Alabama Rewrote Its School Funding Formula

Introduction

In 2017, Booker T. Washington K-8 school in Birmingham, Alabama, received an F on the state’s academic report card, indicating the school failed to make adequate progress on a range of academic and other key indicators.¹ Antonia Ishman was in her first year as principal, taking on a school facing chronic absenteeism, student suspensions, a shortage of certified teachers, and low student achievement.² In 2025, the school earned a B on the state’s report card, indicating it was making above-average progress.³The success was driven by Ishman’s vision, a willingness to learn from others, systematic and strategic change, engaged and supported staff, and state support, including participation in the Governor’s Turnaround Initiative that began in 2022 with intensive assistance and additional funding.⁴

In its nearly decade-long journey to above-average progress, Booker T. Washington K-8 used funding from the initiative to enact a wide range of strategies, including a mentoring pipeline for new teachers, targeted professional development and coaching for math and reading teachers, a hall monitor to mediate student conflicts before they escalate, and a parent gift card program for repeating classroom reading lessons at home.⁵ Ishman also drove academic improvements by earning national STEM certification for the school and launching the first dual-language immersion program in Alabama.⁶

Booker T. Washington K-8’s story shows what is possible when the state invests additional, targeted funds in its highest-poverty schools. Beginning in school year (SY) 2025-26, every school in Alabama began receiving targeted funding. In 2025, Alabama’s legislators, led by Sen. Arthur Orr and Rep. Danny Garrett, modernized a school funding formula that had gone unchanged for 30 years by adopting the Renewing Alabama’s Investment in Student Excellence (RAISE) Act.⁷ Previously, schools were funded through a per-pupil formula based on total enrollment. The law created a hybrid formula that provides baseline funding to every district from the existing Foundation Program, along with additional funding tied to specific student populations: students in poverty, students with special education needs, English learner (EL) students, gifted students, and charter school students.⁸

ALABAMA’S RAISE ACT, BY THE NUMBERS

Sources: Every Child Alabama Coalition, “The RAISE Act: Supporting Students in Poverty,” webinar, May 12, 2026; A+ Education Partnership, RAISE Act Implementation Toolkit: Supporting Students in Poverty (2026), 1–2, 4 (statewide RAISE totals, per-pupil poverty funding, and RAISE Fund balances).

Implementing Funding Reform

In its first year, the RAISE Act provided Alabama districts with $68.3 million in additional funding to serve students in poverty, and an additional $48.8 million to serve special education students.⁹ Those numbers increased in SY26-27. But translating this policy reform into meaningful outcomes for students will require more than just money. It will require strong implementation, including communication, engagement, and capacity building.

Those are among the six activities described in Bellwether’s implementation framework, “Splitting the Bill #21: How Should States Implement K-12 Funding Changes?” which details the phases most states must navigate after overhauling their funding models (Table).

TABLE: IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK TO TRANSLATE FUNDING POLICY INTO IMPACT

Source: Bellwether, “How Should States Implement K-12 Funding Changes?” Splitting the Bill #21, January 2026.

To understand how RAISE Act implementation is going, and to uplift perspectives and success stories from the field, Bellwether’s team conducted interviews and desk research in conjunction with a four-part webinar series in May and June 2026. The webinars elevated national best practices and Alabama-specific examples to support targeted student groups when implementing funding reform. Just as the RAISE Act supports students with varying needs, implementing school funding reform must take into account the needs and perspectives of the stakeholders involved.

This brief reflects six key stakeholder perspectives uncovered through that research: 

• State leaders, including state education agency (SEA) and legislative leadership
• School board members
• District leaders, including superintendents and financial officers
• School leaders
• Family and community partners
• Other experts and technical assistance providers

These insights inform ongoing implementation in Alabama and serve as a resource for stakeholders in other states — including policymakers, education agency leaders, district and school leaders, community partners, advocates, associations, and others — working to implement K-12 school funding policy changes.

Five Lessons for Turning Formula Policy Into Practice

Turning a law into meaningful improvements for students requires changing how people work at the school and district levels. An analysis of the work to implement Alabama’s RAISE Act against Bellwether’s implementation framework surfaces five key lessons not just for Alabama, but also for other states and districts seeking to implement funding reforms.

