Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Spending Under Title I, Part E of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

August 6, 2019 – November 2, 2020 R45862

Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Spending
November 2, 2020
Under Title I, Part E of the Elementary and
Rebecca R. Skinner
Secondary Education Act
Specialist in Education
Policy
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) amended the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) to add the “Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Spending” authority as
Title I, Part E. Under Title I-E, the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) has authority to

provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility to consolidate eligible federal funds
with state and local funding to create a “single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-
income and otherwise disadvantaged students.” The Title I-E authority is applicable to LEAs that are implementing
“weighted student funding” systems to establish budgets for, and allocate funds to, individual public schools. In general,
weighted student funding systems base school funding on the number of pupils in each school in specified categories. Under
these funding systems, weights are assigned to pupil characteristics that are deemed to be related to the costs of educating
such pupils—such as being from a low-income family, being an English Learner (EL), or having a disability—and their
educational program (such as grade level or career-technical education).
Eligible federal funds that may be consolidated in an LEA’s weighted student funding system include those available under
ESEA Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged), Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II-A), English Language
Acquisition (Title III-A), and Student Support and Academic Enrichment (Title IV-A). No non-ESEA funds (e.g., funds
available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the Perkins Career and Technical Education
(Perkins) Act) may be consolidated. Once eligible federal funds are consolidated in a participating LEA’s weighted student
funding system, these funds are treated the same way as the state and local funds.
LEAs participating in Title I-E must have a funding system that uses weights or allocation amounts that provide
“substantially more funding” than is allocated to other students to ELs, students from low-income families, and students with
any other characteristic related to educational disadvantage that is selected by the LEA . The system must also ensure that
each high-poverty school receives in the first year of the local flexibility demonstration agreement more per-pupil funding for
low-income students than was received for low-income students from federal, state, and local sources in the year prior to
entering into the agreement and at least as much per-pupil funding for ELs as was received for ELs from federal, state, and
local sources in the prior year. The weighted student funding system must include all school-level actual personnel
expenditures for instructional staff, including staff salary differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel
expenditures in the LEA’s calculation of eligible federal funds and state and local funds to be allocated to the school level.
The Title I-E authority is limited to 50 LEAs in school years preceding 2019-2020, but could be offered to any LEA from
that year onward, if a “substantial majority” of the LEAs participating in previous years have met program requirements. In
February 2018, the Secretary announced that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) would begin accepting applications
from LEAs to enter into agreements under the Student-Centered Funding Pilot, which is how ED refers to the Title I-E
authority. Only six LEAs have applied for the Title I-E authority, and one LEA, Puerto Rico, was initially approved to
implement a local flexibility demonstration agreement for the 2018-2019 school year. The implementation date for Puerto
Rico to exercise Title I-E authority was later delayed until the 2019-2020 school year, then ultimately was revoked. Thus, no
LEAs implemented weighted student funding systems under Title I-E prior to the 2019-2020 school year.
ED did not solicit additional applications for Title I-E authority until 2020 when it launched a new competitive grant program
to assist LEAs with the development and implementation of Student-Centered Funding Programs authorized under Title I-E.
The grant competition links the Title I-E flexibility authority with activities to support well-rounded educational
opportunities included in the Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) Grant program authorized under ESEA
Title IV-A. ED awarded grants to two LEAs. During the first year of the grant program, each grantee is required to submit an
application to ED to receive the Title I-E flexibility.
While it is unclear why relatively few LEAs have expressed interest in participating in the Title I-E authority, there are
several possible explanations, some of which are summarized below:
 ED did not act to implement the Title I-E authority until February 2018, more than two years after the
enactment of the ESSA.
Congressional Research Service

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

 Local flexibility demonstration agreements are for a three-year period with a possible renewal. LEAs may
not feel that the changes needed to implement the required weighted student funding system are worthwhile
for a three-year period without knowing for certain if the authority would be extended.
 States and LEAs that currently have weighted student funding systems often include funds for students with
disabilities and career and technical education in their systems. However, LEAs would be prohibited from
consolidating IDEA or Perkins funds under the Title I-E authority.
 Public schools that operate schoolwide programs under Title I-A already have the authority to consolidate
state, local, and certain federal funds, including those available under IDEA or Perkins.
 There may be concerns that some public schools may lose funds by switching to a weighted student
funding system. As the Title I-E authority does not include any funding to ease the transition to the new
funding system for schools that may be negatively affected, LEAs may be hesitant to participate.
 Under the ESEA Title I-A program, which accounts for over 76% of the eligible federal funds under Title
I-E, funds have historically been provided to public schools with the highest concentrations of low-income
students. Under the Title I-E authority, if an LEA chooses to consolidate its Title I-A funds it is likely that
the distribution of Title I-A funds would be more diffuse.
 It is possible that some LEAs may view the consolidation of federal funds and the resulting redistribution
of funds among public schools in the LEA as a step toward the portability of federal funds, whereby funds
would be associated with individual students rather than schools and could ultimately follow them to any
school of their choosing, including a private school.

Congressional Research Service

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Introduction
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95) amended the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) to add a new Part E to Title I entitled “Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil
Spending.” Under Title I-E, the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) has the authority to
provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility to consolidate eligible federal funds
with state and local funding to create a “single school funding system based on weighted per-
pupil al ocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students.” The ESEA Title I-E
authority is applicable to LEAs that are using or agree to implement “weighted student funding”
systems to establish budgets for, and al ocate funds to, individual public schools. These funding
systems base school funding on the number of pupils in each school in specified categories.
Under these funding systems, weights are assigned to a variety of pupil characteristics that are
deemed to be related to the costs of educating such pupils—such as being from a low-income
family, being an English Learner (EL), or having a disability. Weights are also assigned on the
basis of students’ educational program (grade level, career-technical education, gifted and
talented, or others). School budgets are based on these weighted pupil counts, in contrast to
treating al pupils in the same manner. Under weighted student funding policies, school
al ocations are based on weighted counts of students enrolled in them; therefore, if students
transfer from one public school to another within the same LEA, their weighted budget level
transfers with them, although possibly with a time lag.1
The Secretary is permitted to waive a wide range of requirements under various ESEA programs,
including provisions related to the al ocation of Title I-A funds to schools, for LEAs entering into
an agreement under Title I-E if an existing ESEA requirement would prevent the LEA from
implementing its weighted student funding system under the agreement. LEAs must, however,
meet Title I-E requirements for al ocations to schools with students from low -income families and
ELs. LEAs must also continue to meet a number of Title I-A and other requirements, though in
somewhat modified fashion in some instances.
The Title I-E authority is limited to 50 LEAs in school years preceding 2019-2020, but it could be
offered to any LEA from that year onward, as long as a “substantial majority” of the LEAs
participating in previous years have met program requirements.2 In February 2018, the Secretary
announced that she would begin accepting applications from LEAs to enter into local flexibility
demonstration agreements under the Student-Centered Funding Pilot, which is how the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) refers to the Title I-E authority. To date, six LEAs have applied for
the Title I-E authority, and one LEA, Puerto Rico3 was initial y approved to implement a local
flexibility demonstration agreement for the 2018-2019 school year. The implementation date for
Puerto Rico to exercise Title I-E authority was later delayed until the 2019-20 school year, then
ultimately was revoked. Thus, no LEAs implemented weighted student funding systems under
Title I-E prior to the 2019-2020 school year.

1 It is inherent in the weighted student funding concept that if students transfer between schools in the same LEA, their
weighted funding level also transfers. However, depending on the specific timing and structure of relevant enrollment
counts and school allocation procedures, there might be a time lag for this transfer of funds of up to a school year. T his
is in contrast to more-traditional school funding strategies, such as assigning a staff member for a certain number of
students. Under this scenario, if a student changes schools it may or may not affect staffing levels and, as a result,
funding in either school.
2 ESEA T itle I, Part E, Section 1501(c)(3).
3 T he Commonwealth of Puerto Rico functions as a single LEA.
Congressional Research Service
1

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

To provide context for the Title I-E authority, this report begins with a brief discussion of how
public elementary and secondary education is financed at the state and local levels. It focuses on
the primary types of state school finance programs and school finance “equalization,” including
an overview of weighted student funding systems. For a more detailed discussion of state and
local financing of public schools, see CRS Report R45827, State and Local Financing of Public
Schools.
Building on this background, the remainder of the report focuses on the Title I-E authority. First,
there is an examination of the Title I-E statutory authority and related non-regulatory guidance
provided by ED. This is followed by a discussion of current Title I-E implementation issues. The
next section considers possible interactions between the Title I-E authority and other ESEA
programs, particularly Title I-A. The report concludes with discussion of some issues that may
arise related to the Title I-E authority.
Overview of Financing for Public Elementary and
Secondary Schools in the United States
This section provides a brief overview of funding sources for public elementary and secondary
education. It also discusses school finance “equalization,” including an examination of the use of
weighted student funding at the state and LEA levels.4
Sources of Funding for Public Elementary and Secondary
Education
The funding of public elementary and secondary schools in the United States involves a
combination of local, state, and federal government revenues, in proportions that vary
substantial y both across and within states. Overal , a total of $734.2 bil ion in revenues was
devoted to public elementary and secondary education in the 2017-2018 school year (the latest
year for which detailed data on revenues by source are available) in the 50 states and the District
of Columbia.5 State governments provided $344.0 bil ion (46.8%) of these revenues, local
governments provided $332.9 bil ion (45.3%), and the federal government provided $57.3 bil ion
(7.8%). Over the last several decades, the share of public elementary and secondary education
revenues provided by state governments has increased, the share provided by local governments
has decreased, and the federal share has varied within a range of 6.0% to 12.7%. The primary
source of local revenues for public elementary and secondary education is the property tax, while
state revenues are raised from a variety of sources, primarily personal and corporate income and
retail sales taxes, a variety of “excise” taxes such as those on tobacco products and alcoholic
beverages, plus lotteries in several states.
Al states (but not the District of Columbia)6 provide a share of the total revenues available for
public elementary and secondary education. This state share varies widely, from approximately

4 As mentioned previously, CRS Report R45827, State and Local Financing of Public Schools, provides more
information about the financing of public elementary and secondary education.
5 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Revenues and Expenditures for Public
Elem entary and Secondary Education: FY2018 , August 2020, p. 7, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020306.pdf.
6 Funds provided for public education by the District of Columbia are considered local funds rather than state funds.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Revenues and Expenditures for Public
Elem entary and Secondary Education: FY2018 , August 2020, p. 7, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020306.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

31% in New Hampshire to almost 90% in Hawai and Vermont. The programs through which
state funds are provided to LEAs for public elementary and secondary education have
traditional y been categorized7 into five types of programs: (1) Foundation Programs,8 (2) Full
State Funding Programs,9 (3) Flat Grants,10 (4) District Power Equalizing,11 and (5) Categorical
Grants.12,13 Of these, Foundation Programs are the most common,14 although many states use a
combination of program types.
School Finance “Equalization”
A goal of al of the various types of state school finance programs is to provide at least some
limited degree of “equalization” of spending and resources, and/or local ability to raise funds, for
public elementary and secondary education across al of the LEAs in the state. Such programs
often establish target levels of funding “per pupil.” The “pupil” counts involved in these programs
may simply be based on total student enrollment as of some point in time, or they may be a
“weighted” count of students, taking into account variations in a number of categories—special
pupil needs (e.g., disabilities, low family income, limited proficiency in English), grade levels,
specific educational programs (e.g., career and technical education), or geographic considerations
(e.g., student population sparsity or local variation in costs of providing education).
State Use of Weighted Student Funding
A review of the individual state entries in a recent survey15 is an instructive indication of the
extent to which weighted student counts are used to determine funding levels under current state
programs. It shows that at least 32 states used some degree of weighting of the pupil counts used
to calculate state aid to LEAs. Most of these states have policies that assign numeric weights to
different categories of pupils, while in other states the school finance program specifies different

