The governance of equity funding schemes for disadvantaged schools : lessons from national case studies : executive summary.
Date: 2020-03-02
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: aid to disadvantaged groups, cooperation in the field of education, education policy, educational institution, equal treatment, financing, governance, marginalisation, poverty

The governance of equity funding 
schemes for disadvantaged schools:  
lessons from national case studies 

Executive Summary 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Getting in touch with the EU 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. 
You can contact this service: 

• 

• 

• 

by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11  
(certain operators may charge for these calls), 

at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or  

by email via:https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020 

© European Union, 2020  
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.  
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ 
L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, it reflects the views 
only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be 
made of the information contained therein. 

For  any  use  or  reproduction  of  photos  or  other  material  that  is  not  under  the  EU  copyright, 
permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 
Image(s) © [carloscastilla + 11900361], 2012. Source: [depositphotos.com] 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-13070-3 

doi: 10.2766/563336       NC-04-19-726-EN-N

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Please cite this publication as:  

Verelst,  S.,  Bakelants,  H.,  Vandevoort,  L.,  Nicaise,  I.  (2020).  ‘The  governance  of  equity  funding  schemes  for 
disadvantaged schools: lessons from national  case studies’,  NESET report, Executive Summary. Luxembourg: 
Publications Office of the European Union. Doi: 10.2766/563336. 

ABOUT NESET  

CONTRACTOR 

NESET  is  an  advisory  network  of  experts  working  on 
the social dimension of education and training. 

The  European  Commission’s  Directorate-General  for 
Education  and  Culture  initiated  the  establishment  of 
the network as the successor to NESSE (2007-2010), 
NESET (2011-2014) and NESET II (2015-2018). 

PPMI is responsible for the administration of the NESET 
network.  For  any  inquiries  please  contact  us  at: 
info-neset@ppmi.lt. 

Gedimino ave. 50, LT - 01110  
Vilnius, Lithuania 
Phone: +370 5 2620338  
Fax: +370 5 2625410 
www.ppmi.lt 
Director: Rimantas Dumčius 

AUTHORS: 

  Sukriti VERELST, researcher, KU Leuven 

  Hanne BAKELANTS, researcher, KU Leuven 

  Lief VANDEVOORT, researcher, KU Leuven 

  Ides NICAISE, project leader, HIVA (Research 

Institute for Work and Society) and Faculty of 

Psychology and Education Sciences, KU Leuven 

PEER REVIEWERS: 

  Dragana AVRAMOV, NESET Scientific coordinator 

  David GREGER, Institute for Research and Development 

of Education at the Faculty of Education, Charles University in Prague 

LANGUAGE EDITOR: 

  James NIXON, freelance editor 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
Directorate A – Policy Strategy and Evaluation 
Unit A.4 – Evidence-Based Policy and Evaluation  

E-mail:  eac-unite-a4@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

Equity  funding refers to  additional  funding  (per  student)  provided to  schools  with  an 
above-average  representation  of  students  from  disadvantaged  (mainly  low-SES  and 
immigrant) backgrounds. More than half of EU countries currently provide some type of 
equity funding to  schools  that serve  target  groups  such  as  children  with  a  migration 
background, low-SES children or children in vulnerable family situations. However, some 
doubt  exists  as  to  the  effectiveness  of  such  policies,  due  to  mixed  evidence  on  the 
effectiveness  of  such  schemes.  This  report  examines  to  what  extent  the  improved 
governance of equity funding schemes could contribute to better results. It is based on 
case studies of equity funding in seven selected member states (or regions) of the EU: 
Ireland, Finland, Slovakia, Flanders, the Netherlands, England and France.  

Lessons from the case studies 

Some of the case studies express vague objectives  and target group definitions. This 
leaves  too  much  room  for  interpretation  and  misunderstanding  at  the  local  level  of 
implementation. By contrast, countries in which the objectives behind policy making are 
clear and well-defined (such as Finland, Ireland, England and France) tend to provide 
clearer and more effective guidelines to help practitioners implement funding efficiently.  

Careful design of the funding criteria is essential, not just in order to adequately cover 
the  target  group,  but  also  to  avoid  adverse  effects  such  as  funds  bypassing 
disadvantaged pupils and instead benefiting groups that are not disadvantaged. When, 
as  in  France,  additional  funding  is  targeted  at  schools  within  particular  geographical 
areas,  the  schemes  suffer  from  limited  coverage  of  the  target  groups  and  from 
strong(er)  stigma  effects  that  tend  to  reinforce  segregation.  Schools  containing  high 
percentages  of  socially  disadvantaged  pupils  also  become less  attractive for  teachers 
and,  consequently,  often  have  staff  that  are  less  experienced  or  qualified  (as  in 
Slovakia). Schemes that are based on student profiles rather than on location appear to 
produce  fewer  adverse  effects. The  Dutch  and Irish  schemes  employ mixed  formulas 
under which the weights assigned to pupil criteria are enhanced in schools or areas in 
which disadvantage is concentrated. This choice is consistent with research findings that 
show additional problems  in schools  with higher  proportions  of disadvantaged pupils, 
over  and  above  the  sum  of  the  individual  disadvantages,  as  a  consequence  of 
segregation. 

