

District Context 

Question 

1. How would you describe your district 

to someone who has never been there 

before, including your district’s 

strengths and challenges?

Probe for:

• What are the district’s recent successes?

• How would you describe the degree of teacher and staff 

turnover?

• What are your students’ greatest or most unique needs?

Initial Implementation of WSF 

Question 

2. Are you aware of how the WSF system 

came about in your district? If so, how 

was the school board involved? * 

 

3. As far as you know, what issues was 

your district intending to address by 

introducing a WSF system? *

[For districts with mature WSF systems 

only] Have the aims of the system 

changed at all since then? If so, how 

and why? * 

Listen for:

• Flexibility/autonomy of general funds, categorical funds; 

equity with which general or categorical funds are distributed 

to schools

• School choice

• Per-pupil allocations; actual versus average teacher salaries; 

staff mobility

• Transparency, predictability; innovation

• Staff and community engagement

4. How did other members of the board 

react to this proposed change? District 

staff? School staff? Others in the 

community? Has the response changed 

over time? If so, how? * 

Probe for:

• Did the district experience a problem of schools feeling like 

there were “winners” and “losers” under the WSF system, as 

some schools got more money and others got less?

• Was there any opposition to the new WSF system? If so, from 

whom (principals, teachers, parents)? What were their 

objections?

Ongoing Implementation of WSF / Decision-making Process

Question 

5. What, if any, involvement [does/will] 

the school board have in reviewing and 

modifying the weights in the WSF 

formula?

Probe for:

• [If school board has involvement in reviewing the WSF 

formula] What recommendations has the school board made?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

105

Question 

6. What is the school board’s role in your 

district’s annual planning and 

budgeting process?

Who are the key stakeholders involved 

in your district’s annual planning and 

budgeting process? What are their 

roles?

Probe for:

• [If applicable] How do your responsibilities compare to those 

you had:

- Under the previous system? *

- Since the WSF system was implemented? * 

• As part of the process, do you conduct a needs assessment? 

What other data are used?

7. How well do district-level staff, schoollevel staff, and the public understand 

the WSF system? How prepared are 

they to make decisions about program 

planning, budgeting, and resource 

allocation?

Probe for:

• [If not clear understanding]

– What do they know? What do you wish they knew?

– What perceptions or misperceptions do they have?

• [If not prepared]

– What additional resources or supports do you think 

schools need to successfully implement the WSF system? 

Are there any plans to provide these?

• What training has the district provided to school staff? Are 

there other supports from the district or other sources that 

you think would be helpful for school staff? If yes, on what 

topics?

8. How transparent is the current 

resource allocation process to 

stakeholders, including school board 

members, principals, teachers and 

other school staff, parents, and other 

community members?

Probe for:

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to increase 

transparency?

• [If applicable] What successes or failures have you 

encountered in attempting to increase transparency? 

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

106

Effect of the WSF System

Question 

9. How has the distribution of funding

under the WSF system affected the

opportunities of students with

particular educational needs to succeed

relative to others? 

Probe for:

• For which groups of students? 

• Has the budgeting/planning process created an incentive for 

schools to attract students who require additional resources 

to educate? Why or why not? Has it created any 

disincentives? 

10. What, if anything, did the 

budgeting/planning process allow

schools to do that they would not have

been able to do otherwise? We are

specifically interested in: 

• Supporting students with special

subgroups 

• Using different programs or

instructional practices 

Probe for:

• Were any additional non-academic supports added? 

• How much have these changes varied across schools within 

your district? 

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to promote different 

programs or instructional practices? Are there any future 

plans? 

• Are there any specific instructional or related services needed 

to meet the needs of the students in your district that are 

lacking? 

Concluding Questions

I would like to end this conversation with a few questions about “lessons learned” to date about the 

implementation of the WSF policy.

Question 

11. What has gone well with the current 

WSF system? Can you describe any 

factors that may have enabled these 

successes? 

Probe for:

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] Have the successes in 

implementation changed over time? If so, in what 

ways? * 

12. What challenges has your district faced 

in implementing a WSF system? How 

well has your district been able to 

address these challenges, and how? * 

Probe for:

• Obtaining buy-in from district- or school-level staff, unions, 

school board, parents, other community stakeholders? 

• Technical capacity? 

• Were there any unpredicted challenges?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

107

Question 

13. Are there any district-, state-, or 

federal-level policies that promote or 

create barriers to more effective 

implementation of the 

budgeting/planning policy for your 

school? If so, what are they?

Probe for: 

• Is there an impact from: 

– [If applicable] The district’s collective bargaining 

agreements?