7 See, for example, L. Dean Webb, Arlene Matha, and K. Forbis Jordan, Foundations of American Education, 4th ed.
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall Publishers, 2003), pp. 420-425; and Kern Alexander, Richard G.
Salmon, and F. King Alexander, “State School Funding Methods,” in Financing Public Schools: Theory, Policy, and
Practice (New York, NY: Routledge Publishers, 2015). Also see Deborah A. Verstegen, A Quick Glance at School
Finance: A 50 State Survey of School Finance Policies, 2018, https://schoolfinancesdav.wordpress.com/ (hereinafter
referred to as Verstegen (2018)).
8 A typical Foundation Program includes required local tax effort, state equalization aid, and local leeway funds. Under
a Foundation Program, the state establishes an annual target (often a “minimum”) level of funding per pupil applicable
to all of the state’s LEAs.
9 Full State Funding is found only in Hawaii. Under such a policy, there are virtually no local revenues. States such as
Vermont and New Mexico come close to this category through programs that involve very limited local funding
sources.
10 T his type of program provides grants of an equal amount per pupil to all LEAs in a state, regardless of the level of
taxable property wealth in those localities or specific pupil characteristics.
11 T his program type focuses specifically on equalizing the ability of different LEAs in a state to raise revenues from
their available taxable property.
12 Categorical Grants provide funding based on the number of students with specific needs (students with disabilities or
limited English proficiency, from low-income families, etc.) or in particular educational programs (career and technical
programs, etc.).
13 Other organizations have added additional categories for state programs, such as being “student based,” “resource
based,” or “program based.” T hese categorizations are not discussed in this report. For more information, see, for
example, Ed Build, FundEd: State Education Funding Policies for all 50 States, 2019, http://funded.edbuild.org/.
14 Kern Alexander, Richard G. Salmon, and F. King Alexander, Financing Public Schools: Theory, Policy, and
Practice (New York, NY: Routledge Publishers, 2015), p. 379.
15 Verstegen (2018).
Congressional Research Service
3

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

target dollar amounts for specific categories of pupils, which is mathematical y equivalent to
assigning weights.16
Many states also adjust pupil weights for those in selected grade levels, geographic areas, or
programs. Weights are often higher for pupils in the earliest grades or in grades 9-12, though
policies vary widely, and a few states prioritize other grade levels such as 7-9. The population
sparsity weights recognize the diseconomies of scale in areas with especial y smal LEAs or
schools. The career and technical education weights recognize the extra costs of these types of
programs.
Application of Weighted Student Funding in LEA Programs to Finance
Individual Schools
As seen above, the concept of pupil weighting is often applied in determining funding levels for
LEAs under state school finance programs. After state funds reach LEAs, they are combined with
local y raised funds to provide educational resources to students in individual schools. It is this
stage in the distribution of educational resources that is relevant to the weighted student funding
authority in ESEA Title I, Part E (see subsequent discussion of Title I-E). Below is an overview of
both conventional intra-LEA budgeting policies and the use of weighted student funding at the
LEA level.
Conventional Intra-LEA Budgeting Policies
Under the traditional, and stil most common, method of al ocating resources within LEAs, there
are no specific budgets for individual schools. Available state and local funds are managed
central y, by LEA staff, and various resources—facilities, teachers, support staff, school
administrators, instructional equipment, etc.—are assigned to individual schools. In this process,
LEA staff typical y apply LEA-wide standards such as pupil-teacher ratios or numbers of various
categories of administrative and support staff to schools of specific enrollment sizes and grade
levels. While levels of expenditures per pupil may be determined for individual schools under
these budgetary systems, they are calculated “after the fact,” based on whatever staff and other
resources have been assigned to the school. And while standard ratios of pupils per teacher or
other resource measures may be applied LEA-wide in these situations, substantial variations in
the amounts actual y spent on teachers and other resources in each school can result from
systematic variations in teacher seniority and other factors. These variations might be masked by
local policies to apply average salaries, rather than specific actual salaries, in school accounting
systems.17 Further, under traditional school budgeting policies there is little or no immediate or
direct adjustment of resources or spending when students transfer from one school to another.
Weighted Student Funding Concept Applied to Intra-LEA Budgeting for Schools
In contrast to traditional, fully centralized budgeting and accounting policies for public schools
within LEAs, a number of LEAs have in recent years applied the weighted student funding
concept to developing and implementing individual school budgets. These policies are not

16 In addition, a few states apply weights, based on pupil categories, to “instructional units” in their state school finance
formulas; this can also be mathematically equivalent to weighting pupil types directly. See Alexander et al., pp. 389 -
390.
17 See, for example, Marguerite Roza, Educational Economics: Where Do School Funds Go? (Washington, DC:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010), particularly pp. 5 -15.
Congressional Research Service
4

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

currently applied to any federal program funds and are applied only to a portion of the state and
local revenues received by these LEAs, as they continue to central y administer and budget for
various activities such as school facility construction, operations and maintenance, employee
benefits, transportation, food services, and many administrative functions. The LEAs develop
school budgets for teachers, support staff, and at least some other resources on the basis of
weighted counts of the students currently enrolled in each school, and adjust these budgets when
students transfer from one school to another.18
CRS is not aware of any comprehensive listing of al of the LEAs that are currently implementing
weighted student funding policies for intra-LEA al ocations to schools. The use of weighted
student funding within LEAs is a relatively new practice in most cases,19 and comprehensive
research on its effects is not yet available. However, Dr. Marguerite Roza and her team at the
Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University were awarded a three-year grant by the Institute of
Education Sciences at ED to study whether spending patterns change with weighted student
funding systems and what the effects of these systems are on equity and achievement, particularly
for poor and at-risk students.20 An interview with Dr. Roza based on their preliminary findings
revealed that nearly al 19 LEAs in the study that use weighted student funding systems cite
equity (89%) and flexibility for school principals (79%) as a main reason for implementing such
systems.21 Dr. Roza also noted that there is not a “standard” weighted student funding model used
by LEAs and that LEAs differ with respect to the share of their total budgets al ocated through
weighted student funding systems, how base amounts are defined, and the weights assigned to
various categories of students. She also noted that almost al of the LEAs in their study continue
to use average salaries in their budgeting rather than actual personnel expenditures.
ESEA Title I-E
The remainder of this report focuses on the new authority for flexible per-pupil spending made
available under ESEA Title I-E. The discussion begins with an examination of the Title I-E
statutory requirements and implementation of that authority. This is followed by an analysis of
how these requirements may interact with ESEA programmatic requirements for several
programs, with a focus on interactions with the Title I-A program. The report concludes with
discussion of possible issues related to the Title I-E authority.

18 For more information, see Edunomics, Student Based Allocation, https://edunomicslab.org/our-research/student-
based-allocations; and ERS, Transform ing School Funding: A Guide to Im plem enting Student-Based Budgeting,
https://www.erstrategies.org/tap/implementing_student -based_budgeting.
19 Over the past two decades, dozens of large LEAs (i.e., New York City, Boston, Denver, Houston, and Chicago) have
shifted to using weighted student funding systems to distribute a portio n of their total budget. U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Weighted Student Funding Is On The Rise, Here’s What We Are Learning. ,
May 9, 2019, https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/research/post/weighted-student -funding-is-on-the-rise-here-s-what -we-are-
learning.
20 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, How Do Spending Patterns Change with Wei ghted
Student Funding (WSF), and What’s Happening to Equity and Achievement, Particularly for Poor and At -Risk
Students?, https://ies.ed.gov/funding/grantsearch/details.asp?ID=2063.
21 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Weighted Student Funding Is On The Rise, Here’s
What We Are Learning., May 9, 2019, https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/research/post/weighted-student-funding-is-on-the-rise-
here-s-what -we-are-learning.
Congressional Research Service
5

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Title I-E Authority
This section discusses the requirements related to the Title I-E authority. Al of the statutory
provisions are included in ESEA, Section 1501.
Overview
The purpose of the Title I-E authority is to provide LEAs with flexibility to consolidate eligible
federal funds with state and local funding to create a “single school funding system based on
weighted per-pupil al ocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students.” Once
consolidated in a participating LEA’s weighted student funding system, the eligible federal funds
are treated the same way as the state and local funds. There are no required uses associated with
the eligible federal funds provided that the expenditures are “reasonable and necessary”22 and the
purposes of the eligible federal programs for which funds have been consolidated are met.
Federal Funds Eligible for Consolidation
Eligible federal funds that may be consolidated under the Title I-E authority include ESEA funds
received by LEAs under the programs listed below.23 Programs that provide formula grant
funding to LEAs directly or via the state educational agency (SEA) are denoted by an asterisk.
 Title I-A*
 Migrant Education (Title I-C)
 Neglected and Delinquent (Title I-D-2)*24
 Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II-A)*
 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program (Title II-B-1)
 Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants (Title II-B-2)
 Innovative Approaches to Literacy (Title II-B-2)
 School Leader Recruitment and Support (Title II, Section 2243)
 English Language Acquisition (Title III)*
 Student Support and Academic Enrichment (Title IV-A)*
 Smal , Rural School Achievement Program (Title V-B-1)*
 Rural and Low-Income School Program (Title V-B-2)*25

22 U.S. Department of Education, Why should your school district apply for the Student-centered Funding pilot?,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/scfbenefits.docx.
23 Statutory language states that T itle II-B programs are eligible programs. CRS examined each of the programs
included in T itle II-B to identify those providing funds to LEAs. T itle II-B programs that do not appear to provide
funding to LEAs include Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics (T itle II -B-3,
Section 2232), National Activities for American History and Civics Education (T itle II-B-3, Section 2233), Supporting
Effective Educator Development (Title II-B-4, Section 2242), and ST EM Master T eacher Corps (T itle II -B-4, Section
2245).
24 When awarding subgrants to eligible LEAs, SEAs have the option of awarding funds by formula or through a
discretionary grant process. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Title I, Part D: Neglected,
Delinquent, and At-Risk Youth, Nonregulatory Guidance, 2006, Item M-1, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/
nord.doc.
25 Funds provided under the Rural and Low-Income School Program may be provided to LEAs by formula or
competition at the state educational agency’s discretion.
Congressional Research Service
6

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

In general, a participating LEA may use the consolidated federal funds without having to meet the
specific requirements of each of the programs whose funds were consolidated provided the LEA
is able to demonstrate the funds al ocated through its weighted student funding systems address
the purposes of each of the federal programs. For example, under the Student Support and
Academic Enrichment (SSAE) grant program, LEAs must use funds for wel -rounded education,
safe and healthy students, and technology purposes. If SSAE funds were consolidated with state
and local funds under a weighted student funding system, then the participating LEA would have
to demonstrate that the activities being implemented in its schools meet these purposes. However,
the LEA would not have to meet SSAE grant requirements about how much funding was used for
each purpose. If a participating LEA consolidates funds from an eligible federal program that
provides competitive grants to LEAs into its weighted student funding system, it is stil required
to carry out the scope and objectives, at a minimum, as described in the LEA’s approved
application.26 The majority of federal funds available for LEAs to use under the Title I-E
authority are provided through formula grants.
LEAs applying for funding flexibility under Title I-E are not required to include funds from every
eligible federal program in their weighted student funding systems. If a participating LEA opts
not to include some of the eligible federal funds in its system, al current statutory and regulatory
requirements wil continue to apply to those funds. It should be noted that no non-ESEA funds,
such as those available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Perkins
Career and Technical Education (CTE) Act, are considered eligible federal funds for the purposes
of the Title I-E authority.
Secretarial Authority
Under the authority granted under Title I-E, the Secretary may enter into a local flexibility
demonstration agreement for up to three years with an LEA that is selected to participate and
meets the required terms of the agreement (hereinafter referred to as a participating LEA). A
participating LEA may consolidate and use funds as stated in the agreement to develop and
implement a school funding system based on weighted student funding al ocations for low -
income and otherwise disadvantaged students.
Except as discussed below, the Secretary is authorized in entering into these agreements to waive
any ESEA provision that would prevent a participating LEA from using eligible federal funds in
its weighted student funding system, including Title I-A requirements regarding the al ocation of
Title I-A funds to public schools (Section 1113(c)).27 Thus, the waiver authority granted to the
Secretary for the purposes of Title I-E is broader than the general waiver authority available under
Section 8401. Under the latter, the Secretary is prohibited from waiving provisions such as the
al ocation or distribution of funds to grantees.
However, there are several statutory requirements that participating LEAs must agree to continue
to meet. For example, each participating LEA must agree to meet the three Title I-A fiscal

