West Virginia’s state Board of Education voted 7-1 Wednesday to tell the state Supreme Court that the school-aid formula it administers does not deliver the “thorough and efficient” public education required by the state constitution. One member was absent. In the same meeting, education officials presented a 41-page draft that would stabilize enrollment counts and direct more money toward students whose needs cost more to serve.

The paired actions move a long-running finance debate into a more consequential phase. The board is not merely asking lawmakers for adjustments; it is taking an adverse position against the status quo in pending litigation while offering a framework for replacement. The department said the existing formula prevents the board from fulfilling its constitutional duty, and MetroNews reported that the lone dissenting member warned against conceding failure before the lawsuit is fully examined.

The vote changes the lawsuit

The vote directs the board’s lawyers to advance that position in Patten v. Hanshaw, a case brought by a Lincoln County student and her mother. The petition asks the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia to find that the state’s funding system is inadequate and inequitable. The board and Department of Education are among the respondents.

The board’s motion does not decide the case, and it does not enact a new formula. The court must still evaluate the petition, other respondents may dispute its claims, and the Legislature retains responsibility for writing and funding school law. But the formal position removes a major institutional defender of the current system. According to court coverage, respondents are expected to file summaries or briefs by the end of October.

Enrollment no longer captures cost

West Virginia’s formula is driven heavily by enrollment, a structure that becomes destabilizing when districts lose students but cannot reduce buildings, transportation routes or specialized services at the same pace. Education finance officer Uriah Cummings told the board that statewide enrollment has fallen by roughly 50,000 students in a decade. Public broadcasting reported a 14% overall enrollment decline while special-education enrollment rose 16% over the same period.

The cost mismatch is clearest in special education. Districts spent about $560 million on those services in fiscal 2025, while state and federal sources covered roughly $380 million, leaving local systems to absorb about $180 million. The state’s official account says federal support covers only 12% to 17% of the relevant costs, including therapies and skilled nursing for students with significant needs.

The draft shifts toward student need

The proposed legislation would calculate each district’s funding enrollment using whichever is higher: the most recent count or the average of the prior three years. That “smoothing” mechanism would slow sudden revenue drops without permanently disconnecting funding from enrollment.

It would then apply weights for service intensity. Special-education students would generate an additional 0.5, 1 or 2 pupil equivalents according to documented needs, rather than disability labels alone. Districts with higher concentrations of poverty would receive added weights of 0.05 to 0.15 per qualifying student; English learners would receive 0.10; and rurality, career and technical education, and certain operating needs would receive additional adjustments. Officials estimate the special-education weights alone would provide about $190 million statewide, but they have not produced a total price for the full plan.

Independent research supports the direction

A Legislature-commissioned RAND analysis published in January found that West Virginia’s combined state, local and federal funding was less responsive than typical to higher-cost student groups. After adjustment, high-poverty districts spent only 3% more per pupil than lower-poverty districts, ranking 34th among 45 comparable states. Districts with larger shares of special-education students spent 4% less, ranking 42nd.

RAND recommended weights for poverty, special education and English learners, alongside periodic review and greater transparency. The department’s draft follows that general direction, although its specific weights, safeguards and costs remain subject to legislative revision. The proposal also contemplates public impact files and a recurring review commission, features intended to make future adjustments more evidence-based.

Lawmakers still control the remedy

The draft was sent to Gov. Patrick Morrisey and legislative leaders before the board meeting. House Education Chairman Joe Statler said lawmakers now have a proposal to examine, while Senate Finance Chairman Jason Barrett welcomed the draft but criticized the board’s prior posture toward the Legislature. The governor’s office said it would work with the department and lawmakers during the next session, according to WSAZ reporting.

That review will occur as districts make immediate decisions. About a dozen schools are preparing to close after more than a dozen closures last year, WSAZ reported. Those pressures give lawmakers a narrow window to test the proposal’s costs, distributional effects and accountability provisions before another budget cycle locks in the current formula.

The Educator's Takeaway

For district and school leaders, the board’s vote is important but not yet an appropriation. The practical change to watch is whether lawmakers preserve three elements of the draft: multi-year enrollment smoothing, needs-based student weights and transparent district impact estimates. Together, those provisions would affect staffing, special-education capacity, transportation and closure planning differently across counties. Leaders should also distinguish the estimated $190 million special-education component from the still-unknown total cost of the package. The court case may accelerate pressure for action, but the Legislature will determine the formula’s design and funding. Until a bill is enacted, districts remain responsible for current service obligations under the existing allocation system, including individualized supports that cannot simply be reduced when enrollment falls.