– District mandates and policies, such as: Hiring and 

placement policies? Use of average versus actual salaries 

in charging against school budgets?

– State school finance system or charter school policies?

– Other federal or state policies (e.g., accountability, 

curriculum and standards)?

If so, what do you feel is the impact?

• For those policies that have created barriers, have you been 

able to find ways of overcoming the issues they present?

• What, if anything, would you like to see changed about these 

policies?

14. Does your district have a school choice 

policy? How is it structured? Are there 

ways in which the WSF system supports 

or discourages school choice? If so, 

please describe.

Probe for:

• In what ways, if any, does the district consider school choice in 

the implementation of the WSF system? 

• Do the following enter into school assignment decisions?

– Sibling preference (if student has a sibling in school 

already)

– Neighborhood school (if school is close to home)

– Other

15. What changes would you like to make 

to the budgeting/planning process or 

the funding formula to improve its 

implementation or its benefits to 

schools? Why?

16. Is there anything I haven’t asked you 

about the district’s budgeting/ planning 

process or the WSF system that you 

would like to comment on?

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

108

Interview Protocol for Principal

Note to interviewer: Items marked with ‘*’ indicate topics that require the respondent to reflect on 

circumstances and activities before and around the initial implementation of the WSF system. If the 

respondent was not employed by the district at the time or does not recall historical details, consider 

reframing the item to focus on current implementation or skip the item, as appropriate. 

School Context and Interviewee Background

Question 

1. How would you describe your school to 

someone who has never been there 

before, including your school’s 

strengths and challenges?

Probe for:

• What are the school’s recent successes?

• How would you describe the degree of teacher and staff 

turnover?

• What are your students’ greatest or most unique needs?

2. How long have you been the principal 

at this school? In this district?

Probe for:

• What were your professional roles before this one? In which 

districts, schools, or organizations?

• Who do you see as other leaders at this school? 

WSF Goals and Strategies

Question 

3. In introducing the new 

budgeting/planning system, what 

issues was your district intending to 

address? *

[For districts with mature WSF systems 

only] Have the aims of the system 

changed at all since then? If so, how 

and why? * 

Listen for:

• Flexibility/autonomy of general funds, categorical funds; 

equity with which general or categorical funds are distributed 

to schools

• School choice

• Per-pupil allocations; actual versus average teacher salaries; 

staff mobility

• Transparency, predictability; innovation

• Staff and community engagement

4. How does your district’s 

budgeting/planning system relate to 

the issues you mentioned? 

[If respondent indicated changes in 

aims of the system in Q3] Has the 

system been revised to respond to the 

shifts in aims? If so, how and why? * 

Probe for:

• What are the most important components of your district’s 

new budgeting/planning system? 

• Do you think these pieces make/will make a difference in 

addressing these issues? Why or why not? 

Initial Implementation of WSF 

Question 

5. Are you aware of how the new 

budgeting/planning system came about 

in your district? If so, how would you 

describe the involvement of school 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

109

Question 

staff in the decision-making process 

about the design and/or 

implementation of the WSF system? * 

6. What was your original reaction to this 

change? What was your staff’s 

reaction? Have these reactions changed 

over time? If so, how? * 

Ongoing Implementation of WSF / Decision-making Process

Question 

7. Could you please walk me through the 

general process for how your school’s 

annual site-level plan and budget are 

developed?

Probe for:

• What are your specific roles and responsibilities in the 

process?

• Who is involved in the decision-making process? How would 

you describe the role and level of involvement of:

– Teachers?

– Other school administrators?

– District administrators?

– Parents or community members?

• When is the initial projected budget provided by your district? 

When are your initial and final spending plans due? How does 

the amount of planning time compare to the amount before 

WSF was introduced?

• As part of the process, do you conduct a needs assessment? 

What other data are used?

8. We realize that each school may 

implement the budgeting/

planning process under WSF slightly 

differently. At your school, what has 

gone well with the new 

budgeting/planning system? Can you 

describe any factors that may have 

enabled these successes?

Probe for:

• Have the successes in implementation changed over time? If 

so, in what ways? * 

9. What challenges has your school faced 

in implementing the 

budgeting/planning process? How well 

has your school been able to address 

these challenges, and how? * 

Effects of the WSF System

Question 

10. How does the level of funding under 

the current budgeting system compare 

to the previous system? 

Probe for:

• In general, has it gone up or down under the new system?

• How did changes in the distribution of funds affect small 

schools and less traditional schools such as charters?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

110

Question 

11. How well do the resource allocations in 

your site plan for this year align with 

your student outcome goals?