26 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, May 31, 2018, Item A -11,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
27 For information about how T itle I-A funds are allocated to schools, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds
Under Title I-A of the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act.
Congressional Research Service
7

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

accountability requirements in Section 1118, which include maintenance of effort (Section
1118(a)),28 supplement, not supplant (Section 1118(b)), and comparability (Section 1118(c)).29
The maintenance of effort provision requires LEA expenditures of state and local funds to be at
least 90% of what they were for the second preceding fiscal year for public elementary and
secondary education. The use of either a weighted student funding system or a traditional funding
system should not directly affect the amount of state and local funds spent on public education, so
the use of a weighted student funding system does not present any problems with meeting this
requirement.
The supplement, not supplant provision requires that Title I-A funds be used so as to supplement
and not supplant state and local funds that would otherwise be provided to Title I-A schools.
According to ED, an LEA may presume that this requirement has been met if the LEA
“implements its system so that the State and local funds that are included in the system include
the funds that Title I, Part A schools would have received if they were not Title I, Part A
schools.”30
Comparability requires that a comparable level of services be provided with state and local funds
in Title I-A schools compared with non-Title I-A schools prior to the receipt of Title I-A funds.
Many LEAs currently meet this provision using a pupil-teacher ratio to compare Title I-A and
non-Title I-A schools. It is possible that they may not be able to continue to use this method under
a weighted student funding system.31 According to ED, if an LEA demonstrates comparability
based on the state and local funds received by each Title I-A school compared to non-Title I-A
schools through an equitable funding system, the LEA’s weighted student funding system would
“constitute per se comparability.”32 Therefore, according to ED, an LEA might find it
“advantageous to demonstrate comparability based on funds rather than a staff-student ratio.”33
The identification of public schools for purposes of the supplement, not supplant and
comparability fiscal accountability provisions requires the identification of public schools as Title
I-A schools and their Title I-A funding levels under the current structure of the program. Thus,
Title I-A provisions that require LEAs to determine which public schools would receive Title I-A
funds and the amount that each school would receive34 cannot be waived by the Secretary, even
though funds would not be distributed based on these determinations if an LEA chose to include
Title I-A funds in its weighted student funding system. However, as previously mentioned, an

28 As Section 1118 references Section 8521, by default, an LEA must also agree to meet the requirements of Section
8521.
29 Additional information about the T itle I-A fiscal accountability requirements is available in CRS In Focus IF10405,
Fiscal Accountability Requirem ents That Apply to Title I-A of the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) .
30 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A -3, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
31 T hese ratios are often based on average teacher salaries as opposed to actual personnel expenditures, including staff
salary differentials for years of employment. T he latter are required to be used in weighted student funding systems
under the T itle I-E authority.
32 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A -3, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
33 Ibid.
34 Section 1113(a) and (b).
Congressional Research Service
8

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

LEA does not have to distribute Title I-A funds based on the current distribution requirements35 if
the LEA includes Title I-A funds in its weighted student funding system.
In addition to meeting Title I-A fiscal accountability requirements and provisions related to the
identification of Title I-A schools and their Title I-A funding levels, participating LEAs must
continue to meet Title I-A program requirements related to the participation of eligible children
enrolled in private schools as wel as the Section 8501 requirements related to the participation of
children enrolled in private schools in other ESEA programs.36 Prior to al ocating funds through
its weighted student funding system, each participating LEA must determine the amount of funds
from each eligible federal program whose funds have been consolidated that must be reserved to
provide equitable services under that program. For example, under Title I-A a participating LEA
must stil determine the amount of funding that would have been provided to a public school
attendance area if the LEA was al ocating Title I-A funds in accordance with Section 1113(c).
Based on this funding level, the LEA must determine how much Title I-A funding needs to be
reserved for serving eligible private school students. The participating LEA must then follow
current procedures with respect to consulting with private school officials and providing needed
services under each program to eligible private school students.37 Remaining Title I-A funds not
reserved at the LEA level would be distributed through the LEA’s weighted student funding
formula.
Participating LEAs are also required to meet al applicable federal civil rights laws (e.g., Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act) and al IDEA requirements. These requirements may not be waived by
the Secretary.
In addition to the requirements in statutory language, there are several other requirements that the
Secretary has determined cannot be waived.38 For example, participating LEAs must continue to
meet state-level requirements, such as implementing state academic standards, administering
annual state assessments, meeting educational accountability requirements, and issuing an annual
local report card, including reporting per-pupil expenditures by school. In addition, state-level
requirements delegated by a state to an LEA as part of a subgrant agreement cannot be waived.
For example, if a participating LEA is delegated state responsibilities for identifying migratory
children and transferring student records, these responsibilities must be met. The Secretary has
also determined that a participating LEA that has schools identified for comprehensive or targeted
support and improvement under Section 1111 must ensure that such schools develop and
implement improvement plans. If a participating LEA chooses to offer public school choice as an
intervention in schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement, however, the LEA
would no longer be subject to the limitation on funding for transportation.39 A participating LEA

35 Section 1113(c).
36 Section 8501 provisions apply to Migrant Education (T itle I-C), Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II-A),
English Language Acquisition (T itle III-A), Student Support and Academic Enrichment (T itle IV-A), 21st Century
Community Learning Centers (T itle IV-B), and Section 4631 with respect to the Project School Emergency Response
to Violence (Project SERV) program.
37 For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -
Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A -4, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
38 For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -
Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A -2, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
39 Section 1111(d)(1)(D)(v) limits the amount of funding an LEA may use for transportation to support public school
choice as an intervention strategy for schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement to 5% of the
LEA’s T itle I-A allocation. Under an LEA’s weighted student funding system, the school would no longer be receiving
Congressional Research Service
9

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

is also required to continue addressing the disparities that result in low -income and minority
students in Title I-A schools being taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced,
ineffective, or out-of-field teachers.40 The Secretary has also noted that a participating LEA may
have to meet additional ESEA requirements to ensure that it is meeting the purpose of each
eligible federal program included in its weighted student funding system.41
Selection of LEAs
The Secretary is permitted to enter into local flexibility demonstration agreements with up to 50
LEAs having approved applications through the 2018-2019 school year. Each interested LEA
must do three things to be selected:
1. submit a proposed local flexibility demonstration agreement in accordance with
the requirements of Section 1501,
2. demonstrate that the submitted agreement meets al statutory requirements, and
3. agree to meet the continued demonstration requirements included in Section
1501.
Beginning with the 2019-2020 school year, the Secretary is permitted to extend the funding
flexibility to any LEA that submits and has approved an application that meets the required terms
that apply to local flexibility demonstration agreements provided that a “substantial majority” of
LEAs that entered into agreements meet two sets of requirements as of the end of the 2018-2019
school year. First, they must meet the requirements for the weighted student funding system
included in Section 1501 (discussed below). Second, they must demonstrate annual y to the
Secretary that compared to the previous fiscal year, no high-poverty school served by the LEA
received less per-pupil funding for low-income students or less per-pupil funding for English
learners. A high-poverty school is defined as a school in the highest two quartiles of schools
served by the LEA based on the enrollment of students from low-income families. As wil be
discussed in subsequent sections, six LEAs applied for Title I-E authority, and one LEA, Puerto
Rico, was initial y approved to implement a local flexibility demonstration agreement for the
2018-2019 school year.42 The implementation date for Puerto Rico to exercise Title I-E authority
was later delayed until the 2019-2020 school year,43 then ultimately was revoked.44 Thus, no
LEAs implemented weighted student funding systems under Title I-E prior to the 2019-2020
school year.

T itle I-A specific funding, as funds would be consolidated. U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility
Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 o f the ESEA: Frequently Asked
Questions, Item A-2, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
40 T he provision related to teacher disparities is included in Section 1112(b)(2).
41 For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -
Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A -2, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
42 U.S. Department of Education, Student-Centered Funding Pilot Submissions, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/scfp/submissions.html.
43 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Julia Keleher, Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, January 3, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/primplementationtimingltr.html.
44 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Eleuterio Alamo, Interim Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, April 16, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/prde-letter-rescinding-scf-approval.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreement Application
LEAs interested in entering into a local flexibility demonstration agreement to consolidate
eligible federal funds with state and local funds in a weighted student funding system must
submit an application to the Secretary. To assist in the review of applications, the Secretary may
establish a peer review process.45
The application must include a description of the LEA’s weighted student funding system,
including the weights that wil be used to al ocate funds. It must also include information about
the LEA’s legal authority to use state and local funds in the system.46 The application must
address the specific system requirements included in Section 1501 (discussed below) and discuss
how the system wil support the academic achievement of students, including low -income
students, the lowest-achieving students, ELs, and students with disabilities.
The application must detail the funding sources, including eligible federal funds and state and
local funds, that wil be included in the weighted student funding system. The LEA must provide
a description of the amount and percentage of total LEA funding (eligible federal funds, state
funds, and local funds) that wil be al ocated through the system.47 The application must also state
the per-pupil expenditures of state and local education funds for each school served by the LEA
for the previous fiscal year.48 In making this determination, the LEA is required to base the per-
pupil expenditures calculation on actual personnel expenditures, including staff salary
differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel expenditures. The LEA must also
provide the per-pupil amount of eligible federal funds that each school served by the agency
received in the preceding fiscal year, disaggregated by the programs supported by the eligible
federal funds.49 The application must include a description of how the system wil ensure that for
any eligible federal funds al ocated through it, the purposes of the federal programs wil be met,
including serving students from low-income families, ELs, migratory children, and children who
are neglected, delinquent, or at risk, as applicable.
An LEA is required to provide several assurances in its application. First, it must provide an
assurance that it has developed and wil implement the local flexibility demonstration agreement

45 T he Secretary has used a peer review process to evaluate submitted applications. For more information, see U.S.
Department of Education, Local Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered Funding Authorized by
Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item A-13, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/
leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
46 LEAs do not have to provide documentation of such authority in their applications but should have evidence to
support their claim. U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered
Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequen tly Asked Questions, Item C-2, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
47 For purposes of the application, this information must be provided for the first year of the program and updated for
years two and three. (U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered
Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item C-3, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.)
48 ED has provided LEAs with two options for meeting this requirement. One is based on providing data from the fiscal
year immediately preceding the year for which the LEA is applying to implement its weighted student funding system
under Section 1501. T he other is based on providing data from two years prior to the year for which the LEA is
applying to implement its syst em under Section 1501. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education,
Student-Centered Funding Webinar, February 2018, pp. 43-44, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/scf.pdf.
49 U.S. Department of Education, Student-Centered Funding Webinar, February 2018, pp. 43-44, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/scf.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
11