• Lesson 1: States should encourage districts to build on what’s working.
• Lesson 2: States should communicate that formula funds are durable and ongoing, enabling districts to plan and invest for the long term.
• Lesson 3: States should encourage districts to treat targeted student groups as a shared responsibility rather than siloed programs.
• Lesson 4: States creating new student weights should define student groups and build systems to identify and track their educational requirements.
• Lesson 5: States should help districts build capacity to engage community members, including families, when developing plans and budgets. 

LESSON 1

States should encourage districts to build on what’s working. If the state is providing additional funding, it should ensure those new funds can be used to strengthen evidence-based programs and practices, rather than introducing the expectation that new funding will demand new programs or positions. As Alabama districts and school leaders began planning for RAISE Act funds, many found the best approach was to strengthen an existing program rather than create a new one. The law should be flexible enough to allow for that.

What this means for state policymakers, education leaders, and statewide partners:

• Good policy should provide clear direction and supportive regulations without being overly restrictive. States should offer districts flexibility so that they can build on existing efforts that are working, rather than requiring only “new” approaches.
• State materials and guidance should communicate the expectation that formula funds can support ongoing programs aligned with targeted student groups and/or state priorities. 

What this means for local education leaders and local partners:

• Districts may choose to use new formula funds to continue work put in place through COVID-19 pandemic funding or other temporary grant programs. 
• District financial officers should make budgeting and accounting shifts to reassign ongoing expenditures to new cost codes, a change that requires time and attention. During the budgeting process, district teams should identify what to increase to meet student needs and where previous work can be improved upon.

LESSON 2

States should communicate that formula funds are durable and ongoing, enabling districts to plan and invest for the long term. Many states fund targeted student needs through categorical grants or programs that require annual renewal. A formula such as the RAISE Act works differently: funding tied to student needs is written into law and is not as vulnerable to shifting priorities in annual state budgetary processes. Helping the field understand this distinction — that the money is durable, not a one-time infusion — enables more reliable, effective planning.

What this means for state policymakers, education leaders, and statewide partners:

• State leaders should communicate to stakeholders that the funding is ongoing, building certainty and confidence that it will continue each year and can be used for staffing and other ongoing expenses. This may be especially important in states where district leaders have been frustrated by the short-term nature of grant funding.
• SEAs and other state partners should provide training and technical assistance to district leaders and finance staff, who may be accustomed to planning around categorical or resource-based funding rather than more flexible, student-based models. District personnel may need support in developing the skills and mindsets for multiyear planning, deploying personnel in alignment with student needs (rather than rigid staffing formulas), and aligning budgets with evidence-based practices. State leaders can also provide tools for multiyear forecasting.

What this means for local education leaders and local partners:

• With long-term, reliable funding, districts can invest in human capital by hiring new staff or converting part-time roles to full-time.
• Districts can enter into longer-term contracts with community partners that provide student services, since the dollars do not have a sunset date.
• Advocates can encourage school leadership to leverage the flexibility and durability of funding reform, and inform parents how the new model can support targeted student groups, with a focus on long-term, consistent strategies.

LESSON 3

States should encourage districts to treat targeted student groups as a shared responsibility rather than siloed programs. Formula funding organized around specific student groups can unintentionally suggest that districts should create designated programs and accompanying budget lines to meet each group’s needs. When implementing RAISE Act funding, Alabama district and school leaders leaned into the research-supported idea that inclusive practices can benefit all students. For example, integrating students with disabilities into general education classrooms and equipping all teachers to serve linguistically diverse learners can often produce better outcomes than pull-out models.¹⁶

What this means for state policymakers, education leaders, and statewide partners:

• States can provide training and technical assistance on building effective budgets that both target appropriate student groups and use other funding sources to maximize benefits. States should pair that budgeting support with training on inclusive practices, helping districts leverage budgets to support whole-school improvement rather than to create separate programs for each student group.
• States should tier guidance by district experience and capacity. An experienced district serving a large EL student population has different needs from those of a small district with a recent influx of EL students.
• States should serve as hubs of information and resources on evidence-based practices aligned with targeted student groups. Where available, they can point districts to regional support centers and/or nonprofit organizations for assistance.

What this means for local education leaders and local partners:

• District budgeting should focus on using targeted student funding to support students’ needs, while reinforcing best instructional practices for all students.
• District leaders should provide training for all teachers on how to meet the needs of EL students and special education students. This emphasizes that serving these students is a collective responsibility, not just the responsibility of English language development and special education teachers.
• Advocates should promote evidence-based practices to meet the needs of targeted groups and emphasize that supporting all students builds stronger educational opportunities across schools and districts.

