Pass-Through Funds in Education: A Closer Look at Per-Student Spending
When discussing school budgets, a term that often flies under the radar is “pass-through funds.” These are dollars allocated to school districts but immediately redirected to external organizations or programs rather than staying within the district itself. Think of it like this: If a parent hands their child $20 to give to a charity, the child isn’t actually “spending” that money—they’re just passing it along. Similarly, pass-through funds in education flow through districts without directly benefiting classroom operations. But here’s the catch: When calculating per-student spending, some districts include these funds in their budgets. This raises a critical question: Are pass-through funds artificially inflating per-student spending figures, creating a misleading narrative about educational investment?
What Exactly Are Pass-Through Funds?
Pass-through funds are typically grants, federal allocations, or state-mandated payments that school districts receive but do not control. Common examples include:
– Federal Title I funds for low-income students, which might go to tutoring programs run by third-party vendors.
– Special education reimbursements sent directly to private therapy providers.
– Charter school payments, where districts transfer state funds to charter schools serving their residents.
These funds are often earmarked for specific purposes, limiting a district’s ability to use them for general expenses like teacher salaries or textbooks. However, because they appear in a district’s financial reports, they can skew per-student spending calculations. For instance, if a district receives $1 million in pass-through funds for 1,000 students, its reported per-student spending jumps by $1,000—even if none of that money was used in classrooms.
The Debate: Transparency vs. Misrepresentation
Supporters argue that pass-through funds reflect a district’s total fiscal activity, offering a complete picture of resources tied to its students. “If the money is linked to a student’s needs, it should count toward their educational experience,” says Dr. Laura Simmons, a school finance analyst.
Critics, however, see this as a shell game. By including pass-through funds, districts can tout higher per-student spending figures—useful for grant applications, bond measures, or political messaging—without necessarily improving classroom conditions. A 2022 study by the Education Policy Institute found that districts in three states inflated their per-student spending by 8–12% through pass-through accounting. In one case, a district reported $15,000 per student, but $2,000 of that went to external services parents rarely utilized.
Why Does This Matter?
Misleading spending data has real-world consequences:
1. Public Trust: Taxpayers may believe their dollars are funding smaller class sizes or newer technology when they’re actually subsidizing third-party contracts.
2. Policy Decisions: Lawmakers relying on inflated numbers might underestimate the need for additional funding.
3. Equity Gaps: Districts serving high-need students often receive more pass-through funds. Including these in per-student calculations could mask underinvestment in core services.
Consider this scenario: Two districts each spend $10,000 per student. District A uses all funds for teacher salaries and classroom supplies. District B allocates $3,000 to external vendors. On paper, they look identical, but their students’ experiences differ vastly.
Case Study: The Charter School Factor
Charter schools are a major driver of pass-through activity. In states where districts must fund charters, per-student allocations are transferred directly. For example, if a student leaves a public school for a charter, the district’s enrollment drops, but so does its budget—by the exact amount sent to the charter.
However, because the transferred funds still appear in the district’s financial statements, its per-student spending appears unchanged. In reality, the district has fewer resources for remaining students. A 2023 report highlighted a California district where per-student spending rose 6% after charter transfers—despite cuts to music and arts programs.
Toward a Solution: Rethinking How We Measure Spending
Transparency is key. Some states, like Ohio and Texas, now require districts to separate pass-through funds in financial reports. Others advocate for “direct service spending” metrics that exclude external transfers.
Technology could also help. Open budgeting platforms, like those piloted in Colorado, allow communities to track exactly where funds go. “Parents deserve to know if their ‘high-spending’ district is outsourcing half its budget,” says advocate Miguel Torres.
The Bigger Picture
Pass-through funds aren’t inherently bad. They enable partnerships with experts, support specialized programs, and fulfill legal obligations. The problem arises when their inclusion in per-student spending distorts reality.
As education funding debates intensify—particularly around equity and resource gaps—accurate data is non-negotiable. Whether through revised accounting standards or public awareness campaigns, stakeholders must ensure that “per-student spending” reflects actual classroom investments. After all, numbers shouldn’t just look good on paper; they should translate to better outcomes for students.
In the end, the goal isn’t to eliminate pass-through funds but to contextualize them. Only then can communities hold districts accountable for how every dollar is spent—not just how it’s counted.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Pass-Through Funds in Education: A Closer Look at Per-Student Spending