An Idea Whose Time Has Come
Derrick Max | October 28, 2026
(Jefferson Forum) — For nearly two decades, Chris Braunlich and the Jefferson Forum’s predecessor, the Thomas Jefferson Institute, have advocated for replacing Virginia’s complicated, resource-driven Standards of Quality (SOQ) school funding formula with a system of Weighted Student Funding.
So it was encouraging to see the General Assembly’s Joint Subcommittee on K–12 Education Funding vote this week to move forward with developing a new student-based funding formula. For those of us who have spent years advocating for this reform, it represents something of a policy victory — and an important opportunity to fundamentally rethink how Virginia funds public education.
Braunlich was making this case as early as 2009, arguing that Virginia’s funding system was unnecessarily complicated, overly bureaucratic, and insufficiently focused on the needs of individual students. His argument for the past 17 years has been straightforward: Rather than allocating state education dollars primarily according to prescribed staffing ratios and administrative formulas, Virginia should fund students based on their individual educational needs.
To be clear, the General Assembly has not yet adopted a new funding formula, and the Jefferson Forum certainly has not been alone in advocating for this change. In fact, only nine states continue to use resource-based funding formulas similar to Virginia’s SOQ, while 35 states have moved to student-based funding as is being proposed. Most of the rest use some combination of the two.
But changing the formula is an important beginning.
Virginia’s current SOQ formula was designed around the resources the state believes school divisions need to operate, including teachers, administrators, instructional support, and other staffing requirements. The resulting system is extraordinarily complicated, difficult for taxpayers to understand, and heavily dependent on decisions made by central administrative offices.
More importantly, it does not ensure that resources reach the particular students and classrooms where they are most needed. Nor does it reward excellence.
Braunlich’s proposed alternative, Weighted Student Funding, starts with a different premise. Each student would generate a base funding amount, with additional dollars allocated for students facing educational challenges, including poverty, limited English proficiency, or disabilities.
Rather than tying school resources primarily to staffing formulas and centrally determined allocations, funding would follow students to the public schools they actually attend.
Principals would have greater flexibility to decide how those resources could best improve student learning. One school might invest in intensive reading instruction. Another might hire additional mathematics teachers, expand tutoring, or develop specialized academic programs.
The goal would be to move resources and decision-making closer to the classroom while holding schools accountable for results.
This distinction matters because Virginia could replace its existing SOQ formula with a student-based calculation and still leave virtually every meaningful financial decision in the hands of district administrators. That would be a change in accounting, but not necessarily a transformation in education. That is why this proposed change needs to be carefully implemented.
There is also a more important reform opportunity here.
Today, most Virginia children attend public schools determined primarily by where their families live. Even in large school systems offering numerous campuses, families frequently have limited opportunities to select schools based on curriculum, teaching philosophy, academic specialization, or their children’s particular needs.
A genuine student-based funding model could help change that.
Imagine a public education system in which schools have incentives to attract students by offering distinctive educational programs. Some might emphasize classical education, others science and technology, fine arts, career preparation, or alternative instructional models.
If funding follows the student, schools that develop attractive, successful programs could receive the resources associated with the children they serve.
Charter schools, magnet schools, virtual schools, and public schools accepting students across traditional attendance boundaries could all become part of a more flexible educational marketplace.
Of course, changing a funding formula alone does not create school choice. Lawmakers would also need to address enrollment rules, school capacity, and the ability of families to access alternative public schools. But a student-based funding system could provide the financial foundation for those reforms and even begin the process of making educational alternatives more attractive and it could do so while maintaining additional support for children with greater educational needs.
Finally, there is also a fiscal responsibility argument that should not be overlooked. Virginia has committed billions in additional taxpayer dollars to public education in recent years. Yet too often the debate begins and ends with how much more government should spend. That has little to do with whether existing resources are being spent effectively.
A transparent student-based funding system could make it easier for taxpayers and policymakers to see how much money is devoted to educating particular students, how much reaches individual schools, and whether those expenditures produce improved educational results.
It could also give school leaders greater opportunities to find efficiencies, develop innovative programs, and make decisions that reflect their students’ actual needs rather than rigid administrative formulas.
The legislature’s current initiative therefore represents both an encouraging milestone and an unfinished opportunity. The Jefferson Forum welcomes the willingness of lawmakers to revisit a funding system that has remained fundamentally unchanged for decades. We will remain vigilant in ensuring that this effort not end with another complicated formula that merely rearranges the dollars flowing to school division headquarters.
It is gratifying to see Chris Braunlich’s and the Jefferson Forum’s vision of a transparent, accountable funding formula with school-level flexibility getting serious legislative attention after so many years. This is a reform worth pursuing and those advocating for this change should be applauded.
This commentary was made available to EdNews Virginia via Jefferson Forum, where Derrick Max serves as vice president.