Key Takeaways
With pandemic stimulus funding subsiding, efforts to boost achievement, stem absenteeism, and narrow outcome gaps in California’s TK–12 public school system will rely on the level and sustainability of ongoing state and local dollars. First implemented over 10 years ago, California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) provides additional funding for high-need students. Participation in the federal program for free and reduced-price school meals (FRPM) is a primary determinant of high-need status—and therefore school funding. However, recent policy changes and a growing mismatch between FRPM and other socioeconomic indicators complicate the formula’s ability to target student need effectively and equitably.
In this report, we take a closer look at the impact of policy changes in recent years—including the introduction of universal school meals—and examine trends and challenges in the identification of low-income students based on FRPM eligibility. We then assess how alternative measures of need would compare under California’s school funding formula. Several key themes emerge:
- The shift to universal school meals may have temporarily reduced FRPM counts during the pandemic. We find decreases in counts for districts with higher shares of students that were not automatically certified for FRPM, while counts remained stable and even grew in districts where nearly all students were. Effects were largest in 2021 and have since mostly recovered. They are not explained by changes in poverty, incomes, or other socioeconomic variables. →
- The gap between FRPM and other poverty measures is growing over time. Poverty rates have decreased in the last decade while FRPM enrollment has grown slightly. FRPM income eligibility tops out at 185 percent of the poverty line—$57,720 per year for a family of four. Yet the share of FRPM students more closely aligns with the share of public-school children in families with incomes up to 300 percent or $93,600 per year—and in recent years—close to 400 percent or $124,800 for a family of four. →
- Districts with similar FRPM enrollment rates—and thus funding—can have dramatic differences in underlying economic conditions, demographics, and student outcomes. FRPM does not always capture or reflect nuances in districts’ socioeconomic characteristics. Differences between FRPM and comparable Census-based income estimates can be partially explained by differences in the share of lower- to middle-income students just above the FRPM-eligibility cutoff. →
- Other measures do a better job than FRPM of targeting student disadvantage. Consistent with prior research, FRPM remains a strong predictor of student test scores. But this is less true for non-test score outcomes like graduation, A–G completion, and absenteeism; broader socioeconomic measures are more highly associated with need across all dimensions. →
- The equity implications of LCFF formula changes depend on how concentrated poverty is funded. Alternative mechanisms that do not account for concentrations of student need could redirect funding from lower- to middle-income districts. Our findings suggest targeting improves with formulas that provide additional funding for students who fall into multiple categories of disadvantage—such as English Learners (ELs)—and formulas that define low-income status automatically via participation in other social services like food assistance. →
At its core, the school meals program is a nutritional program. Yet, because of its role as the key indicator for need in LCFF, it is a fundamental determinant of funding levels in most districts. We find differences between the share of students identified as low-income based on the meals program and alternative estimates using other measures of poverty, income, and socioeconomic status. Recent adoption of universal school meals and changing incentives around FRPM identification could further weaken the connection between these indicators. Given this growing disconnect—and the greater connection between other socioeconomic measures and student outcomes—state policymakers should consider alternative ways of identifying need for funding schools.