A bill to to create a “weighted” school funding formula where extra money followed students with greater needs landed with something of a thud earlier this session, weighed down by a $1.1 billion price tag.

But the Economic Forum’s prediction Monday that the state would rake in $140 million more in tax revenue than originally planned over three years, and Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval’s statement that much of it should go to the weighted funding formula, has breathed new life into the concept. Leaders are now in the thick of talks about what it would look like to phase in the “weights” on a more modest scale, and which children get highest priority in a universe of limited funding.

“Where we end up, I don't know,” said Democratic Sen. Mo Denis, who’s sponsoring a bill to implement weights. “But we're definitely going to end up with something that will get some additional funds for those kids.”

Republican Assembly Leader Paul Anderson said he expects a $44.2 million surplus in the current fiscal year expected to be swallowed up by budget overruns. A miscount of students means the Department of Education is tens of millions of dollars over budget, and the state also has to pay more than planned for credit card processing fees, flood response, fire suppression and prison medical costs.

That means the remaining $95.7 million in unplanned revenue that the forum projected for the upcoming biennium is potentially up for grabs for education.

Why weights?

Lawmakers including Denis have been exploring for years how to update Nevada’s 50-year-old school funding formula so it applies more money to students who have greater needs — such as English Language Learners, students in poverty, those with disabilities and gifted students. They passed a bill last session that called for transitioning to a weighted funding formula by the 2021-2022 school year, and mandated weights in Clark County as part of the state-ordered reorganization.

The weights are essentially a multiplier applied to base per-pupil funding to compensate for the additional resources needed to bring a disadvantaged child up to speed with their peers. While the base state funding might be $5,900 a year per student, English learners would have a 1.5 multiplier under the bill, meaning their school would get $8,850 a year to educate them.

Sandoval has proposed or supported initiatives such as Zoom and Victory schools, which direct extra funding to schools with a higher proportion of at-risk students, and audits of those programs are aimed at determining what special interventions work best at raising student achievement. His latest budget didn’t include funding to fully implement the ambitious system of weights, but his comments after the extra money was revealed underscore his support for the concept.

“I would like to see a majority of this new revenue go directly to education, specifically to students in K-12,” Sandoval said in a statement Monday. “I introduced the weighted student funding formula last session and this additional money provides a unique opportunity to invest directly in students who are economically disadvantaged, English learners, gifted and talented, and in special education. This is a student-first formula where funding follows a student and is based on their specific needs.”

Of the $95.7 million in extra money for the upcoming biennium, Clark County Education Association Executive Director John Vellardita predicts $60 million or $70 million of that will go toward the weights.

Beyond that, the $72 million that Sandoval had proposed to expand the elementary-only Zoom program to middle and high schools, and to add new campuses to the Victory Schools program, could be swept into the weighted funding initiative. Money to maintain programs such as Victory and Zoom at schools that are already participating would be untouched.

“I'm not prepared to say it's $150 million. I know it's certainly going to be probably more than $130 million,” Vellardita said. “I'm feeling pretty good that we'll land on a number that makes sense … for the target population we're going after.”

Anderson also said the newfound money might also allow the state to help the Clark County School District (CCSD) with a $17 million IT upgrade it says is essential to implementing the reorganization.

How will the money be divided?

While lawmakers have lauded new education initiatives such as Zoom and Victory schools, they’ve also pointed out a key deficiency: English learners or poor students benefit from the program if they’re in a school designated Zoom or Victory. But English learners and poor students who happen to be in a school without that designation aren’t assigned any extra money.

When fully implemented, the weights should ensure all students with a disadvantage will get a financial boost. Before then, lawmakers must decide who to serve first.

Vellardita said CCSD initially identified about 154,000 of its students who were English learners or from low-income families but weren’t being served by Zoom or Victory programs. If unserved students statewide were to get, say, $700 extra a year, the weights could be implemented for about $200 million over the biennium.

He said that since that earlier estimate, discussed when Denis’ bill first came up for a hearing, there’s been talk of how to limit the funding to just the neediest, lowest-performing students, and the number has been significantly reduced. In the transitional period, the weight would likely be a flat figure rather than a multiplier calculated off a base funding amount.

Anderson said it’s still an open question of how to define which students would get the weight.

“That's what we have to discuss, and figure out, one, that we don't dilute every dollar,” Anderson said.

The flat amount assigned to each student needs to be large enough to afford interventions that are shown to make a difference in student achievement. In existing Zoom and Victory schools, those interventions can include a reading center, an extended school year, a pre-K program or educational software.

“When you're dealing with very limited resources, you have to put out that beta test on that otherwise you could find yourself blowing money on things that will not make a difference,” Vellardita said.

Policymakers also face the added challenge of ensuring that those interventions are “scaleable” and work in schools with less-dense populations of needy students. The existing programs are operating in schools with large clusters of needy students.

Who’s on board?

Members of both parties and both houses appear to be on board with the idea of putting the unexpected revenue toward weights.

The Clark County Education Association calls it their top priority, while the Nevada State Education Association says it’s one of their top priorities, although they’d also be happy to see a boost in overall school funding and money to help reduce class sizes.

Anderson said Republicans are supportive because the money would be going to targeted “categorical” programs that are more easily measured for performance than if the money went to the state’s main Distributive School Account (DSA).

“If it just ends up being a DSA dump, I think that's problematic for all of us,” Anderson said. “We all see that as this big black hole, needed for the rollups and maintenance and operations of the school district, but when we come to focused dollars that are accountable dollars, it's gotta go through those categoricals.”

Vellardita said the new plan should emerge in a matter of days in the form of an amendment to Denis’ SB178, and should put the state closer to the elusive goal of tying funding more proportionally to student needs.

“We wanted a session of accomplishment,” he said. “This is one that you've got a governor who wants to put the money there and you've got Democratic leadership sponsoring a bill around the same thing. You've got a Senate minority leader who's been the biggest advocate for the reorganization and this issue as well, so things align.”