The most efficient systems appear in countries with a balance between earmarked and 
free allocation systems. While it is important to earmark funding for certain aspects (in 
particular, the  professionalisation of  teaching  staff  and  school management),  schools 
should  retain  sufficient  autonomy  to  tackle  local  needs.  Belgium,  the  Netherlands, 
Finland  and  England  allow  some  degree  of  freedom  at  local  level.  The  degree  of 
autonomy left to schools  should be proportional to the  management capacity of local 
actors. 

Autonomy  of  implementation  should  also  go  hand-in-hand  with  monitoring  and 
evaluation:  the  greater  the  autonomy  granted,  the  more  SMART1  the  monitoring 

1 SMART = specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and time-bound. 

4 

 
 
systems  should  be.  Countries  such  as  Finland  set  a  good  example  by  inculcating 
professional  accountability  and  trust  in teachers  and  principals  whose  job it  is  to not 
only monitor themselves, but also to evaluate and make changes. However, the Finnish 
model of accountability cannot be transposed to other countries overnight. 

The impact assessments carried out so far are relatively critical with regard to the range 
of impacts achieved by equity funding: while it should be seen as a necessary condition 
to increase equality of educational opportunities, equity funding is not sufficient on its 
own. What matters more is a pervasive climate of equity within education systems. This 
translates  into  accessible,  high-quality  provision  in  early  childhood,  the  avoidance  of 
segregation and grade repetition, tracking pupils  at later stages of education, etc. At 
best,  equity  funding  plays  an  auxiliary  role  in  improving  the  social  and  pedagogical 
approaches at school level. 

Recommendations: contextual issues 

▪  Invest in teacher initial and in-service training: in most cases, it was found that 
teachers in schools that cater to students from socially disadvantaged backgrounds 
tend to be either less qualified (Ireland, Belgium, and France) and/or out-of-field 
(Slovakia). It is therefore necessary not only to provide solid initial teacher training 
programmes  that  address  the  teaching  skills  required  to  ensure  equitable 
education, but also to provide professional development training opportunities for 
all teachers. In addition, intercultural training could help to combat any negative 
bias that may be held by some teachers. With the appropriate training aimed at 
inclusion,  such negative  attitudes  can  be  changed.  In  addition, teachers  require 
strong,  scientifically  grounded  insights into  ‘what  works’ to  effectively overcome 
social disadvantage, including insights into the systemic aspects of exclusion and 
inclusion. 

▪  Reform inequitable education systems: if the overall architecture of an education 
system remains inequitable, equity funding resembles a plaster on a wooden leg. 
Research  has  extensively  demonstrated  that  systems  characterised  by  strong 
‘academic segregation’ (placing children on different trajectories for a long period, 
e.g. through segregated special education; selective admission to schools;  early 
tracking; grade repetition; ability grouping) inevitably result in social segregation 
and  increase  inequality  of  outcomes.  Minimising  academic  segregation  can 
therefore be expected to have a stronger impact on equity than equity funding. 

Recommendations: governance issues 

▪  Set  clear  goal-oriented  policy  objectives  and  targets:  France  and  England  are 
examples  of  countries  in  which  objectives  are  SMART  (specific,  measurable, 
acceptable, realistic and time-bound). 

▪  Target carefully: a combination of pupil-based and school-based targeting criteria 
(such as in The Netherlands) appears to be more effective than other options. The 
most recent Dutch formula, in which the weight of each risk factor in funding is 
proportional to its impact on outcomes, could be used as an inspiration by other 
countries. 

5 

 
 
 
 
▪  Earmark  if  necessary,  but  encourage  autonomy:  countries  and  regions  such  as 
Flanders,  The  Netherlands,  Finland  and  England  provide  a  great  deal  of  local 
autonomy, but this yields good results only when local teams are very professional 
and/or when autonomy is accompanied by appropriate monitoring systems. 

▪  Monitor  to  see  what  works  and  what  does  not:  Ireland  implements  local  action 
plans  under  which  schools  are  obliged  to  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
funds/scheme.  

Recommendations: strategic issues 

▪  Distinguish clearly between social disadvantage and disability: in countries such as 
Slovakia  where  there  is  an  over-emphasis  on  special  educational  needs,  it  is 
important to put in place testing or identification mechanisms that can differentiate 
between  low  achievement  due  to  obstacles  in  social  background  and  low 
achievement due to a disability (either physical or mental), to ensure that children 
are not mis-labelled.  

▪  Avoid  stereotypical  labels:  Flanders  has  deliberately  merged  its  equity  funding 
(provisionally only in basic education) into the mainstream funding system, on the 
basis that ‘every school should be an equal opportunity school’. 

▪  Act local, think global: it is  important that school teams think beyond individual 
pupils, and are aware of the potential impact of collective or structural strategies 
(investing in language policy, anti-discrimination policy, inter-agency collaboration, 
parental  participation,  measures  to  reduce  school-related  costs,  etc.).  Expert 
guidance and professional learning communities concerning school-based policies 
are powerful levers to promote equity at meso-level.

6 

 
 
Finding information about the EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the 

Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 

You can download or order free and priced EU publications at: 

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be 
obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).