The Attendance Imperative: Why Funding Formulas Must Prioritize Student Presence Over Enrollment Numbers

Introduction: The High-Stakes Debate Over California’s Educational Future

In the ongoing battle to secure quality education for California’s six million K-12 students, a seemingly technical funding debate has emerged with profound implications for educational outcomes, institutional accountability, and the very future of our democracy. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has released a critical report warning against a proposed shift from attendance-based to enrollment-based school funding—a change that could bring an additional $6 billion annually to school coffers but potentially at the devastating cost of student engagement and academic achievement. This debate represents more than just financial arithmetic; it touches on fundamental questions about what we value in education and how we hold our educational institutions accountable for delivering on their core mission.

The Current Funding Landscape: A Century of Attendance-Based Accountability

For over a century, California has funded its schools based on average daily attendance—a model that directly ties financial support to student presence in the classroom. This system emerged from a simple but powerful premise: schools should be rewarded for successfully attracting and retaining students on a daily basis. The LAO report reveals that this financial incentive has produced measurable results, with pilot studies from the 1980s and 1990s showing attendance increases of 5.4% in high schools and 3.1% in elementary schools when schools had clear financial motivations to boost daily participation.

The current model operates through California’s Local Control Funding Formula, which provides approximately $15,000 annually per student, supplemented by an additional $7,000 from federal sources, block grants, lottery funds, and special education allocations. Overall, California invested more than $100 billion in its schools last year, making this one of the largest educational investments in the nation. However, schools argue this funding fails to cover the true costs of education, particularly for students with high needs, leading to persistent calls for reform.

The Enrollment-Based Proposal: Promises and Perils

The proposed alternative—adopted by 45 other states—would base funding on enrollment numbers rather than daily attendance. Proponents, including the California School Boards Association represented by spokesman Troy Flint, argue that enrollment provides a more stable funding metric since schools must plan for all registered students regardless of daily attendance patterns. Flint correctly notes that schools with higher absenteeism rates often serve populations with greater needs, including English learners, migrant students, and low-income families. Under the current system, these schools receive less funding precisely when they require more resources to address complex challenges.

However, the LAO report sounds a powerful alarm about the unintended consequences of such a shift. Without financial incentives tied to daily attendance, schools might reduce their efforts to ensure consistent student participation. Given that attendance rates remain approximately 2 percentage points below pre-pandemic levels (dropping from nearly 96% in 2019 to about 90% during COVID-19), this is precisely the wrong moment to remove accountability mechanisms.

The Constitutional and Democratic Imperative of Educational Accountability

As someone deeply committed to democratic principles and constitutional governance, I view this funding debate through the lens of institutional accountability and the social contract between citizens and their government. Education represents one of the most fundamental responsibilities of any democratic society—the preparation of informed citizens capable of self-government. When we fund educational institutions, we are essentially investing in the future guardians of our democracy.

The attendance-based funding model embodies a crucial accountability mechanism that aligns institutional incentives with societal goals. By tying funding to daily presence, we ensure that schools remain focused on their core mission: educating children consistently and effectively. Removing this incentive represents a dangerous dilution of accountability that could undermine the very purpose of public education.

The Human Cost: Vulnerable Students Deserve More Than Theoretical Support

Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this debate involves the potential impact on vulnerable student populations. Hedy Chang of Attendance Works acknowledges that “for some districts there might be benefits to a funding switch,” but crucially notes that “districts have a concrete incentive for encouraging kids to show up.” This incentive matters profoundly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often face multiple barriers to consistent attendance.

The research is unequivocal: strong attendance correlates directly with higher test scores, improved reading proficiency, and increased graduation rates. For students already facing systemic challenges, every day of missed education represents another brick in the wall of opportunity inequality. To remove the financial incentive for schools to actively engage these students would be an abandonment of our collective responsibility to ensure equal educational opportunity.

Beyond Financial Incentives: The Moral Dimension of Educational Commitment

Troy Flint of the California School Boards Association raises an important point when he questions whether schools are “solely motivated by money to entice students to class,” noting that “most people in education desperately want kids in class every day.” Similarly, Josh Schultz, superintendent of the Napa County Office of Education, observes that both attendance-funded and property tax-funded schools in his district “see great value in having kids show up to school every day.”

These perspectives highlight that educational commitment cannot be reduced to financial calculations alone. However, this does not diminish the importance of structuring funding systems that reinforce rather than undermine educational values. Financial incentives exist not because educators lack moral commitment, but because systems should be designed to support and amplify that commitment. The attendance-based model represents precisely such alignment—it supports the intrinsic motivation of educators with extrinsic reinforcement.

A Path Forward: Strategic Investment Without Sacrificing Accountability

The LAO report offers a wiser alternative: maintaining the attendance-based model while increasing funding to schools serving high numbers of low-income students, foster children, and English learners. This approach acknowledges the legitimate funding challenges faced by schools serving vulnerable populations without sacrificing the accountability mechanism that ensures daily student engagement.

This solution represents the kind of balanced, evidence-based policymaking that democratic governance requires. It recognizes complexity without surrendering to simplistic either/or thinking. By increasing targeted funding while preserving attendance incentives, California can address equity concerns without abandoning accountability.

Conclusion: Education as Democracy’s Bedrock

Ultimately, this debate transcends technical funding formulas and touches on fundamental questions about what kind of society we aspire to be. Education represents the primary institution through which we transmit democratic values, critical thinking skills, and civic knowledge to future generations. Every day a student misses school represents not just a personal learning loss but a diminishment of our collective democratic capacity.

The attendance-based funding model, while imperfect, maintains a crucial connection between educational investment and educational outcomes. As we emerge from the disruptions of the pandemic, we should be strengthening, not weakening, the mechanisms that ensure students receive consistent, quality education. Our democracy depends on an educated citizenry, and that education requires daily commitment from both students and institutions. Let us fund our schools generously but wisely, ensuring that financial support always serves the higher purpose of educational excellence and equal opportunity for all.