Georgia’s school funding formula still ignores poverty; educators say students pay the price

ALBANY — Dougherty County School System Superintendent Ken Dyer told the Board of Education this week that one of the district’s top legislative priorities failed to gain enough traction during Georgia’s 2026 legislative session, leaving the state’s education funding formula unchanged despite continued advocacy from school leaders across Georgia.

During a report to the board on the outcomes of this year’s legislative session, Dyer discussed the district’s efforts to persuade lawmakers to add an “opportunity weight” to Georgia’s Quality Basic Education (QBE) funding formula — a change supporters say would provide additional state funding for students living in poverty.

Georgia’s QBE formula, established in 1985, already provides additional funding weights for certain student populations, including kindergarten students, students in early intervention programs and students receiving special education services. But it does not include a permanent funding weight based on student poverty.

“We do have weighted categories,” Dyer told the board. “We don’t have a weight for students in poverty.”

The proposal centers on students identified through direct certification, a federal process that automatically determines eligibility for free school meals because a child’s family already participates in qualifying public assistance programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or other income-based assistance. Because eligibility is verified through existing government records, families do not have to complete separate school meal applications.

“The data shows that students in poverty need additional support,” Dyer said. “The four-year initiative that we implemented here shows that if provided sufficient targeted support … students can excel.”

Education finance researchers say Georgia now is among only six states that do not include a permanent poverty or opportunity weight in their primary K-12 funding formula. Forty-four states provide additional formula funding to districts serving students from low-income families through some combination of poverty weights, concentration grants or other targeted funding mechanisms.

States including Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, Texas, Colorado and California incorporate student poverty into their funding formulas in different ways, generally allocating additional dollars based on low-income enrollment or concentrations of poverty. While the formulas differ, the goal is similar: Provide districts with predictable state funding to support students who research shows often require additional academic and nonacademic services.

Those dollars commonly fund interventions such as instructional coaches, intensive literacy instruction, tutoring, extended learning opportunities, smaller class sizes, school counselors, social workers, behavioral specialists and other wraparound services intended to reduce barriers to learning.

Multiple national studies over the past decade have found that sustained investments in low-income students are associated with improved reading and mathematics achievement, higher graduation rates, increased college attendance and improved long-term earnings, particularly when funding is stable rather than dependent on short-term grants.

Dyer emphasized that the district is not seeking another competitive grant but a permanent change to Georgia’s funding formula.

“We have a social worker in every school, basically,” he said. “Those are all grant funded. We need a sustainable source of funding, because when the grants run out, then what do we do with that?”

He described the district’s objective as funding that is “sufficient, sustainable, and predictable.”

“Sustainable means year over year, not just a one-time grant,” Dyer said. “Predictable meaning it needs to be a formula, so we’ll know how the funding is determined so we can plan for next year.”

According to Dyer, the additional funding would allow districts to continue investing in instructional coaches, after-school programs, additional administrators, school-based health centers, dental and vision clinics, social workers and other wraparound supports without relying on grants that eventually expire.

Although the proposal was discussed during the legislative session, lawmakers ultimately did not include an opportunity weight in this year’s budget or pass legislation establishing one.

Dyer said he met with legislative leaders throughout the session and described the conversations as productive.

“They chose this year to fund something else,” he said. “We have to do a better job of making our case, so that they know how important it is.”

The superintendent said one legislative leader suggested beginning with a pilot program if districts could continue demonstrating measurable academic improvements tied to targeted investments.

Rather than criticizing lawmakers, Dyer said he understands the challenges of balancing competing demands within the state budget.

“I don’t blame anybody in particular,” he said. “There are a lot of competing priorities.”

Education already represents roughly half of Georgia’s state budget, Dyer noted, with legislators also weighing funding requests for transportation, corrections, public safety, health care and other state responsibilities.

“I’m not saying that our priorities ought to trump everybody else’s priorities,” he said. “I’m saying there’s so many competing priorities in Atlanta.”

Instead, he argued that school districts must continue making the case for why poverty should become part of the state’s funding formula.

“I think it’s incumbent upon us to make the case,” Dyer said. “I think we can do a better job of that, and that’s what I’m committed to doing.”

To support his argument, the superintendent pointed to a four-year district initiative that concentrated additional resources in several elementary schools serving higher percentages of economically disadvantaged students.

The additional investments included instructional coaches, after-school programming, social workers, school-based health services and increased instructional support for teachers.

According to Dyer, Alice Coachman Elementary School and Robert H. Harvey Elementary School each improved approximately 32 percentage points in literacy during the initiative, while Turner Elementary School recorded a 48.95 percentage-point literacy gain.

Those gains coincide with broader district performance highlighted in recent state accountability measures.

According to the Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement’s 2025 “Beating the Odds” analysis, 17 of Dougherty County’s 20 rated schools either met or exceeded expected academic performance after accounting for demographics such as economic disadvantage, English learner status, disability rates and student mobility. Eleven schools exceeded expectations, while six met expectations. Statewide, approximately 60% of schools met or exceeded expectations compared with 85% of Dougherty County schools.

The discussion comes as Georgia continues investing in statewide literacy initiatives following years of concern over reading achievement.

The General Assembly has recently funded implementation of the Georgia Early Literacy Act, expanded literacy coaching and required universal reading screeners for early elementary students, reflecting bipartisan agreement that improving reading proficiency remains one of the state’s most pressing education priorities.

Advocates for an opportunity weight argue those instructional initiatives address how students are taught, while additional formula funding would help districts address barriers that can prevent economically disadvantaged students from fully benefiting from instruction.

The debate over Georgia’s education funding formula is likely to continue beyond this year’s legislative session.

As voters prepare to elect statewide constitutional officers and members of the General Assembly this November, education funding is expected to remain one of several issues competing for attention alongside economic development, transportation, public safety and health care.

The legislators elected this fall will help determine future state budgets and whether Georgia eventually joins the majority of states that permanently account for student poverty in their education funding formulas.

Dyer said Dougherty County’s own experience demonstrates why he believes the issue deserves continued attention.

“Results from this DCSS school improvement effort provide compelling evidence that strategic investments can significantly change academic trajectories in high-poverty schools,” he said. “The data shows that students in poverty need additional support, and the four-year initiative that we implemented here shows that if provided sufficient targeted support … students can excel.”