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

in consultation with various stakeholders including teachers, principals, other school leaders,
administrators of federal programs affected by the agreement, and community leaders. Second, it
must provide an assurance that it wil use fiscal controls and sound accounting procedures to
ensure that the eligible federal funds included in the weighted student funding system are
properly disbursed and accounted for. Third, as previously discussed, it must agree to continue to
meet the requirements of ESEA Sections 1117, 1118, and 8501. Final y, it must provide an
assurance that it wil meet the requirements of al applicable federal civil rights laws (e.g., Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act) when implementing its agreement and consolidating and using funds
under that agreement.
Requirements for the Weighted Student Funding System
In order to enter into a local flexibility demonstration agreement, each LEA must have a weighted
student funding system that meets specific requirements. The system must al ocate a “significant
portion of funds,” including eligible federal funds and state and local funds, to the school level
based on the number of students in a school and an LEA-developed formula that determines per-
pupil weighted amounts. The system must also al ocate to schools a “significant percentage” of
al of the LEA’s eligible federal funds and state and local funds.50 The percentage must be agreed
upon during the application process, and must be sufficient to carry out the purpose of the
agreement and meet its terms. In addition, the LEA must demonstrate that the percentage of
eligible federal funds and state and local funds that are not al ocated through the LEA’s system
does not undermine or conflict with the requirements of the agreement.
The LEA’s weighted student funding system must use weights or al ocation amounts that provide
“substantial y more funding” than is al ocated to other students to ELs, students from low-income
families, and students with any other characteristic related to educational disadvantage that is
selected by the LEA. The system must also ensure that each high-poverty school receives in the
first year of the agreement more per-pupil funding from federal, state, and local sources for low-
income students than was received for low-income students from in the year prior to entering into
an agreement and at least as much per-pupil funding from federal, state, and local sources for ELs
as was received for ELs in the year prior to entering into an agreement.51 The system must include
al school-level actual personnel expenditures for instructional staff, including staff salary
differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel expenditures in the LEA’s
calculation of eligible federal funds and state and local funds to be al ocated to the school level.
After funds are al ocated to schools through the weighted student funding formula, the LEA is
required to determine or “charge” each school for the per-pupil expenditures of eligible federal
funds and state and local funds. This determination must include actual personnel expenditures,
including staff salary differentials for years of employment, for instructional staff and actual
nonpersonnel expenditures. By charging schools based on actual costs, an LEA can ensure that

50 Neither statutory language nor non-regulatory guidance offers further clarification of the difference between a
“significant portion” of funds and a “significant percentage” of funds. As discussed in this report, however, the
requirements related to the significant portion of funds are different than those related to the significant percentage of
funds.
51 In its FAQ document, ED notes that the comparison between the amount received in the first year of the
demonstration agreement should be compared to the amount received in the “ year immediately preceding the first year
of the demonstration agreement.” This clarification addresses a situation in which an LEA applies for a demonstration
agreement but is unable to implement it in the school year immediately following the y ear in which the application was
approved; U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item C-4, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

schools do not receive less funding than the weighted student funding system would indicate the
school should receive, even if it has lower actual expenditures in some categories compared to the
LEA average.52, 53
Final y, as discussed by ED, LEAs entering into a local flexibility demonstration agreement must
agree to cooperate with ED in monitoring and technical assistance activities.54 They must also
collect and report information that the “Secretary may reasonably require” in order to conduct the
program evaluation discussed below.55
Continued Demonstration Requirements
Each participating LEA must demonstrate to the Secretary on an annual basis that, as compared to
the previous year, no high-poverty school served by the LEA received (1) less per-pupil funding
for low-income students or (2) less per-pupil funding for ELs from eligible federal funds and state
and local funds. On an annual basis, each participating LEA is also required to make public and
report to the Secretary for the preceding fiscal year the per-pupil expenditures of eligible federal
funds and state and local funds for each school served by the LEA, disaggregated by each quartile
of students attending the school based on student level of poverty and by each major racial/ethnic
group. Per-pupil expenditure data must include actual personnel expenditures, including staff
salary differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel expenditures. Each year,
the participating LEA must also make public the total number of students enrolled in each school
served by the agency and the number of students enrolled in each school disaggregated by
economical y disadvantaged students, students from major racial/ethnic groups, children with
disabilities, and ELs. Any information reported or made public by the participating LEA to
comply with these requirements shal only be reported or made public if it does not reveal
personal y identifiable information.
Renewal of Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreement
The Secretary is authorized to renew local flexibility demonstration agreements for additional
three-year terms if the participating LEA (1) has met the requirements for weighted student
funding systems and the continued demonstration requirements and (2) has a “high likelihood” of
continuing to meet these requirements. The Secretary must also determine that renewing the
agreement is in the interest of students served by programs authorized under Title I and Title III
of the ESEA.

52 T his is in contrast to conventional intra-LEA budgeting policies where determinations of expenditures per pupil are
calculated after the fact, based on whatever staff and other resources have been assigned to the school based on staff -
student ratios, for example.
53 ED recognizes that using actual personnel expenditures is not common practice in many LEAs and allows an LEA to
rely on salary bands for school-level budgeting in its application. In addition, ED notes that an LEA may need to
propose a method to ensure that each individual school receives the full amount of funding that it generates through the
formula by making adjustments to school-level budgets once actual expenditures are known. In determining whether
the appropriate level of funding is being provided to high -poverty schools, this evaluation can be made following any
adjustments to school-level budgets. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility
Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked
Questions, Item C-10, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
54 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item C-7, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
55 U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item D -1, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Noncompliance
After providing notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary may terminate a local
flexibility demonstration agreement if there is evidence that the LEA has failed to comply with
the terms of the agreement, the requirements of the system, and continued demonstration
requirements. If the LEA believes the Secretary has erred in making this determination for
statistical or other substantive reasons, it may provide additional evidence that the Secretary shal
consider before making a final determination.
Program Evaluation
From the amount reserved for evaluation under Section 8601, the Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Institute of Education Sciences, shal consult with the relevant program office at
ED to evaluate the implementation of local flexibility demonstration agreements and their effect
on improving the equitable distribution of state and local funding and increasing student
achievement. The statutory language does not require an evaluation of the distribution of eligible
federal funds.
Administrative Expenditures
Each participating LEA may use for administrative purposes an amount of eligible federal funds
that is not more than the percentage of funds al owed for such purposes under each eligible
federal program.
Program Implementation
On February 2, 2018, the Secretary announced that she was using the authority made available
under Title I-E to launch a Student-Centered Funding Pilot.56 LEAs interested in using the
flexibility for the 2018-2019 school year were required to submit an application by March 12,
2018. LEAs interested in using the flexibility for the 2019-2020 school year had to apply by July
15, 2018.57
First Application Round
Five LEAs submitted applications for the local flexibility demonstration agreement by March 12,
2018: Wilsona School District (CA), Indianapolis Public Schools (IN), Salem-Keizer School
District 24J (OR), Upper Adams School District (PA), and the Puerto Ric o Department of
Education.58 Puerto Rico’s application was approved on June 28, 2018.59 Puerto Rico initial y

56 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Announces New Student -Centered Funding Pilot Program,” press
release, February 2, 2018, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-announces-new-student -centered-
funding-pilot -program.
57 For more information about the application deadlines, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility
Demonstration Agreements for Student -Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked
Questions, Item B-9, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
58 U.S. Department of Education, Student-Centered Funding Pilot Submissions, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/scfp/submissions.html.
59 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Julia Keleher, Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, June 28, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/
admins/lead/account/stateplan17/prapprovalstateplanltr.html; and U.S. Department of Education, Term s of Local
Flexibility, Dem onstration Agreem ent for Student-Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Puerto
Congressional Research Service
14

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

intended to implement a weighted student funding system that consolidated eligible federal funds
with state and local funds during the 2018-2019 school year. The implementation date for Puerto
Rico to exercise Title I-E authority was later delayed until the 2019-2020 school year,60 then
ultimately was revoked.61
Second Application Round
Only the Roosevelt School District in Arizona applied by the July deadline to use the flexibility
for the 2019-2020 school year.62 As of July 2019, its application had not yet been approved.63
Recent Budget Requests
This section provides an overview of ED’s budget requests for FY2018 through FY202064 as they
relate to the Title I-E authority.
FY2018 Budget Request
In its FY2018 budget request, ED requested that it be permitted to use up to $1 bil ion of Title I-A
funding to support weighted student funding systems and public school choice.65 The funds
would have been used to make Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS)
grants. One use of the FOCUS grant funds would have been to support LEAs in establishing or
expanding weighted student funding systems if they agreed to combine their funding flexibility
with an open enrollment policy for public school choice. ED proposed that it would establish the
requirements for such open enrollment systems with a focus on “maximizing opportunities for al
students, particularly those from low-income families, to select, attend, and succeed in a high-
quality public school.”66 The proposal suggested that the requirements could include, for
example, making school information available to parents in a timely way, supporting school
integration efforts, arranging or paying for transportation to schools of choice, and giving priority
to low-income students or students in schools identified for improvement under Title I-A. ED also
proposed al owing participating LEAs to use the funds to provide temporary payments to
individual schools affected by the transition to a weighted funding system. In addition, the

Rico Departm ent of Education, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/prdeagreement.pdf.
60 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Julia Keleher, Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, January 3, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/primplementationtimingltr.html.
61 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Eleuterio Alamo, Interim Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, April 16, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/prde-letter-rescinding-scf-approval.pdf.
62 U.S. Department of Education, Student-Centered Funding Pilot Submissions, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/scfp/submissions.html.
63 ED anticipated notifying any successful applicants that applied by the July deadline of their application acceptance
by fall 2018. U.S. Department of Education, Local Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered
Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Frequently Asked Questions, Item B-12, May 31, 2018,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf.
64 ED’s FY2018 budget request was its first that included a proposal related to the T itle I -E authority.
65 U.S. Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged: Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, pp. A19-A21,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget18/justifications/a-ed.pdf.
66 U.S. Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged: Fiscal Year 2018 Bud get Request, p. A-20,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget18/justifications/a-ed.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

proposal included an option for ED to establish “tiers based on LEA student enrollments”67 and
give special consideration to LEAs proposing to serve at least one rural school or to consortia of
LEAs that agreed to provide interdistrict choice for al students. Implementing this proposal
would have required congressional authorization, and Congress did not act on ED’s request.
FY2019 Budget Request
In its FY2019 budget request, ED requested funding to make Open Enrollment Grants (OEGs) to
LEAs approved to operate Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Funding pilots authorized under
Title I-E that agreed to combine their funding flexibility with an open enrollment policy for
public school choice.68 Similar to its FY2018 budget request, ED proposed that it would establish
the requirements for such open enrollment systems with a focus on “maximizing opportunities for
al students, particularly those from low-income families, to select, attend, and succeed in a high-
quality public school.”69 The proposal again suggested that the requirements could include, for
example, making school information available to parents in a timely way, supporting school
integration efforts, arranging or paying for transportation to schools of choice, and giving priority
to low-income students or students in schools identified for improvement under Title I-A. ED also
proposed al owing participating LEAs to use the funds to provide temporary payments to
individual schools affected by the transition to a weighted funding system, providing information
on public school options to parents, and supporting needed administrative systems.
ED did not request a specific amount of funding for only the OEGs. Rather, it requested $500
mil ion for Scholarships for Private Schools70 and OEGs to be divided between the programs
based on the demand for grants. Implementing either program would have required congressional
authorization, and Congress did not act on ED’s proposal.
FY2020 Budget Request
In its FY2020 budget request, ED requested $50 mil ion to create Student-Centered Funding
Incentive Grants to help increase LEA participation in the agreements71 authorized under ESEA
Section 1501.72 These grants are not authorized in the ESEA and congressional action would be
required to implement the proposal. In its proposal, ED argues that the new grants “would help
demonstrate the viability”73 of moving to weighted student funding systems and the potential for
these new systems to improve student outcomes while reducing “LEA red tape.”74 ED believes
that the proposed grants could help increase participation by providing resources to LEAs to

