ECS briefs task force on 50‑state school‑funding models, toolkit and recent formula overhauls

The Education Commission of the States told Kansas' Special Education and Related Services Funding Task Force on May 20 that most states now allocate K–12 aid through student‑based funding formulas and that those formulas differ sharply in how they weight students with extra learning needs.

At a task force meeting, Joel Moore, director of state relations for the Education Commission of the States, and Lauren Pesach, policy analyst at ECS, summarized ECS' updated 50‑state K–12 finance comparison and a newly released school‑funding toolkit. "We can tell you what the 49 other states and territories are doing," Moore said, "and what that looks like for them." Pesach said the toolkit lays out five principles — transparent, student‑centered, adequate, fair and sustainable — for states re‑designing fund distribution.

Why it matters: States structure school finance very differently. The model Kansas uses to count students and allocate per‑pupil funds determines how much state aid flows to districts and which groups receive extra support. ECS' materials aim to help policymakers translate other states' choices to Kansas' context.

Student‑based versus resource‑based models

Pesach explained that student‑based models guarantee a base dollar amount per pupil and then multiply that base by weights for student characteristics (for example, special education, English learner, low income). "Thirty‑five states and D.C. use the student‑based approach," she said. Resource‑based models instead allocate funds by staffing or specified resources (for example, a teacher ratio or a reading specialist) and are used in fewer states.

States also differ on whether they use a single weight for special education or a multiple‑weight approach that assigns different percentages for different disability categories or placements. Pesach noted most states use multiple weights to reflect a range of services and costs.

Examples and recent reforms

ECS highlighted recent large reforms in Colorado and Mississippi as examples of major formula overhauls.

- Colorado: HB 1448 (enacted 2024) created a new “total program” student‑based formula scheduled to begin in FY2026 with a six‑year phase‑in and a hold‑harmless policy for districts that would otherwise lose funding. ECS said the new base per student was set at $8,500 for FY2026 and that the state increased initial statewide aid by about $92 million in the first phase‑in year. Colorado increased several weights: low‑income students receive an additional weight (ECS cited a range up to 25%), the English learner weight will rise from 8% to 25%, and a new special education weight of 25% per student with an IEP was added in addition to existing out‑of‑formula funding for high‑cost services. The law also adds a locale (rural/remoteness) weight ranging about 2.5%–25% depending on NCES classifications.

- Mississippi: ECS described Mississippi’s Student Funding Formula (effective FY2025) as replacing a 27‑year‑old model and including a three‑year hold‑harmless. ECS estimated the fiscal cost to the state to implement Mississippi’s changes at roughly $220 million in the first year. The formula sets a base (ECS reported $6,695 per student), raises the low‑income weight from one of the country’s lowest (5%) toward 30% with additional tiers where low‑income shares exceed 35%, adds an English‑learner weight (previously absent), and creates tiered special‑education weights that ECS described as roughly 60% at the low end to 130% for more intensive tiers.

Advantages and challenges

ECS presenters discussed tradeoffs of student‑based models (greater transparency and flexibility, easier to adjust by student group) versus resource‑based models (stronger state control of specific staffing or class‑size targets). Pesach noted Tennessee’s adoption of TISA included stronger reporting requirements to increase spending transparency at the school level.

Questions and follow‑up

Task force members asked about specific data points: how states define and count English learners, how gifted programs are treated, and whether states tie salary minima or comparable‑wage adjustments to funding. Moore and Pesach said ECS would follow up with written answers and the clickable 50‑state database links. "If there's anything we can't answer now, we're happy to take that back and get a written response for you," Moore told the group.

ECS left the task force with its toolkit documents and the 50‑state profiles. Task force members asked staff to obtain the ECS clickable 50‑state pages and to request targeted follow‑up on the Colorado and Mississippi reforms and on how other states set minimum teacher salary policies.