12. At your school, how has the 

distribution of funding under the WSF 

system affected the opportunities of 

students with particular educational 

needs to succeed relative to others? 

Probe for:

• For which groups of students? 

• Has the budgeting/planning process created an incentive for 

schools to attract students who require additional resources 

to educate? Why or why not?

13. What, if anything, did the 

budgeting/planning process allow you 

to do in your school that you would not 

have been able to do otherwise? We 

are specifically interested in:

• Supporting students with special 

subgroups 

• Using different programs or 

instructional practices

Probe for:

• What specifically was it about the WSF policy that stimulated 

you to better support high need students or to offer different 

programs?

• Were these changes for specific grade levels? Specific groups 

of students?

• Were any additional non-academic supports added? 

• Are there any specific instructional or related services needed 

to meet the needs of the students in your district that are 

lacking?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

111

Dimensions of WSF Implementation and Decision-making Process

Question 

14. How would you describe your district’s 

approach to giving principals autonomy 

in decision-making?

Over what proportion of your school’s 

total budget do you and your staff have 

decision-making autonomy? Are there 

any limitations or guidelines on how 

you may use these funds? If so, what?

Listen for:

• Autonomy for all: All principals have autonomy

• Earned autonomy: Autonomy granted to higher-performing, 

but not lower-performing schools; district more active in 

managing resources for lower-performing schools

• Tiered autonomy: Tiered levels of autonomy based on 

performance, growth, and school capacity; struggling schools 

provided more support, resources, guidance

Probe for:

• Has the amount of budgetary discretion and autonomy 

changed over time? Do you think this amount of discretion 

your school has over budgets should change? If so, why? * Do 

you see any drawbacks to autonomy?

15. What educational services or decisions 

are provided by your district? Which 

are available for purchase from your 

district, and which do you purchase 

from outside vendors? Why?

Listen for: 

• Complexity of state and federal law (e.g., special education)

• Economies of scale

• School leadership capacity and preference

• District philosophy

Probe for:

• Does your district have a “central services” market—that is, a 

menu of network and central services where you can choose 

whether to buy services from the district or from outside 

vendors? If so, what services are included? How does it 

operate? Can you choose to purchase outside of this menu?

• Do you ever meet operational resistance when trying to make 

purchases? When and in what ways?

16. What roles do teachers, parents, and 

community members play in the 

budgeting and planning process?

Probe for:

• What steps, if any, has the district taken to promote the 

involvement of school staff in the WSF process? Parents and 

community members? Are there any future plans? [If 

respondent indicates parents are involved] How does your 

school ensure the involvement of a diverse and representative 

set of parents?

• What steps have you taken within your school?

• Has the new budgeting/planning policy increased school staff 

involvement? Parent and community involvement?

• Do you see any limitations in involving school staff and 

community involvement in the process? If so, what?

17. What kinds of accountability 

mechanisms, if any, has your district 

implemented in conjunction with the 

new budgeting/planning process?

Probe for:

• Are there any consequences for particular budget decisions 

you make? For declines in student outcomes (such as 

decreased autonomy)?

• [If applicable] How have accountability mechanisms changed 

under the new budgeting/planning process, if at all?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

112

Question 

How does the district monitor your 

school’s plan and budget?

18. How transparent is the current way in 

which revenues are distributed to your 

school?

Probe for:

• [If principal was in the school prior to the start of WSF] How 

does the level of transparency compare to the process prior to 

the new budgeting/planning system? 

• How clear are weights for different students? 

• Is your school budget sufficiently predictable or stable for you 

to effectively plan and budget from year to year?
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

113

Support and Training on WSF 

Question 

19. What communication has the district 

provided to you about the 

budgeting/planning system? How 

adequate or helpful has this 

communication been?

Probe for:

• What improvements do you think the district can make?

20. How would you characterize the 

district’s approach to supporting 

schools with making resource 

allocation decisions?

Listen for:

• Providing schools directives versus disseminating best 

practices

Probe for:

• Can you describe any technical assistance or training you or 

your staff have received from the district this school year 

around planning, budgeting, allocating resources, or aligning 

spending decisions with new instructional strategies? 

– Who was the intended audience for the training 

(Principals, other school administrators, school leadership 

teams, teachers)?

– What was the focus? 

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] Has the role of the 

district in assisting schools around WSF changed at all over 

the past X years since implementation of the WSF? If yes, 

how? *

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

114

Concluding Questions

I would like to end this conversation with a few questions about “lessons learned” to date about the 

implementation of the WSF policy.