67 Ibid.
68 U.S. Department of Education, Innovation and Improvement: Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request, pp. F15-F19,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget19/justifications/f-ii.pdf.
69 Ibid, p. F-16.
70 For more information about the Scholarships for Private Schools program, see U.S. Department of Education,
Innovation and Im provement: Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request, pp. F15-F19, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget19/justifications/f-ii.pdf.
71 ED uses the term “agreements” rather than “local flexibility demonstration agreements.” T he statutory language in
Section 1501 indicates that through the 2018 -2019 school year, the use of the Section 1501 flexibility was considered a
demonstration program. For subsequent school years, the statutory language references ED extending the funding
flexibility authorized under Section 1501 to LEAs with approved applications; ESEA, Section 1501(c)(3).
72 U.S. Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged: Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, pp. A25-A27,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget20/justifications/a-ed.pdf.
73 Ibid, p. A-25.
74 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
16

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

develop procedures to charge schools based on actual (as opposed to average) personnel
expenditures and could reduce the potential negative effects on some individual schools of
transitioning to a weighted student funding system under Title I-E.
The grants would only be available to LEAs that have already been approved for an agreement.75
ED estimates that up to 10 LEAs could be supported through the grants and suggests that it could
give “special consideration” to LEAs with the highest concentration of poverty.76
The funds could be used by participating LEAs for activities related to implementing weighted
student funding systems. According to ED, this could include using funds to make temporary
payments to individual schools to offset reductions in funding resulting from the transition to the
system, al owing a “smooth transition to these new systems.”77 Grant funds could also be used by
ED to provide technical assistance to LEAs in developing and preparing for the implementation
of weighted student funding systems that meet the requirements of Section 1501.78 In its proposal,
ED also mentions that it may consider using existing authority to extend the initial local
flexibility demonstration agreement period from three years to six years to help increase LEA
participation.
Regardless of whether Congress acts on ED’s proposal to provide Student-Centered Funding
Incentive Grants, LEAs that enter into an agreement are currently permitted to use administrative
funds consolidated under Section 820379 to support the implementation of their weighted student
funding system.
FY2021 Budget Request
ED’s FY2021 budget request did not include any funding related to Title I-E.
Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding
Demonstration Grants
On May 11, 2020, the Secretary announced a new competition for grants to LEAs to assist in the
development and implementation of Student-Centered Funding Programs authorized under ESEA
Title I-E.80 These grants, referred to as Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered
Funding Demonstration Grants (SCF Grants), are to be funded at a total of $3 mil ion taken from

75 Ibid. ED also proposes that grants could be made available prior to an LEA being approved for a local flexibility
demonstration agreement if the LEA can demonstrate a commitment to seeking an agreement.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
78 ED already offered technical assistance to LEAs interested in applying for a local flexibility demonstration
agreement. T he period in which technical assistance could be requested ended on September 28, 2018. F or more
information, see https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/studentcentered.html.
79 Section 8203 permits an LEA, with the approval of its SEA, to consolidate and use to administer one or more ESEA
programs (or other programs designated by the Secretary) not more than the percentage established in each program of
the total available for t he LEA under those programs. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Local
Flexibility Dem onstration Agreem ents for Student-Centered Funding Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA:
Frequently Asked Questions, Item A-6, May 31, 2018, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/faqs.pdf
80 T he press release announcing this competition may be found at U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos
Announces New Grant Competition for School Districts to Launch Student -Centered Funding Program,” press release,
May 11, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-announces-new-grant -competition-school-
districts-launch-student-centered-funding-program?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=
govdelivery&utm_term=.
Congressional Research Service
17

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

the authorized 2% reservation of appropriations for the Secretary for technical assistance and
capacity building under the Student Support and Academic Enrichment (SSAE) grant program
authorized by ESEA Title IV, Part A.81 The grant competition links the flexibility authority of
ESEA Title I-E with activities to support wel -rounded educational opportunities in the SSAE
grant program.82 According to the grant competition announcement in the Federal Register,83
“The Wel -Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants
program is intended to help build the capacity of LEAs to provide wel -rounded education by
utilizing the SCF flexibility agreements under ESEA section 1501 in order to demonstrate models
for expanding and enhancing delivery of such opportunities for educational y disadvantaged
students.” Grants are awarded for up to five years. During the first year of the grant, an LEA wil
prepare an application to receive the Title I-E flexibility and prepare to implement its new
funding system. Upon approval of a Title I-E flexibility agreement, the LEA wil implement its
new funding system. As required by law, each flexibility agreement is approved for three years.
LEAs receiving an SCF Grant must receive approval or an extension of its Title I-E flexibility
agreement in order to continue to receive grant funds. In determining whether to continue funding
under the grant for years three through five, the Secretary wil consider, among other factors, (1)
the timeliness with which the LEA has met or is meeting the requirements of the grant and how
wel they are being met, and (2) the LEA’s readiness to implement the Title I-E flexibility
agreement as “demonstrated through local commitment and staff capacity, and the likelihood that
approval of an agreement wil enhance a wel -rounded education in the LEA.”84
LEA applications for these grants had to be submitted to ED by July 10, 2020. ED projected that
one to four awards would be made to LEAs. Two grants were awarded under the competition.85
The Los Angeles Unified School District (California) received a grant of about $584,000. The
Cleveland Municipal School District (Ohio) received a grant of about $478,000.
Possible Interactions Between Title I-E Authority and Other
ESEA Programs
This section discusses some of the ways in which the Title I-E authority might interact with other
ESEA programs. As Title I-A is the only ESEA program that includes specific requirements for
the al ocation of funds to schools within LEAs, it is the primary focus of the discussion.

81 ESEA, §4103(a)(3).
82 ESEA, §4107.
83 U.S. Department of Education, “Applications for New Awards; Well-Rounded Education T hrough Student -Centered
Funding Demonstration Grants,” 85 Federal Register 27721-27726, May 11, 2020. (Hereinafter referred to as Federal
Register, Well-Rounded Education T hrough Student -Centered Funding Demonstration Grants.)
84 Ibid., p. 27723.
85 U.S. Department of Education, Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants,
2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/well-rounded-education-
student-centered-funding-demonstration-grants/awards-4/; and U.S. Department of Education , “ Secretary DeVos
Announces Student -Centered Grant Awards to Expand Personalized Learning through Course Access, Student -
Centered Funding,” press release, September 18, 2020, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-
announces-student-centered-grant-awards-expand-personalized-learning-through-course-access-student-centered-
funding.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 24 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 link to page 25 Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

ESEA Programs to Which Title I-E Provisions Apply
Under Title I-E, participating LEAs may consolidate and al ocate eligible federal funds to public
schools through their weighted student funding formulas. Table 1 details the amount of funding
appropriated under each eligible federal program for FY2020.86
Table 1. FY2020 Appropriations for Programs Authorized by the ESEA that Could
Potentially Be Affected by the Weighted Student Funding Authority Included in
ESEA Title I-E
(Dol ars in thousands)
Share of Funding for
Program
FY2020 Appropriation
Potentially Affected Programs
Title I-A*
$16,309,802
76.15%
Migrant Education (Title I-C)a
$374,751
1.75%
Neglected and Delinquent (Title I-
(included as part of Title I-A
D-2)b*
appropriation)
—
Supporting Effective Instruction
(Title II-A)*
$2,131,830
9.95%
Teacher and School Leader
$200,000
0.93%
Incentive Program (Title II-B-1)a
Comprehensive Literacy State
Development Grants (Title II-B-2)a
$192,000
0.90%
Innovative Approaches to Literacy
(Title II-B-2)a
$27,000
0.13%
School Leader Recruitment and
Support (Title II, Section 2243)a
$0
0.00%
English Language Acquisition (Title
III)*
$787,400
3.68%
Student Support and Academic
$1,210,000
5.65%
Enrichment (Title IV-A)*
Smal , Rural School Achievement
Program (Title V-B-1)*
$92,920
0.43%
Rural and Low-Income School
$92,920
0.43%
Program (Title V-B-2)c*
Totald
$21,418,623
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Budget
Service.
Notes: Statutory language states that Title II-B programs are eligible programs. CRS examined each of the
programs included in Title II-B to identify those providing funds to LEAs. Title II-B programs that do not appear
to provide funding to LEAs include Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics
(Title II-B-3, Section 2232), National Activities for American History and Civics Education (Title II-B-3, Section

86 Statutory language states that T itle II-B programs are eligible programs. CRS examined each of the programs
included in T itle II-B to identify those programs providing funds to LEAs. T itle II -B programs that do not appear to
provide funding to LEAs include Presidential and Congressional Academies for American History and Civics (T itle II-
B-3, Section 2232), National Activities for American History and Civics Education (T itle II -B-3, Section 2233),
Supporting Effective Educator Development (Title II-B-4, Section 2242), and ST EM Master T eacher Corps (T itle II -B-
4, Section 2245).
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 24 Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

2233), Supporting Effective Educator Development (Title II-B-4, Section 2242), and STEM Master Teacher Corps
(Title II-B-4, Section 2245). Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
*: ESEA formula grant program for LEAs.
a. LEAs are one of several eligible entities that could receive funds under this program. Thus, LEAs may or
may not be receiving program funds. This could mean that the total included in the table is an overestimate
of the amount of eligible federal funding available for consolidation under the Title I-E authority.
b. Funding for LEAs under the Neglected and Delinquent program is included in Title I-A. The amount of
funding available to LEAs for Title I-D-2 purposes is determined under each of the Title I-A formulas. As
final data needed to determine these amounts for FY2020 are not yet available, no appropriations
information has been provided in the table. Based on CRS estimates using unpublished data provided by ED,
Budget Service, in FY2019, about $104 mil ion was available for these grants, subject to adjustments by the
state educational agency. When awarding subgrants to eligible LEAs, SEAs have the option of awarding funds
by formula or through a discretionary grant process.
c. Funds provided under the Rural and Low-Income School Program may be provided to LEAs by formula or
competition at the state educational agency’s discretion.
d. This is the maximum amount of funding available, assuming LEAs received al of the formula and competitive
grant funding available from eligible ESEA programs.
The majority of the funding available for consolidation and al ocation under the Title I-E
authority is provided through formula grants. These grants are either provided directly to LEAs
or, in most cases, to LEAs via the state.
Most of the attention regarding the possible impact of the weighted student funding authority has
been focused on the ESEA Title I-A program. In addition to constituting about 76% of the total
FY2020 appropriations for al programs potential y affected by the Title I-E authority (Table 1), it
is the only one of the potential y affected federal programs under which most funds are al ocated
to individual schools under statutory school al ocation policies, and therefore the only program
where current policies for the al ocation of funds to schools can be compared to how funds might
be al ocated to schools under the weighted student funding authority. The other potential y
affected federal programs are either much less focused on individual schools (as opposed to being
central y managed by LEAs), are much less widespread in their distribution of funds among
LEAs, and/or are focused largely on SEAs rather than LEAs or schools. Thus, in most cases,
ESEA Title I-A funds are likely to be the primary federal program funds directly affected by the
ESEA Title I-E authority in most participating LEAs. It is possible, however, depending on which
eligible federal funds and the percentage of such funds an LEA decides to include in its weighting
student funding system, that the distribution of funds under other ESEA programs that have funds
eligible for consolidation could change substantial y.
Current Policies for Allocating Title I-A Funds to Schools Within LEAs
As is explained below, the al ocation of Title I-A funds within LEAs is focused on providing
grants to schools with comparatively high concentrations of students from low-income families,
not individual students. Thus, the authority under ESEA Title I-E to combine Title I-A funds with
state and local funds under weighted student funding formulas and to have the Title I-A funds
follow students to any public school in the LEA, not just those with concentrations of students
from low-income families, is a significant shift from the way the program is general y
implemented.
Under almost al federal education assistance programs, grants are made to states or to LEAs (or
subgranted to LEAs by SEAs) with services or resources provided in a manner that is managed by
the SEA or LEA. In sharp contrast to this general pattern, most ESEA Title I-A funds are
al ocated to individual schools, under statutory al ocation provisions, although LEAs retain
Congressional Research Service
20

