Allocation framing is the quiet reengineering of moral questions into administrative calculations. It is the mechanism by which human need is translated into budget lines, and suffering into spreadsheets. What begins as a student struggling to access education becomes, under this logic, a question of how many support hours they are “eligible” to receive—regardless of whether that support actually meets their needs.
This shift is subtle but profound. It replaces the question what does this child require to thrive? with how many resource units does this child merit according to policy? The latter question is presented as neutral, objective, and technical. But it is profoundly ideological. It encodes scarcity as fairness, and deprivation as rational.
In British Columbia, allocation framing shows up in capped EA hours, funding formulas that prioritise classification over support, and the replacement of inclusive pedagogy with tiered interventions that often exclude those who don’t “qualify.” Teachers must log incidents to “justify” help. Parents must prove harm before a student receives support. And even then, allocation often falls short—not because the need isn’t real, but because the framework was designed to minimise cost.
What you can do
Countering allocation framing means refusing to let bureaucratic language substitute for ethical clarity. It means reasserting the primacy of human need, even when systems are engineered to ignore it.
Here are six counter-practices for educators, advocates, and families:
- Return to the question of need
Whenever decisions are made based on units, hours, or capped services, ask: Does this meet the actual need? Reframe conversations around sufficiency, not efficiency. - Expose the rationing logic behind the language
When someone says “We’ve allocated all available hours,” respond with: Who decided how many hours are available? Shift the conversation from distribution to root causes. - Refuse binary eligibility models
Insist that support is not either/or. A student shouldn’t have to be “bad enough” to qualify or “good enough” to cope. Need exists on a continuum—and so should support. - Push for transparent funding rationales
Demand public access to how educational supports are costed and assigned. Who made the model? Who benefits when allocation replaces accommodation? - Name the gap between policy and practice
Keep records of unmet needs, rejected referrals, and misaligned support. Use this data not as personal grievance but as systemic evidence. - Challenge diagnostic gatekeeping
If services are only available through a formal diagnosis, ask why. Highlight how this perpetuates inequity, delays support, and burdens families unequally.
This isn’t accountability. It’s austerity by another name.
Allocation framing invites us to mistake logistics for justice. But need does not shrink to fit a spreadsheet. And children should not be required to fail in measurable ways before they are seen.
You are allowed to say: This isn’t enough.
Learn more about allocation framing
- Mitchell & Bryan (2020), Education funding policies and allocation practices: Austerity and inequity in inclusive education
Analysis of how allocation formulas often obscure structural underfunding, especially in inclusive education. The authors trace how bureaucratic neutrality serves to justify chronic resource gaps. Cambridge Journal of Education - McLeskey et al. (2014), High-leverage practices and allocation-based decision making in special education
Discusses how allocation systems compromise the implementation of high-leverage supports, particularly in schools serving multiply-marginalised populations. Council for Exceptional Children - Kahlenberg & Potter (2014), Why school funding matters (The Century Foundation)
A powerful breakdown of how funding allocation systems often entrench inequity, masking need behind complex formulas. While U.S.-based, the underlying dynamics resonate strongly with BC’s per-student funding model. The Century Foundation - OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning
A global comparative analysis showing how funding and allocation frameworks shape educational outcomes—often reproducing rather than mitigating inequality. OECD iLibrary - BC Teachers’ Federation (BCTF), Education Funding Briefs (ongoing)
Explains how provincial allocation decisions impact classroom realities in British Columbia. Offers detailed critiques of the structural gap between funding models and real-world need. BCTF Research
