(Inter)national empirical findings repeatedly prove that both socioeconomic status and contextual factors at the level of the learning group, the school, and the social space are decisive for educational opportunities (e.g., OECD, 2019). Equity funding policies might be an effective way to reduce educational inequalities and to create equal life opportunities. Following this approach, schools in challenging circumstances can receive additional staff, funding, or further support. In this regard, resource allocation might be based, for example, on available data (e.g., social indices), application processes, or discretionary of policy makers. According to Verelst, Bakelants, Vandevoort, & Nicaise (2020), more than half of EU countries currently provide some type of equity funding to schools that serve target groups such as low-SES students or children with a migration background. Results from both national and international testing show a strong relationship between students’ socio-economic background and performance. In Germany, this interrelation is particularly strong (e.g., OECD, 2019). Therefore, equity funding policies are meant to compensate for the educational disadvantages of underprivileged students and should lead to an increase in their performance. Moreover, schools in deprived areas often show higher teacher turnover and greater difficulties in attracting qualified teachers and school leaders than school working in more favourable conditions (e.g., Simon & Johnson, 2015; Clotfelder, Ladd, Vigdor, & Wheeler, 2007). Equity funding policies might also counteract these challenges, as a recent meta-analysis highlights the influence of educational policies external to the school on teacher turnover (Nguyen, Pham, Crouch, & Springer, 2020).

However, evidence concerning the effects of equity funding policies is scarce and mixed. Moreover, the implementation of equity funding policies depends on the availability of (additional) resources and the willingness of policy makers to reduce educational inequalities. In the multi-level system, municipalities play a dual role regarding the allocation of funds, as they have their own resources but are also responsible for the concrete distribution of federal or state funds. In line with educational governance theory (e.g., Altrichter, Brüsemeister, & Wissinger, 2007), decision-making on the municipality level is shaped by organizational and political conditions and decision-making on the district or federal level (e.g., Honig, Coburn, & Stein, 2009).

In recent years, evidence-based decision-making has become a topic of growing interest. Following this approach, grounding decisions and actions in evidence and available data should be the case on every level of the school system. This is seen as a prerequisite for an efficient and effective performance and an increase in students’ achievement (e.g., Honig & Coburn, 2008). International findings suggest that the amount of resources and the ways they are (supposed to be) allocated and used influence the effects of equity funding schemes (e.g., Franck & Nicaise, 2022). Based on theoretical assumptions and international findings, different designs of equity funding schemes can be distinguished. In this regard, the following dimensions can be differentiated:

• allocation of human resources vs. allocation of budget/monetary means
• earmarking vs. free disposal/usage
• data-driven allocation (e.g., based on social indices) vs. allocation based on negotiations or expertise

It can be assumed that policy makers have a considerable leeway in allocating resources. Therefore, their attitudes towards justice in educational opportunities are of great importance as they may influence resource allocation. However, there are hardly any findings in Germany regarding the extent, the concrete design, and the effects of equity funding policies. To our knowledge, a systematic overview of the concrete implementation of resource allocation at the municipal level is still lacking and little is known regarding the attitudes of German policy makers.

In a current project funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research we address the desiderata described above. The following research questions are guiding our study: 1. What configurations of equity funding policies can be identified in Germany? 2. How and according to what intentions are equity funding policies implemented in practice? To answer the above research questions, the study makes use of a multimethod approach. First, we analysed equity funding policies in the field of primary and secondary education in the German federal states and in municipalities by means of a systematic document review. We used content analysis (Mayring, 2007) to evaluate educational reports, websites, policy documents, (draft) resolutions, and other documents. The code system was developed both deductively and inductively and the software MAXQDA 22 (https://www.maxqda.com/) was used. Coding by independent coders and a high degree of communicative validation ensured the quality of the analyses. The document analysis identified municipalities or federal states that have already set up equity funding policies, and the extent and form of resources (e.g., additional staff, funds, further support) as well as modes of resource allocation (e.g., allocation based on data, application, or discretionary of policy makers; earmarked vs. free disposal). To identify further regions with equity funding policies, an additional online survey of the heads of municipal school administrators was conducted. Furthermore, four German municipalities that differ in terms of equity funding were chosen based on the findings of the document review to reconstruct their approaches of equity funding policies. In each of these municipalities, up to twelve interviews with actors – directly or indirectly – involved in the decision-making process of resource allocation in K 12 education were conducted in order to carve out sensemaking processes in the context of equity funding. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by means of documentary interpretation (Nohl, 2010). In this way, in-depth research of the logics and practices of actors involved in funding policies can be conducted.

Our results show a significant variation concerning the design of equity funding schemes in German municipalities. Monetary and non-monetary resources are available from a variety of sources (federal, state, local, civil society actors) with different objectives. Whereas some municipalities do not use equity funding schemes at all, others allocate a considerable amount of resources to schools in challenging circumstances. The analyses indicate large differences in the distribution of resources in the education system at both the state and the district/local level: variations can be seen in terms of the type of funds (staff positions or budgets for free or earmarked use) and in terms of the distribution principles applied (application-based, experience-based, data-based). When it comes to resource allocation, German policy makers predominantly draw on their own expertise. They also claim to use data on a small scale. Allocating resources based on proposals by schools or school leaders respectively, results of school inspections, or student achievement in standardized tests seem to be rather uncommon practices. Results of the case studies showed differentiated practices and sensemaking processes in the various municipalities; the face-to-face interviews led to a better understanding of the complexity of funding policies. Different knowledge bases were used in the decision-making process and many actors at different levels of control were involved. It can be concluded that municipalities use individual distribution strategies that differ in many components (e.g., combination of distribution principles, advisors and decisions makers, communication strategies, funding providers, impact orientation and controlling). These are closely linked to the different initial situations and framework conditions of the municipalities. Overall, our findings provide important results in a previously neglected field of research and can contribute to the further development of equity funding policies in the municipalities and federal states.

Altrichter, H., Brüsemeister, T., Wissinger, J. (2007). Educational Governance, Handlungskoordination und Steuerung im Bildungssystem. Wiesbaden: VS Verlg für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-90498-6 Clotfelder, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L. & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345–1379. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–86). Harvard Education Press. Franck, E., & Nicaise, I. (2022). The effectiveness of equity funding policies in schools in Europe and North America: A systematic literature review. Issues in Educational Research, 32 (2), 494–512. Honig, M. E., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Towards a policy and research agenda, Educational Policy, 1 (4), 578–608. Mayring, P. (2007). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken [Qualitative content analysis. Foundations and techniques] (9th ed.). Weinheim: Deutscher Studien Verlag. Nohl, A.-M. (2010). Narrative interview and documentary interpretation. In R. Bohnsack, N. Pfaff, & W. Weller (Eds.), Qualitative analysis and documentary method in international educational research (pp. 195–217). Opladen: Budrich. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-317517 [October 25, 2022]. Nguyen, T. D., Pham, L. D., Crouch, M., & Springer, M. G. (2020). The correlates of teacher turnover: An updated and expanded meta-analysis of the literature. Educational Research Review, 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100355. OECD (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume II): Where all students can succeed. Paris: OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/b5fd1b8f-en. Simon, N. & Johnson, S. M. (2015). Teacher turnover in high poverty schools. What we know and can do. Teachers College Record, 117 (3), 1–36. Verelst, S., Bakelants, H., Vandevoort, L., & Nicaise, I. (2020). The governance of equity funding schemes for disadvantaged schools: Lessons from national case studies (NESET report). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2766/989607.