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

substantial discretion to control the use of a share of Title I-A grants at a central district level.87
While there are several rules related to school selection, LEAs must general y rank public schools
by their percentage of pupils from low-income families, and serve them in rank order. LEAs may
choose to consider only schools serving selected grade levels (e.g., only elementary schools or
only middle schools) in determining eligibility for grants, so long as al public schools where
more than 75% of the pupils from low-income families receive grants (if sufficient funds are
available to serve al such schools).88 LEAs also have the option of serving al high schools where
more than 50% of the pupils are from low-income families before choosing to serve schools at
selected grade levels.
Al participating schools must general y have a percentage of children from low -income families
that is higher than the LEA’s average, or 35%, whichever of these two figures is lower.89 The
percentage of students from low-income families for each public school is usual y measured
directly, although LEAs may choose to measure it indirectly for middle or high schools based on
the measured percentages for the elementary or middle schools that students attended previously
(sometimes cal ed “feeder schools”). LEAs have the option of setting school eligibility thresholds
higher than the minimum in order to concentrate available funds on a smal er number of
schools,90 and this is especial y the practice in some large urban LEAs. For example, according to
data available from ED, in the 2015-16 school year al public schools reported as participating in
Title I-A in Chicago had a free and reduced-price lunch child percentage of 55% or higher,
whereas the minimum eligibility threshold would general y be 35%.91
In almost al cases, the data used to determine which pupils are from low-income families for the
distribution of Title I-A funds to schools are not the same as those used to estimate the number of
school-age children in low-income families for purposes of calculating Title I-A al ocations to
states and LEAs. This is because Census or other data are general y not available on the number
of school-age children enrolled in a school, or living in a residential school attendance zone, with
income below the standard federal poverty threshold. Thus, LEAs must use available proxies for
low-income status. The Title I-A statute al ows LEAs to use the following low-income measures
for school selection and al ocations: (1) eligibility for free and reduced-price school lunches
under the federal child nutrition programs, (2) eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), (3) eligibility for Medicaid, or (4) Census poverty estimates (in the rare
instances where such estimates may be available for individual schools or school attendance
areas).92 According to the most recent relevant data, approximately 90% of LEAs receiving Title

87 For detailed guidance regarding the selection of schools to receive T itle I-A grants and the allocation of funds among
them, see U.S. Department of Education, Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of School Attendance
Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools, August 2003, https://www2.ed.gov/
programs/titleiparta/wdag.doc.
88 Some LEAs run out of T itle I-A funds before serving all schools where the percentage of students from low-income
families is 75% or above. T his usually occurs in a relatively small number of LEAs with very high percentages of students
from low-income families in a large proportion of t heir schools. T hese LEAs are to serve schools in rank order, based on
their percentage of students from low-income families, until they run out of funds.
89 T his minimum percentage is reduced from 35% to 25% for schools participating in certain desegregatio n plans.
90 T here is an exemption from all of the T itle I-A school selection requirements for small LEAs—defined in this case as
those with enrollments of 1,000 or fewer pupils. Such small LEAs do not have to meet any of the school ranking
requirements discussed here.
91 Schools below the 55% threshold but at or above the 35% threshold were generally listed as not eligible to participate
in the T itle I-A program. U.S. Department of Education, Com m on Core of Data, 2015-2016 school year,
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
92 LEAs may also develop and use a composite of two or more of these measures—for example, school-age children in
families receiving either T ANF or Medicaid benefits.
Congressional Research Service
21

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

I-A funds use free/reduced-price school lunch (FRPL) data—sometimes alone, sometimes in
combination with other authorized criteria—to select Title I-A schools and al ocate funds among
them.93 The income eligibility thresholds for free and reduced-price lunches—130% of the
poverty income threshold for free lunches, and 185% of poverty for reduced-price lunches—are
higher than the poverty levels used in the Title I-A al ocation formulas to states and LEAs. For
example, for a family of four people during the 2018-2019 school year, the income threshold for
eligibility was $32,630 for free lunches and $46,435 for reduced price lunches.94 By contrast, the
poverty threshold for a family of four people in 2018 was $25,100.95
While Title I-A funds are to be focused on the schools within a recipient LEA with percentages of
students from low-income families that are relatively high in the context of their locality, many
Title I-A schools do not have high percentages of low-income students when considered from a
national perspective. Largely because of the relatively low poverty rate thresholds for LEA
eligibility to receive Title I-A grants,96 many low-poverty LEAs receive Title I-A funds, and often
the highest-poverty schools in those LEAs do not have high percentages of students from low -
income families compared to the nation as a whole. For example, according to ED, 23% of the
nation’s public schools that are in the lowest quartile nationwide in terms of their percentage of
students from low-income families (35% or below) receive Title I-A grants.97
Title I-A funds are al ocated among participating schools in proportion to their number of pupils
from low-income families, although grants to eligible schools per pupil from a low -income family
need not be equal for al schools. LEAs may choose to provide higher grants per child from a
low-income family to schools with higher percentages of such pupils.
A Title I-A school at which 40% or more of the students are from low -income families may
provide Title I-A services via a schoolwide program, under which al of the students at the school
may be served.98 This is in contrast to the other mode of providing Title I-A services—via

93 U.S. Department of Education, Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report, August 2000,
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445178.While not current, this is the most recently published information on the topic. In
particular, it should be noted that in recent years implementation of the Community Eligibility Program (CEP),
authorized by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-296), has reduced the availability of FRPL data for
many high-poverty schools. Under CEP, free breakfasts and lunches must be provided to all students at participating
public and private schools meeting certain criteria regarding enrollment of students from low-income households. CEP
was initially implemented in a few states at a time but became available in all states beginning with the 2014 -15 school
year. For additional information, see Wayne Riddle, Im plications of Com m unity Eligibility for the Education of
Disadvantaged Students Under Title I, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 20, 2015, https://www.cbpp.org/
research/food-assistance/implications-of-community-eligibility-for-the-education-of-disadvantaged; and CRS Report
R44568, Overview of ESEA Title I-A and the School Meals’ Com m unity Eligibility Provision .
94 T hese income thresholds are somewhat higher for Alaska and Hawaii. For more information, see U.S. Department of
Agriculture, “Child Nutrition Programs: Income Eligibility Guidelines,” 83 Federal Register 20788-20789, May 8,
2018.
95 U.S. Department of Healt h and Human Services, “Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines,” 83 Federal
Register 2643, January 18, 2018.
96 T he eligibility thresholds for LEAs vary by T itle I-A formula: it is 10 formula children and a school-age child
poverty rate of either 2% for Basic Grants, or 5% for the T argeted and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG)
formulas. For Concentration Grants, the LEA eligibility threshold is 6,500 formula children or a 15% school-age child
poverty rate. For more information, see T able 1 in CRS Report R44164, ESEA Title I-A Form ulas: In Brief.
97 U.S. Department of Education, National Assessment of Title I Final Report, Volume I: Implementation, NCEE 2008-
4012, October 2007, https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084012_rev.pdf.
98 A school at which less than 40% of children are from low-income families may request a waiver from the SEA to
operate a schoolwide program (ESEA §1114(a)(1)(B)).
Congressional Research Service
22

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

targeted assistance schools—wherein Title I-A may be used only for services directed to the
lowest-achieving students at the schools.
The share of funds to be used by each Title I-A LEA to serve educational y disadvantaged pupils
attending private schools is determined on the basis of the number of private school students from
low-income families living in the residential areas served by public schools selected to receive
Title I-A grants.99 In making this determination, LEAs may use either the same source of data
used to select and al ocate funds among public schools (i.e., usual y FRPL data) or one of a
specified range of alternatives.100
As noted earlier, the al ocation of Title I-A funds within LEAs is focused on providing grants to
schools with comparatively high concentrations of students from low-income families, not
individual students. One rationale for the strategy of concentrating Title I-A funds on relatively
high poverty schools is that the level of funding for each participating student is relatively low
and can finance a substantial level of services only if combined with Title I-A funding for
numerous eligible students in a school. Title I-A funding per student is usual y discussed in terms
of grant amounts per student served under the program. Especial y with the growth of schoolwide
programs in recent years, the amount of funding per student deemed to be participating in the
program (which includes al students in schoolwide program sites) would be estimated at $645.
Even this amount, which is based on dividing the total FY2019 Title I-A appropriation
($15,859,802,000) by the latest published estimate of the number of students participating in Title
I-A programs (24.6 mil ion),101 would be an overestimate, as it does not take into account the
share of Title I-A funds that do not reach individual schools because they are used at the state or
LEA level for activities such as administration, school improvement, and districtwide programs
(e.g., professional development for Title I-A teachers). However, under weighted student funding
the more relevant figure would be the level of funding per student from a low -income family. If
the standard of low-income most often applied in the current Title I-A school al ocation process
were used, the number of public school students from low-income families would be slightly
higher (25.8 mil ion)102 and the national average Title I-A grant per pupil from a low-income

99 In cases where a state or LEA deems itself to be unable to provide for T itle I -A services to eligible private school
students, or where the Secretary determines that such services have been inadequate, the Secretary arranges for services
to be provided via a “ bypass” arrangement, under which the services are provided by a third-party entity. T he relevant
grant amounts are deducted from funds available for public schools in the state or LEA. Historically, such bypass
arrangements have been implemented in the states of Missouri and Virginia, and at times in selected LEAs in other
states. See, for example, Virginia T itle I Bypass, http://www.virginiatitleibypass.com/index.cfm.
100 “T o obtain a count of private school children, an LEA may use: (1) T he same poverty data it uses to count public
school children. (2) Comparable poverty data from a survey of families of private school students that, to the extent
possible, protects the families’ identity. T he LEA may extrapolate data from the survey based on a representative
sample if complete actual data are not available. (3) Comparable data from a different source, such as scholarship
applications, so long as the income level for both sources is generally the same. (4) Proportional data based on the
poverty percentage of each public school attendance area applied to the total number of private school children who
reside in that area. (5) An equated measure of low income correlated with a measure of low inco me used to count
public school children.” (U.S. Department of Education , Local Educational Agency Identification and Selection of
School Attendance Areas and Schools and Allocation of Title I Funds to Those Areas and Schools, August 2003,
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/wdag.doc, p. 16.)
101 T he estimated number of students served by T itle I-A is for the 2016-17 school year (U.S. Department of Education,
Education for the Disadvantaged: Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request, p. A-22, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget20/justifications/a-ed.pdf).
102 T he estimated number of public school students eligible for free or reduced-price school lunches is for the 2014-15
school year (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics,
2016 version, T able 204.10, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_204.10.asp).
Congressional Research Service
23