LESSON 4

States creating new student weights should define student groups and build systems to identify and track their educational requirements. In Alabama, the RAISE Act formula weights special education students across three tiers, with increasing support for the students with the most profound disabilities. States implementing new student weights need clear definitions, classification rules, and reliable data systems for every group the formula supports. Getting these systems right and communicating clearly with families about student classification are essential to the credibility of the new formula. 

What this means for state policymakers, education leaders, and statewide partners:

• Good state policy includes definitions and clear guidance for identifying, classifying, and tracking all targeted student groups.
• State policymakers should invest time and resources in data systems. This may need to include new platforms, technical documentation, and training for districts. 
• Tying funding to classification creates fiscal incentives. States should provide clear definitions of tiers, provide training on how to classify students, and monitor data to ensure that students are accurately counted.

What this means for local education leaders and local partners:

• Student data becomes fiscal data. Enrollment coding, assistance program matching, language proficiency assessments and classification, and service plan documentation now determine revenue. Districts need clear ownership of this work and much closer coordination among student information staff, special education staff, and the business office, who may not have worked together closely.
• Districts should communicate with families that state law provides additional funding to meet their students’ specific needs. Families may not always want their children counted in a category, and their reasons are often sound. Immigrant families may worry about how information about their children is stored, shared, or used. Other families may resist a special education classification they associate with stigma, segregated placement, or lowered academic expectations. Districts should be able to explain what information is collected, who can see it, and how the funding attached to it will be used to serve their children.

LESSON 5

States should help districts build capacity to engage community members, including families, when developing plans and budgets. Realizing the full promise of a funding reform often requires districts to involve families and community members in budget and planning decisions. But many districts lack experience with that practice and may not have engagement structures in place. Alabama statute requires districts to hold two open public hearings about the district’s annual proposed budget prior to adoption, ensuring families and community members have the opportunity to be heard.²⁰

What this means for state policymakers, education leaders, and statewide partners:

• State policy should require districts to engage stakeholders before approving budgets and related spending plans.
• States should build and share guidance, tools, and technical assistance for districts to ensure effective, meaningful community engagement and transparent budgeting practices.

What this means for local education leaders and local partners:

• Districts should clearly inform families how they will use funds to support targeted student groups. Juliana Hoover Potash, senior manager of advocacy for EdTrust’s Southerners for Fair School Funding initiative, described how this process should be “extra intentional and make sure that the information is really accessible” through forums, translation services, and clear descriptions of planned programs.²¹
• Districts should include families in decision-making, so their input can inform decisions before, rather than after, a budget is set. Districts can use surveys, listening sessions, and clearly written one-pagers to support engagement. Existing family engagement structures, such as parent-teacher organizations, community councils, and conferences, can also be used to gather information for district leadership on funding priorities.

Conclusion

Alabama’s legislature did the work required to improve an antiquated funding formula, garnering unanimous legislative support for the RAISE Act and ensuring all districts would benefit. Alabama’s formula is not novel. Many states, including several in the South, have already adopted modernized student-based formulas with weighted funding for targeted student groups. A new formula alone will not change outcomes for students. The test is whether state officials, superintendents, principals, teachers, school board members, and other adults in the system can better serve students because of additional funding.

Because the RAISE Act is fresh, stakeholders are uniquely positioned to wrestle with what it takes to implement it well. Alabama’s education leaders are taking lessons from national experts, regional peer states, and one another — and they are quickly working to shift practice accordingly. Across the state, districts are increasingly discussing their spending with families before finalizing their budgets and plans; general education teachers who never thought of EL students or students with disabilities as “their” students are now more likely to; and leaders in the district finance office now have to talk to staff in the instructional and student services departments to align on goals.

Booker T. Washington K-8 did not climb from an F to a B on the state’s academic report card because dollars showed up through the Governor’s Turnaround Initiative and the RAISE Act; it improved because a principal chose to invest in school culture, professional development, teacher mentorship, and parent incentives. Money created new options, and people made good choices. States that treat school funding reforms as a purely technical exercise rather than an invitation to rethink practice will find that the formula changes the way funds are allocated but little else.