Tennessee’s public school funding system faces renewed scrutiny following a national report warning that students from low-income families, communities of color and households where English is not the primary language continue to receive unequal educational resources.
The October 28 report, ‘Funding for Fairness: Revenue Inequities for States’ Highest-Need Districts,’ released by education advocacy organization EdTrust, examines how state and local education dollars are distributed across the country.
While the report identifies nationwide funding disparities, its findings carry particular significance for Tennessee, where education advocates have raised concerns about whether the state’s funding formula accurately identifies students who need additional financial support.
EdTrust-Tennessee has specifically warned that the state’s definition of economic disadvantage may exclude students experiencing financial hardship, potentially leaving schools without funding intended to address those students’ needs.
“Schools serving the most students of color, English learners, and students from low-income backgrounds don’t receive sufficient state and local funding to meet those students’ needs,” EdTrust stated in announcing the report.
The concern comes as Tennessee continues implementing its Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) funding formula, which replaced the state’s former Basic Education Program in 2023.
Unlike the previous system, TISA provides funding based on individual student characteristics, with additional allocations intended for students facing economic disadvantages, English learners and other populations requiring greater educational support.
However, advocates argue that even a student-based funding formula can fall short if students who qualify for additional assistance are not properly identified.
EdTrust’s national analysis found that school districts serving the highest percentages of students of color receive approximately seven percent less in state and local funding than districts serving the fewest students of color. That translates to roughly $1,300 less per student.
Districts with the highest concentrations of English learners receive approximately five percent less funding, or about $900 less per student, than districts with the fewest English learners.
Meanwhile, districts serving the largest populations of economically disadvantaged students receive only about one percent more funding than wealthier districts, an additional $200 per student.
Researchers argue that nearly equal funding is insufficient because students facing poverty often require additional academic support, counseling, transportation and other services.
These figures represent national averages rather than Tennessee-specific funding gaps, but they highlight challenges that education advocates say deserve attention in the state.
EdTrust-Tennessee’s report, ‘The Undercount,’ focuses on a central weakness in the state’s approach to education funding: determining which students qualify as economically disadvantaged.
According to the organization, Tennessee’s current definition can fail to capture students whose families face financial hardship but do not meet the state’s identification criteria.
When students are excluded from those counts, districts may receive less additional funding than their students’ actual circumstances warrant.
The consequences can affect schools in urban, suburban and rural communities throughout Tennessee. Insufficient resources can limit access to experienced teachers, reading specialists, advanced coursework and other programs associated with academic success.
EdTrust-Tennessee has encouraged state lawmakers to examine how economically disadvantaged students are identified and consider changes that would better reflect families’ financial circumstances.
The national report also raises concerns about funding for students learning English, an issue with implications for Tennessee districts serving increasingly diverse populations.
EdTrust found that 20 states provide less funding to districts serving the highest percentages of English learners than to districts serving the fewest.
These students often require specialized teachers, language instruction and additional family engagement services.
The report also identifies Tennessee as a state where lawmakers have repeatedly introduced legislation challenging immigrant students’ access to public education.
At the federal level, proposed reductions to Title III funding, which supports English learners and immigrant students, have added uncertainty for school districts.
Education advocates warn that weakening these programs could create additional obstacles for students already facing language barriers.
“Inadequate and inequitable funding haunts a student throughout their academic career, in the form of fewer experienced educators, mental health supports, and opportunities for rigorous coursework or pathways exploration,” EdTrust stated.
The organization recommends that states provide adequate funding, direct additional resources toward students with greater needs and address disparities associated with local property tax wealth.
For Tennessee, the findings raise questions about whether TISA’s funding allocations accurately reflect the needs of students in communities across the state.
Although Tennessee has moved toward a student-centered funding model, advocates maintain that identifying every eligible student is essential to making that approach effective.
As state lawmakers consider future education budgets, the central question remains whether Tennessee’s funding system provides schools with enough resources to meet the needs of all students, regardless of family income, race or language background.