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

family would be $614. For the reasons just discussed (i.e., not accounting for funds retained at the
state or LEA level), this would also be an overestimate of the amount of funding per student.
Other ESEA Programs Potentially Affected by the Title I-E Authority
Beyond the primary focus on the ESEA Title I-A program, it is possible that LEAs participating
in the weighted student funding authority would include funds from at least some of the other
potential y affected programs. For example, the one currently approved applicant for the ESEA
Title I-E authority, Puerto Rico, plans to al ocate 53% of its Title I-A funds plus 55% of its Title
II-A and 92% of its Title III-A funds103 to schools through its weighted student funding
formula.104 Thus, in participating LEAs, at least some federal programs that are currently
central y managed by LEAs may be decentralized and managed, at least in part, by individual
schools. The extent to which this occurs may depend on the percentage of funds of an eligible
federal program that are al ocated through the LEA’s weighted student funding formula as
opposed to being retained at the state or LEA level.
Possible Issues Regarding the Weighted Student Funding
Authority Available Under Title I-E
The last section of the report examines issues related to the Title I-E flexibility authority. The first
set of issues examines possible reasons why participation by LEAs in the Title I-E authority has
been low and some potential issues related to it. It then considers why LEAs might want to
participate in the Title I-E authority based on reasons stated by ED. This is followed by an
examination of possible issues that may arise if participation in the Title I-E authority increases.
This includes consideration of how the al ocation of eligible federal funds, particularly Title I-A
funds, could be different if the Title I-E flexibility was adopted more broadly, as wel as LEA
access to other fund consolidation authority, whether the use of the Title I-E authority could
increase the extent to which federal programs are focused on individual schools, whether the Title
I-E authority could represent a model for a major change in the distribution of ESEA funds , and
whether adequate safeguards exist to ensure that the purposes of federal education programs
whose funds are consolidated are met.
Why have relatively few LEAs applied for the Title I-E flexibility authority
thus far?
In 2018, there were two application periods for LEAs interested in receiving the Title I-E
flexibility authority. Six LEAs applied for the authority, and one LEA, Puerto Rico, was initial y
approved to implement a local flexibility demonstration agreement for the 2018-2019 school
year.105 The implementation date for Puerto Rico to exercise Title I-E authority was later delayed

103 Puerto Rico uses these funds to support Spanish learners rather than English learners as is permitted under ESEA
Section 3127.
104 U.S. Department of Education, T erms of Local Flexibility, Demonstration Agreement for Student -Centered Funding
Authorized by Section 1501 of the ESEA: Puerto Rico Department of Education, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/scfp/prdeagreement.pdf.
105 U.S. Department of Education, Student-Centered Funding Pilot Submissions, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/
essa/scfp/submissions.html.
Congressional Research Service
24

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

until the 2019-2020 school year,106 then ultimately was revoked.107 In 2020, ED awarded grants to
two LEAs to implement the Title I-E flexibility authority with financial support under the Wel -
Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants competition.
One reason for the low rate of participation could be the relatively slow implementation by ED.
The authority was provided under the ESSA’s amendments to the ESEA, enacted on December
10, 2015. However, ED’s initial announcement that the flexibility authority was available was
made more than two years later, on February 2, 2018. LEA interest, to the extent that it existed,
may have waned over this time period.
ED did not solicit additional interest in the Title I-E flexibility authority until the 2020 grant
competition for the Wel -Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration
Grants. ED awarded grants to two LEAs under this program. As ED had not yet published any
information on the number of grant applications received as of October 28, 2020, it is possible
that only two LEAs submitted applications or that any additional LEA applications did not meet
the requirements to receive a grant. ED indicated in the grant announcement that it expected to
award $3 mil ion in grants.108 The two LEAs that received grants collectively were awarded about
$1.1 mil ion.109 While ED argued in its budget requests that making grants available to LEAs
interested in implementing the Title I-E authority may encourage more LEAs to participate, it
does not appear that the competitive grant program generated widespread interest among LEAs.
However, as the grant competition was launched during the coronavirus pandemic, it is possible
that LEAs were too focused on other issues to consider changing their funding systems or apply
for a grant.
Another possible constraint on LEA interest in applying for the Title I-E authority is that the
authority is applicable for only a three-year period. While potential y renewable, and while such a
time limitation may be typical and appropriate for a pilot authority, LEAs may be hesitant to
make major changes to, or new investments in, their school finance system or administration of
Title I-A and other federal programs for such a limited time period.
While it is not a requirement that an LEA already be implementing a weighted student funding
system in order to participate in Title I-E, the number of LEAs that have already adopted
weighted student funding for their state and local funds, and would therefore be interested in
expanding those systems to include a number of federal programs, may be limited. There is no
definitive, comprehensive listing of LEAs currently using weighted student funding formulas.
While a number of relatively large urban LEAs are doing so, the total number of such LEAs may
stil be rather smal , limiting the number of likely and eligible applicants for the federal weighted
student funding authority.
Potential applicants may be deterred by the limitations to the federal weighted student funding
authority. While state- and LEA-level weighted student funding formulas often include state and
local funding for students with disabilities and career and technical education programs, the Title

106 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Julia Keleher, Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, January 3, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/primplementationtimingltr.html.
107 Letter from Frank Brogan, U.S. Department of Education, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary
Education, to T he Honorable Eleuterio Alamo, Interim Secretary of Education, Puerto Rico, April 16, 2019,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/prde-letter-rescinding-scf-approval.pdf.
108 Federal Register, Well-Rounded Education T hrough Student -Centered Funding Demonstration Grants, p. 27723.
109 U.S. Department of Education, Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants,
2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/well-rounded-education-
student-centered-funding-demonstration-grants/awards-4/.
Congressional Research Service
25

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

I-E authority does not apply to funds under IDEA or the Perkins CTE Act. While it might seem
most appropriate for an ESEA flexibility provision to apply only to ESEA programs, and while
the IDEA and the Perkins CTE Act involve somewhat different constituencies and interest groups
than the ESEA, the Title I-E flexibility authority might be more consistent with many state and
local weighted student funding policies, and offer enhanced flexibility to participating LEAs, if it
included at least some of the IDEA and Perkins CTE Act funding streams. In addition, as
discussed below, schools operating schoolwide programs under Title I-A are already permitted to
consolidate federal funds provided through non-ESEA programs (e.g., IDEA and Perkins CTE
Act funds) with their state and local funds.
It is also possible that LEAs have been deterred by the Title I-E requirement that weighted student
funding systems must use actual personnel expenditures, including staff salary differentials for
years of employment, in their systems. Based on the preliminary results of an ongoing study on
the use of weighted student funding systems in LEAs, most of the LEAs in the study have
continued to use average staff salaries, rather than actual personnel expenditures, in their
weighted student funding systems.110
In addition, while many requirements under ESEA Title I-A and other ESEA programs are waived
in LEAs receiving the weighted student funding flexibility authority, a number of others (e.g.,
those involving fiscal and academic outcome accountability) remain in effect. This may cause
potential-applicant LEAs to determine that the possible reduction in administrative burdens (e.g.,
from having to track the use of some federal funds, or to al ocate them among schools as they
have in the past) is not sufficient for them to be motivated to apply.
Could there be changes in individual public school funding levels within
LEAs as a result of an LEA entering into a local flexibility demonstration
agreement?
If an LEA enters into a local flexibility demonstration agreement, the resulting distribution of
state, local, and eligible federal funds under a weighted student funding system that meets the
Title I-E requirements could lead to funds shifting among public schools in the LEA. While this
may result in public schools serving low-income students, ELs, and other disadvantaged students
receiving an increase in funding, it is possible that other public schools may lose funds, possibly a
substantial amount or percentage of their current funding. Decreases in funding levels in the
course of one school year could potential y be difficult for an individual school to absorb.
Without state, local, or federal funds to help ease the transition to a weighted funding system, it is
possible that some LEAs may be hesitant to apply to enter into an agreement. Under current law,
the Title I-E authority for the Secretary does not include any federal funds to implement local
flexibility demonstration agreements or offset the loss of funds in public schools as LEAs
implement weighted student funding systems under an agreement. In its budget requests, ED has
proposed providing grants to LEAs implementing a local flexibility demonstration agreement for
these purposes (see previous discussion of FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budget requests), but
no such funds have yet been appropriated.

110 U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Weighted Student Funding Is On The Rise, Here’s
What We Are Learning., May 9, 2019, https://ies.ed.gov/blogs/research/post/weighted-student-funding-is-on-the-rise-
here-s-what -we-are-learning.
Congressional Research Service
26

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

What might happen with respect to expansion of the local flexibility
demonstration agreements beyond the original limit of 50 LEAs?
The delay in implementation of the Title I-E authority by the Secretary complicates the schedule
envisioned in the Title I-E legislation regarding expansion of eligibility for weighted student
funding flexibility to potential y al LEAs. Eligibility for the weighted student funding authority
was limited to no more than 50 LEAs for school years preceding 2019-2020. But the statute
provides that eligibility may be expanded to any LEA beginning with the 2019-2020 school year,
as long as a “substantial majority” of the LEAs participating in previous years have met program
requirements.111 However, no LEA implemented the Title I-E flexibility authority by the 2019-
2020 school year. Thus, a key requirement for program expansion cannot be met. It is unclear
how this would be resolved moving forward should additional LEAs express interest in applying
for the Title I-E authority.
However, as previously discussed, grants to implement the Title I-E flexibility authority with
financial support were awarded to two LEAs in 2020 under the Wel -Rounded Education through
Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants competition.112
What goals or purposes might be served by the use of the weighted student
funding authority in participating LEAs?
Given the relatively low level of LEA interest in the flexibility offered by Title I-E, there are
questions about why an LEA would want to enter into a local flexibility demonstration
agreement. In a document titled “Why should your school district apply for the Student-centered
Funding pilot?”,113 ED outlined several opportunities that, in its opinion, would be advanced for
LEAs that implement the ESEA Title I-E authority. ED states that participating LEAs would have
greater flexibility in the use of the affected federal education program funds, because those
federal funds could be used in the same manner as state and local funds, with no specifical y
required or prohibited uses. LEAs would be able to set their own priorities for these funds. ED
further states that participating LEAs would experience reduced administrative burdens, because
federal funds under the affected programs would not have to be tracked separately. By combining
state, local, and federal funds, participating LEAs could prioritize funding for groups of students
with particular needs by developing or expanding a weighted student funding system. ED also
notes that participating in the Title I-E authority would enhance transparency in the al ocation of
resources within LEAs and facilitate the involvement of school-level leaders in resource
al ocation. In addition, advocates of weighted student funding policies in general often argue that
they enhance options for student mobility and choice among public schools in an LEA, support
school-based management practices, and may increase the targeting of total (local, state and
federal) funds on schools attended by disadvantaged students.114

111 ESEA, §1501(c)(3).
112 U.S. Department of Education, Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants,
2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/well-rounded-education-
student-centered-funding-demonstration-grants/awards-4/.
113 U.S. Department of Education, Why should your school district apply for the Student-centered Funding pilot?,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/scfbenefits.docx.
114 Edunomics Lab, An Introduction to Student Based Allocation, a.k.a., WSF or Weighted Student Funding , November
20, 2018, https://edunomicslab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/SBA-101-Webinar-11.2018.pdf. See also U.S.
Department of Education, Why should your school district apply for the Student-centered Funding pilot?,
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/scfp/scfbenefits.docx.
Congressional Research Service
27

