Which K-12 finance systems foster school choice?

With public school enrollment falling and the rise of school choice policies such as education savings accounts and public school open enrollment, portability is becoming an increasingly important feature of K-12 finance systems.

Portable education funds are dollars sensitive to student enrollment, meaning school districts gain or lose funding with changes in student counts. Public schools generally lose funding when enrollment falls, but K-12 funding systems vary substantially across states.

Reason Foundation’s funding portability metric measures the strength of this relationship, looking exclusively at state and local education funding. The main benefits of having a higher portability score are:

• Compatibility with Private School Choice: When education funds are sensitive to enrollment, dollars can follow the child to public school alternatives.
• Compatibility with Public School Choice: Public schools have greater financial incentives to accept transfer students when greater shares of education funds accompany them across district lines.
• Better Incentives: Public schools have a stronger incentive to be responsive to parents’ needs when funding tracks closely with enrollment.
• Efficiency: Tying public school funding to enrollment gains or losses ensures that resources aren’t held up in declining-enrollment school districts.

This analysis examines the K-12 finance systems in five states through a portability lens. With public education changing rapidly, policymakers must assess whether their approach to school finance can support a dynamic ecosystem characterized by parent choice, competition, and tightening state budgets. We start with a brief overview of our methodology, summarize each state’s portability score, and then compare these scores to school choice funding levels in each state. 

The takeaway from our findings is clear: K-12 finance formulas can substantially impact how school choice programs are funded, which in turn can affect the options available to students and the costs to taxpayers.

Methodology

The criteria used to calculate funding portability scores are summarized in Table 1 below. For each state, we gathered data, reports, and other information directly from state education agencies and other public sources. We used school finance documents, state statutes, and direct contact with state education agency officials for each funding source or allocation stream to determine whether it is provided to school districts based on marginal changes in student enrollment. Importantly, local dollars that contribute to state formula funding were considered similarly to state formula dollars since they are essentially allocated from one pot of funding.

Table 1: Funding Portability Score Criteria

Funding must be sensitive to marginal changes in student enrollment.

The allocation methodology must be specified in statute.

All state and local dollars are considered in the analysis, including funding for capital or other long-term obligations.

The analysis does not consider federal dollars, which are outside the purview of state legislators.

_{This approach was developed based on the work of researchers at Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Our work does not replicate their methodology and has a distinct objective. However, the results of our research might be similar in some instances. For more information, see https://edunomicslab.org/category/student-based-allocation/.}

State Scores

The following section summarizes the results of our portability analysis in each of the five states examined: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.

1.      Arizona

In the 2023 fiscal year (FY), Arizona’s non-federal K-12 budget was $13 billion, or $11,503 per student. Of that amount, $10.5 billion, or $9,295 per student, is portable. As a result, Arizona’s portability score is 80.8%, the highest score of the five states examined.

Arizona’s public school funding is highly sensitive to student enrollment because a large share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula, which uses weighted-student funding to tie dollars to students. However, the state still has room for improvement.

The largest pot of dollars that aren’t portable are school district secondary property tax levies, which total nearly $1.8 billion. These are voter-approved levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. Because these property tax funds are district-specific, they are not sensitive to student enrollment. Similarly, there is $186.4 million in other special property taxes that are district-specific and not tied to enrollment. From state funding sources, Arizona has $616 million in programs that aren’t allocated based on enrollment, as well as $370 million in state grants outside of its formula that are for specified school programs.

2.      Arkansas

In FY 2023, Arkansas’ non-federal K-12 budget was $5.6 billion, or $12,451 per student. Of that amount, $3.9 billion, or $8,730 per student, is portable. As a result, Arkansas’ portability score is 70.1%, ranking only behind Arizona in the states examined.

Arkansas scores high because a large share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula, the Matrix, which is sensitive to student enrollment. Additionally, many of the state’s largest grants outside of the formula—such as funds for low-income students, those in alternative learning environments, and English learners—are also allocated on a per-student basis and thus are portable.

Arkansas’ K-12 funding system still has a portion of dollars that aren’t portable, with the largest pot being non-formula property tax levies that total $771.0 million. These are voter-approved levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. From state funding sources, Arkansas has $265.9 million in small, restricted grants for career education, special education, and other programs that also aren’t allocated based on enrollment.

3.      Georgia

In FY 2023, Georgia’s non-federal K-12 budget was $23.8 billion, or $13,652 per student. Of that amount, $10.3 billion, or $5,914 per student, is portable. As a result, Georgia’s portability score is 43.3%, a relatively low score compared to other states. This is mainly because a small share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula—the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula—which is the only source of funding that is portable. Georgia also provides $545.8 million in funding to partially equalize local levies for school districts with low property wealth in per-student terms, dollars that are also sensitive to enrollment.

Most other funding sources outside the QBE, however, aren’t portable. The largest pot of non-portable dollars are school district property tax levies, which total nearly $8.4 billion when excluding property tax funds that contribute to the QBE. These are levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. There is also $2.2 billion in various kinds of local sales taxes that are district-specific and not sensitive to enrollment. From state funding sources, there is $615.7 million in state grants for capital funding, pre-kindergarten, and other special programs that aren’t portable. Finally, the state also provides $387.1 million in categorical grants for transportation, nursing, sparse school districts, and other purposes that aren’t allocated based on enrollment.

