Appendix C: Pupil Count Adjustments to Account for High Student Cost



Rationale for Weightings

Purpose of Research

GAO Report 98-36

State and Federal Efforts to Target Funds to Poor Students (1998)

Students with special needs - 1.3 Weighting.

Poor Students -

0.6 Weighting.

1.3 represents the additional cost of educating special needs students.

0.6 represents the state median from the study.

To analyze state and federal targeting of funds to poor students.
Paternick, Smerdon, Fowler and Monk (1997) Students with IEPs - 1.3 Weighting.

LEP and at-risk students - 0.2 Weighting.

 Pupil weightings similar to New York State. Review methods for adjusting per pupil expenditures in order to more accurately measure equity.
Parish, Matsumoto and Fowler (1997)   Limited English proficient and poverty students - 0.2 Weighting.

Special education students - 1.3 Weighting.

  Poverty Weighting - based on total avg revenue per student and the Chapter 1 allocation per student.

LEP Weighting - based on a cost analysis of alternative programs for LEP students. (0.2 was rounded up from .08 to account for small sample size)

Multivariate and bivariate analysis to isolate the impact of individual district and community factors on variations in expenditure.
Clune (1994) Pupils in high-poverty schools - 1.0 Weighting.   "Educated estimate"- based on the cost of an effective program - includes remedial instruction, social services, facilities and salaries. Estimation of the cost of achieving "true adequacy."
Levin (1989)   At-risk students - 0.5 Weighting. Achieving high school completion for at-risk students requires more years of school and more expense for each year of school. (Estimate could be reduced if gap is closed in elementary years.) Estimation of the cost of educating at-risk students. ("those who lack the home and community resources to benefit from conventional education-poverty, cultural differences, broken families and linguistic differences")

return to paper