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

The ED document specifical y compares the weighted student funding authority to the
schoolwide program authority provided under ESEA Title I-A. The document states that the
weighted student funding authority is more expansive than the schoolwide program authority, as
it would be available to all public schools within the LEA. (For more information about
differences between the Title I-E authority and schoolwide program authority to consolidate
federal funds, see the next “issue” discussion.)
These views of ED and of advocates of weighted student funding may be countered by other
views of, or concerns about, the weighted student funding authority, as discussed elsewhere in the
“Issues” section of this report.
How does the authority granted under Title I-E differ from authority for Title
I-A schools operating schoolw ide programs to consolidate federal funds with
state and local funds?
Title I-A schools that are operating schoolwide programs already have the authority to consolidate
their federal, state, and local funds without having to create a weighted student funding system.
However, there are several differences between the funding consolidation authority available to
Title I-A schools operating schoolwide programs under Section 1114 and the funding
consolidation authority available under Title I-E. The authority to consolidate funds under
schoolwide programs is only available to Title I-A schools operating those programs (as opposed
to operating targeted assistance programs). Schools operating schoolwide programs have the
choice of whether to consolidate their federal, state, and local funds or not. Under the Title I-E
authority, al public schools in an LEA that has entered into a local flexibility demonstration
agreement would be required to consolidate state, local, and eligible federal funds. An individual
public school would not have a choice about participating in the weighted student funding
system.
Schools operating schoolwide programs must conduct a comprehensive needs assessment,
develop a comprehensive schoolwide plan, annual y review the schoolwide plan, and revise the
plan as necessary based on student needs. Schools located in an LEA participating in Title I-E are
not required to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment or develop and maintain a
comprehensive plan.
For any funds consolidated by a school or an LEA, respectively, under either a schoolwide
program or a local flexibility demonstration agreement, the school or LEA must ensure that it
meets the intent and purposes of each federal program whose funds were consolidated. While
federal programs eligible for consolidation under the Title I-E authority are limited to selected
ESEA programs, schools operating schoolwide programs have the flexibility to consolidate funds
from ESEA programs as wel as non-ESEA programs, such as the IDEA and Perkins Act,
provided certain requirements are met. Federal funds consolidated under either a schoolwide
program or the Title I-E authority are subject to supplement, not supplant requirements.
Could implementation of the weighted student funding authority result in less
targeting of Title I-A funds on high-poverty schools?
Title I-A is the only one of the potential y affected federal programs that currently has school-
level al ocation requirements. It currently is primarily a “school-based” program, with funds
targeted on the specific schools in each LEA with relatively high concentrations of students from
low-income families. In sharp contrast, under the Title I-E flexibility authority Title I-A funds in a
participating LEA would be provided to any public school in the LEA that enrolls even one
Congressional Research Service
28

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

student from a low-income family. While it is not possible precisely to compare the current
al ocation of Title I-A funds to schools to how they might be al ocated under the weighted student
funding authority, there would be a distinct contrast in general strategy between the two sets of
al ocation policies.
The Title I-A program structure is based implicitly on the assumption, and the findings of past
studies, that the relationship between poverty and low achievement is not especial y strong for
individual pupils, but the correlation between concentrations of poverty and concentrations of
low-achieving pupils is quite high.115 According to proponents of the current structure of Title I-
A, this implies that limited Title I-A funds should be concentrated on the highest-poverty schools
if they are to address the greatest pupil needs. In addition, the level of Title I-A funding per pupil
(a maximum of an estimated $645 per pupil served or $614 per pupil from a low-income family,
as discussed above) might be sufficient to pay the costs of substantial supplementary educational
services only if combined for relatively large numbers of students in a school.
Under the Title I-E flexibility authority, while funds would be al ocated among these schools in
proportion to their number of students from low-income families, the overal distribution of Title
I-A funds would almost undoubtedly be more dispersed among more public schools than under
current policies. Concerns regarding economies of scale would argue against the dispersal of Title
I-A grants among potential y al schools in a locality. As noted, it is possible that the current level
of aid per student can provide a significant amount of resources or services only if combined for a
substantial number of pupils in a school. While this would not be a concern at public schools that
numerous pupils from low-income families choose to attend, it would be an issue at schools that
only a few such children choose to attend.
However, this concern might be countered by the fact that under a weighted student funding
process, not only Title I-A funds but also state and local funds and potential y other eligible
federal program funds would be combined and al ocated under a formula giving additional weight
to students from low-income families. It is also specifical y required that the high-poverty schools
in a participating LEA receive in the first year of implementation more total funding per pupil
from a low-income family (and at least as much per EL) as in the year preceding initial
implementation of the flexibility authority, and at least as much in succeeding years. Thus, while
Title I-A funds alone would likely be substantial y more widely dispersed among schools than
they currently are, it is possible that total federal, state, and local funding to relatively high-
poverty schools would increase, especial y in LEAs that had not previously adopted weighted
student funding policies with respect to their state and local funds.
Would the Title I-E flexibility authority increase the extent to which federal
programs other than Title I-A are focused on individual schools?
It is possible that as a result of the Title I-E flexibility, some eligible federal programs may
become more focused on the use of funds at the school level as opposed to the state or LEA level.
There is currently limited data on how funds under eligible federal programs are distributed to the

115 See, for example, Selcuk R. Sirin, “Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of
Research,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 75, no. 3 (Fall 2005), pp. 417-453, https://steinhardt.nyu.edu/
scmsAdmin/media/users/lec321/Sirin_Articles/Sirin_2005.pdf. Also see U.S. Department of Education, National
Assessm ent of the Chapter 1 Program : The Interim Report, June 1992, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED350105; U.S.
Department of Education, Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity.
The Interim Report, July 1993, p. 78, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED361466; and Reyn Van Ewijk and Peter Sleegers, “ T he
effect of peer socioeconomic status on student achievement: A meta-analysis,” Educational Research Review, vol. 5
(January 2010), pp. 134-150, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46466142.
Congressional Research Service
29

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

school level, if at al . It may be helpful from a data analysis perspective to have comprehensive
data on the specific federal education funds provided to each public school to examine whether
switching to a weighted student funding system that meets the requirements of Title I-E alters this
distribution of funds.
Under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA, Title I-A requires participating states to include in
school report cards data on expenditures at each public school.116 The state report card must
provide data on LEA- and school-level per-pupil expenditures of federal, state, and local funds,
including actual personnel expenditures and actual nonpersonnel expenditures, disaggregated by
the source of funds. The data must be reported for every LEA and public school in the state.
These data have not been reported for LEAs and public schools in the past.117 Based on draft
guidance issued by ED, SEAs and LEAs may delay reporting per-pupil expenditures until they
issue report cards for the 2018-2019 school year. However, if an LEA decides to delay the
reporting of per-pupil expenditures, the SEA and its LEAs are required to provide information on
their report cards for the 2017-2018 school year about the steps they are taking to provide such
information on the 2018-2019 school year report card.
While this new reporting requirement does not require schools to disaggregate the receipt of
funds under Title I-E eligible federal programs, it wil , for the first time, detail the per-pupil
expenditure of aggregate federal funds that are al ocated or used at the school level. If LEAs
participating in the Title I-E authority include Title I-A funds in their agreement, it may be
possible to get a sense of whether the al ocation of federal funds at individual schools is changing
under weighted student funding systems that meet the requirements of Title I-E.
Might the weighted student funding authority represent a model for a major
change in strategy for Title I-A and other potentially affected ESEA programs?
In participating LEAs that include Title I-A funds in their weighted student funding systems, Title
I-A would be transformed from a “school-based” program to an “individualized grant.” The Title
I-E flexibility authority arguably represents a substantial change in the basic strategy of Title I-A,
and to a lesser extent other potential y affected federal education programs. As discussed earlier,
from its beginning in 1965 Title I-A has been primarily a school-based program. Funds are to be
al ocated only to the relatively high-poverty schools in each participating LEA. Within those
recipient schools, Title I-A funds are to be used only to serve the lowest-achieving students unless
the school meets the 40% low-income threshold, in which case they can be used to serve al
students.118 The level of Title I-A funding per student served is relatively modest, and it is
implicitly assumed that such amounts are sufficient to provide substantial services only if
combined for relatively large numbers of students from low-income families in a school. Further,
there are a number of requirements regarding the authorized uses of Title I-A funds to meet the
special educational needs of educational y disadvantaged students in participating schools.
The weighted student funding pilot represents a very different approach. First, while academic
outcome accountability and civil rights requirements wil continue to apply to al public schools
in states receiving Title I-A funds, and fiscal accountability requirements wil continue to apply to
certain “high-poverty” schools within LEAs, other requirements for targeting schools or uses of

116 Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x).
117 U.S. Department of Education, Opportunities and Responsibilities for State and Local Report Cards Under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, March 2019, pp.
Item H-14, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/rptcardpubliccomment3282019.pdf.
118 A school that is below the 40% low-income threshold may request to have this requirement waived by the state
educational agency (ESEA, Section 1114(a)(1)(B)).
Congressional Research Service
30

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

funds wil be waived. Administrative burdens would be reduced, but so would a number of
potential y important requirements for targeting services on students with the greatest educational
needs.
Title I-A and other federal program funds would be combined with state and local funds into
weighted grant amounts that would be dispersed among al public schools in the LEA, and that
would follow students if they transfer among schools in the LEA (though possibly with a time
lag).119 This is a very different approach from traditional Title I-A programs. The “individualized
grant” approach embodied in the Title I-E authority might serve as a model that could, in the
future, be expanded if desired through congressional action to include students attending public
schools in other LEAs of the same state, or possibly even eligible students enrolled in private
schools.120
Do the provisions of Title I-E provide adequate assurance that the purposes of
the eligible ESEA programs will be met by participating LEAs?
The Title I-E flexibility authority provides for the waiver of a wide range of requirements
regarding the al ocation of Title I-A funds to schools, and regarding the authorized uses of funds
under al of the eligible federal programs. However, participating LEAs must ensure that the
purposes of the eligible federal programs included in their weighted student funding systems are
met. This may be chal enging for participating LEAs, at least initial y, as more federal funding
from non-Title I-A programs is provided to the school level as opposed to being retained and
controlled at the LEA level and as Title I-A funds are potential y used for the first time in schools
that had not previously received the funds.

119 It is inherent in the weighted student funding concept that if a student transfers between schools in the same LEA,
their weighted funding level also transfers. However, depending on the specific timing and structure of relevant
enrollment counts and school allocation procedures, there might be a time lag for this transfer of funds of up to a school
year.
120 For example, during consideration of ESEA reauthorization, an amendment (SA 2139) to the Every Student
Succeeds Act (S. 1177, which became P.L. 114-95) was offered by Senator Alexander to allow federal funds to be
consolidated to provide low-income students with a scholarship (also known as a voucher) for use at a public or private
school of their choice. Senator Scott offered an amendment (SA 2133) to S. 1177 that would have amended the IDEA
to allow funds to be distributed to families to select an appropriate school for their child, including a private school.
Neither the amendment offered by Senator Alexander nor the amendment offered by Senator Scott was adopted.
Congressional Research Service
31

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Appendix. Glossary of Acronyms
CTE: Career and Technical Education
ED: U.S. Department of Education
EFIG: Education Finance Incentive Grant
EL: English learner
ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act
ESSA: Every Student Succeeds Act (P.L. 114-95)
IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
LEA: Local educational agency
OEG: Open Enrollment Grant
SCF: Student-Centered Funding
SEA: State educational agency
SSAE: Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Author Information

Rebecca R. Skinner

Specialist in Education Policy

Acknowledgments
Wayne Riddle, former CRS Specialist in Education Policy and current contractor to CRS, co -authored this
report.
Congressional Research Service
32

Weighted Student Funding Under Title I -E of the ESEA

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45862 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
33

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Nov. 2, 2020

HTML · PDF

11% changed

Aug. 6, 2019

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Economic Policy

Education Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com

Raw Metadata: JSON