How English Learner Funding Policy Shapes District Leaders’ Resource Allocation: Evidence from Michigan

• In Event: Aligning Resources with Student Need: How State Funding Designs Shape Resource Allocation

Abstract

A key challenge in school finance is ensuring that funding translates into meaningful resources for the students it is intended to serve. Substantial research documents the effects of state school funding policies on aggregate district spending and achievement (e.g., Shores et al., 2023), but less has focused on how funding policy itself shapes districts’ resource allocation in practice, particularly for multilingual students classified as English learners (ELs). Although federal law (e.g., Bilingual Education Act, 1968; Castañeda v. Pickard, 1968; Lau v. Nichols, 1974) establishes EL education as a civil rights obligation, it provides minimal guidance on how services should be funded or implemented, leaving states to develop their own approaches and district leaders with substantial discretion over resource allocation over time (Hakuta, 2020; Umansky & Porter, 2020). Nearly every state provides supplemental EL funding, yet funding amounts and model designs vary widely, including flat weights, tiered funding amounts based on students’ English proficiency levels, bilingual incentive weights, and resource-based allocations, and the average EL receives only about 20 percent more funding than non-EL peers, well below adequacy estimates of 39 to 200 percent more (Jimenez-Castellanos & Topper, 2012; Verstegen, 2017; Mavrogordato & Bartlett, 2025). With over 10 percent of K-12 students classified as ELs, how states structure supplemental funding, and whether it reaches students in meaningful ways, is of interest to policymakers and education leaders alike.

            This paper reports findings from a completed qualitative study of Michigan’s tiered, English proficiency-based EL funding policy and introduces a multi-state comparative study to examine whether the patterns identified in Michigan are specific to tiered funding or common across EL funding models. The Michigan study draws on semi-structured interviews with district leaders (superintendents, chief financial officers, EL program directors) across 10 districts varying by locale, EL concentration, and fiscal capacity. The multi-state study extends this design to three additional states: Texas (dual language education incentive weight), Massachusetts (flat weight), and Delaware (resource-based allocation) to enable systematic cross-model comparisons.

            Findings from Michigan reveal that the state’s EL funding policy is poorly aligned with leaders’ perceptions of ELs’ needs, has created fiscal volatility due to lagged enrollment measures tied to prior-year English proficiency scores, and has produced uneven implementation of English language development services across districts with varying levels of EL policy expertise. Leaders with deep EL policy knowledge were more confident in translating funding into meaningful services, and leaders without experience described making programmatic decisions based on funding availability rather than student need.           

           This study contributes to the school finance literature by demonstrating that EL funding functions as an implementation driver in addition to an allocation mechanism. In addition to funding itself, state policy guidance shapes how leaders define what is required, feasible, and equitable in serving ELs. Findings offer practical guidance for states considering EL funding redesign, with implications for both funding policy design and district capacity building.

Author

• Caroline Bartlett, University of Tennessee (Knoxville)
  Presenting Author