4.      New Hampshire

In the 2022 fiscal year, New Hampshire’s non-federal K-12 budget was $3.3 billion, or $19,827 per student. Of that amount, $854.4 million, or $5,067 per student, is portable. As a result, New Hampshire’s portability score is 25.6%, the lowest score of all five states examined. Most of the Granite State’s portable dollars are allocated through its Equitable Education Aid (EEA) formula, which has several allocations tied to student enrollment.

The primary reason for New Hampshire’s low score is its reliance on local tax dollars that don’t contribute to the state’s EEA formula. In total, non-formula local revenue accounted for $2.3 billion or 70.2% of all K-12 dollars. Another key driver of non-portable funding is the state’s Stabilization grant, a hold harmless provision that provided $157.5 million to districts that experienced funding losses in 2012 when New Hampshire adopted changes to its funding formula. About 33% of school districts still receive Stabilization funding, the same share as when it originated in 2012.

5.       Oklahoma

In FY 2022, Oklahoma’s non-federal budget was $6.9 billion, or $9,888 per student. Of that amount, $6,402, or $4.5 billion, was portable. As a result, Oklahoma’s portability score is 64.8%, ranking third of the five states examined. The Sooner State’s relatively strong score reflects the fact that most of its K-12 dollars are allocated through funding allotments and weights in its Foundation Aid and Salary Incentive Aid formulas, which tie dollars to enrollment.

The lion’s share of non-portable dollars in Oklahoma’s funding system—about $2.4 billion—are local dollars that don’t contribute to either of the state’s funding formulas. Additionally, the state has about $211 million in intermediate revenues that also aren’t allocated based on student enrollment.

How does portability affect school choice funding?

Across these five states, there are a few drivers of non-portable dollars, including hold harmless provisions and state categorical grants. However, the primary factor harming portability is non-formula local dollars. It’s worth emphasizing that, in many states, many local K-12 dollars are portable since they contribute to the state’s funding formula. For instance, in Arizona, local funding accounts for 37.4% of state and local education funds, but less than half of this funding is non-formula. But in other states, such as New Hampshire, the bulk of local dollars are non-formula.

School choice policy designs vary, but each state’s portability score can be compared to the financial support provided to their programs. To do this, we first obtained school choice funding data for each state from EdChoice and public school funding from each respective state education agency. We then calculated the share of per-student dollars that school choice participants receive on average compared to the average per-student funding public schools receive. The results in Table 2 paint a clear picture: states with more portable K-12 funding systems tend to have a greater share of dollars following school choice participants.

The most striking comparison is between Arizona and New Hampshire. Both states tether school choice funding to their respective funding formulas: 83.2% of dollars follow the school choice participants in Arizona compared to only 25.7% in New Hampshire. This is due to the fact that Arizona’s funding system allocates most of its K-12 dollars through the state’s funding formula, while New Hampshire’s funding system relies heavily on non-formula local dollars that stay with school districts regardless of enrollment changes.

Interestingly, even in states where school choice funding isn’t tied directly to per-pupil formula amounts—Arkansas, Georgia, and Oklahoma —their portability scores still predict the share of funding that follows school choice participants. For instance, Oklahoma’s portability score of 64.8% is nearly identical to its school choice funding share of 65.7%. This is likely because school choice programs are designed to reflect the revenue lost when students leave public schools rather than trying to achieve funding parity for school choice participants. 

The takeaway is clear: when it comes to school choice, K-12 finance systems are important determinants of how much funding follows the child.  

Table 2: Comparing K-12 Funding Portability with School Choice Funding

State	Reason’s Portability Score	Average ESA Amount	Public School Revenue Per Student (State and Local Only)	School Choice Share
Arizona (Empowerment Scholarship Accounts)	80.8%	$9,572*	$11,503	83.2%
Arkansas (Children’s Educational Freedom Account Program)	70.1%	$7,771	$12,451	62.4%
Georgia (The Georgia Promise Scholarship Act)	43.3%	$6,500	$13,652	47.6%
New Hampshire (Education Freedom Account Program)	25.6%	$5,100	$19,827	25.7%
Oklahoma (Parental Choice Tax Credit Act)	64.8%	$6,500**	$9,888	65.7%

_{Note: The ESA amount and public school funding comparisons were made using the most recent available data at the time of writing. As a result, some of the years might not match. However, this shouldn’t substantively affect the observed trends. 
*Includes ESA participants with disabilities, who receive higher scholarship amounts. The median award amount, excluding these students, is $7,409. Using this amount instead would yield a school choice share of 64.4%.
**Oklahoma funds participants based on family income. $6,500 is the median scholarship amount of the five tiers.}

Conclusion

Generally, states with weighted-student formulas that limit non-formula dollars will score highest on Reason Foundation’s funding portability metric. Low-scoring states can still implement private school choice programs, but incompatible K-12 finance systems could result in lower funding amounts for school choice participants. A large gap between per-student public school funding and choice scholarship amounts can have negative downstream effects. Choice programs with comparatively low scholarship amounts can limit students’ options since states that spend more on public education also tend to have higher tuition costs at private schools. Similarly, if policymakers in low funding-portability states want to achieve better funding parity between choice programs and public schools, they can only do so at an additional cost to taxpayers. 

At a time when school choice is fueling demand for new K-12 options, school finance reform is one way for states to incentivize a robust supply of providers. School finance reform can also help lessen the burden on taxpayers as public education enters a new era that features more choice and competition.  

The post Which K-12 finance systems foster school choice? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Source: https://reason.org/commentary/which-k-12-finance-systems-foster-school-choice/