Question 

21. Are there any district-, state-, or 

federal-level policies that promote or 

create barriers to more effective 

implementation of the 

budgeting/planning policy for your 

school? If so, what are they?

Probe for: 

• Is there an impact from:

– [If applicable] The district’s collective bargaining 

agreements?

– District mandates and policies, such as:

– Hiring and placement policies?

– Use of average versus actual salaries in charging against 

school budgets?

– State school finance system?

– Other federal or state policies (e.g., accountability, 

curriculum and standards)?

If so, what do you feel is the impact?

• For those policies that have created barriers, have you been 

able to find ways of overcoming the issues they present?

• What would you like to see changed about these policies?

22. Does your district have a school choice 

policy? How is it structured? Are there 

ways in which the WSF system supports 

or discourages school choice? If so, 

please describe.

Probe for: 

• Do the following enter into school assignment decisions?

– Sibling preference (if student has a sibling in school 

already)

– Neighborhood school (if school is close to home)

– Other

23. What changes would you make to the 

budgeting/planning process or the 

funding formula to improve its 

implementation or its benefits to 

schools? Why?

24. Is there anything I haven’t asked you 

about your school’s 

budgeting/planning process that you 

would like to comment on?

 
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

115

Interview Protocol for Teacher Union Representative

Note to interviewer: Items marked with ‘*’ indicate topics that require the respondent to reflect on 

circumstances and activities before and around the initial implementation of the WSF system. If the 

respondent was not employed by the district at the time or does not recall historical details, consider 

reframing the item to focus on current implementation or skip the item, as appropriate.

District Context 

Question 

1. How would you describe your district 

to someone who has never been there 

before, including your district’s 

strengths and challenges?

Probe for:

• What are your district’s recent successes?

• How would you describe the degree of teacher and staff 

turnover?

• What are your students’ greatest or most unique needs?

2. Can you tell me a bit about your 

background in schools, including your 

position and responsibilities within the 

teacher’s union?

3. How would you describe the union’s 

relationship with the district? How has 

this changed in recent years? 

Probe for:

• What are the biggest strengths and challenges in this 

relationship? 

• How much do district and union officials collaborate?

Initial Implementation of WSF 

Question 

4. Are you aware of how the WSF system 

came about in your district? If so, how 

was the teachers’ union involved? *

Probe for:

• What was the nature of the discussions between the union 

and the district?

• [If union was not involved] Did the union ask to be involved in 

these decisions?

5. As far as you know, what issues was 

your district intending to address by 

introducing a WSF system? *

[For districts with mature WSF systems 

only] Have the aims of the system 

changed at all since then? If so, how 

and why? * 

Listen for:

• Flexibility/autonomy of general funds and/or categorical 

funds

• Equity with which general and/or categorical funds are 

distributed to schools

• School choice

• Per-pupil allocations; actual versus average teacher salaries; 

staff mobility

• Transparency, predictability; innovation

• Staff and community engagement

6. What was the response of the teachers’ 

union? Has the union’s response 

changed over time? *
Districts’ Use of Weighted Student Funding Systems to Increase School Autonomy and Equity

116

Ongoing Implementation of WSF 

Question 

7. What ongoing communication has your 

district provided to you about the 

budgeting/planning system? How 

adequate or helpful has this 

communication been?

Probe for:

• What improvements do you think your district can make?

Concluding Questions

Question 

8. From the union’s perspective, what has 

gone well with the current WSF 

system? Can you describe any factors 

that may have enabled these 

successes?

Probe for:

• [For districts with mature WSF systems] Have the successes in 

implementation changed over time? If so, in what ways? * 

9. From the union’s perspective, are there 

any aspects of the new 

budgeting/planning system that are 

concerning? If so, what?

10. Does your union factor the WSF system 

into your negotiations around your 

collective bargaining agreement with the 

district? If so, how? Were changes made 

to the bargaining agreements for other 

types of staff when WSF was 

implemented?

11. Does your district have a school choice 

policy? How is it structured? Are there 

ways in which the WSF system supports 

or discourages school choice? If so, 

please describe.

Probe for:

• Do the following enter into school assignment decisions?

– Sibling preference (if student has a sibling in school 

already)

– Neighborhood school (if school is close to home)

– Other

12. What changes would you make to the 

budgeting/planning process or the 

funding formula to improve its 

implementation or its benefits to 

schools or students?

13. Is there anything I haven’t asked you 

about your school’s 

budgeting/planning process or the WSF 

system that you would like to comment 

on?

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov