Sign Up For Our Newsletter

The next chapter in the school student finance debate

The big buzz in the edusphere right now is Rod Paige’s NYT column, where he kills two birds with one stone: while simultaneously taking a swing at the 65% solution, he talks up a different concept also being endorsed by Fordham:

Instead of gimmicky fads, we need fundamental reforms. One good idea now picking up support is "weighted student funding." Under this approach, each child receives a "backpack" of financing that travels with him to the public school of his family’s choice. The more disadvantaged the child, the bigger the backpack.

When that money arrives at a school, principals have freedom to spend them as they see fit. Does the school need to pay more to snag a top-notch math teacher? Are extra hours needed to allow for intensive tutoring? Principals would be able to allocate resources accordingly; accountability systems like No Child Left Behind give them strong incentives to make good decisions.

What about reducing administrative waste, the primary aim of the 65 percent solution? Weighted financing handles this better, too: because principals are given full control over their budgets, they can choose whether to forgo a new coat of paint — or, better, consultants and travel expenses — in favor of an additional classroom aide.

Weighted student financing was pioneered in Edmonton, Alberta, in the 1970’s and has now been tried in a handful of cities including Houston, San Francisco and Seattle. These experiments have shown considerable promise. In Edmonton, education reforms based on a weighted system helped turn the city’s struggling public schools into some of Canada’s finest — 80 percent of students regularly score at or above grade level on standardized tests.

Perhaps the best thing about weighted student financing is that it’s a reform both liberals and conservatives can support. Liberals should like the extra investment in needy children; conservatives should appreciate its positive effects on deregulation and school choice. That’s why Democrats like John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and former Gov. Jim Hunt of North Carolina have joined Republicans like me and former Education Secretary Bill Bennett in supporting weighted financing. When it comes to educating our children, we should all put politics aside.

It’s got broad bipartisan support–hey, Eduwonk has signed on, so you know it’s got legs! 

The thing that’s vital to consider here is alluded to in the title of this post.  Rather than funding schools, where the money tends to get absorbed in great big bureaucratic sponges, the funding in this concept is tied directly to students.  But for more on our point of view, let’s hear from Clint.