scholarly journals Spending More on the Poor? A Comprehensive Summary of State-Specific Responses to School Finance Reforms from 1990–2014

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-50
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Shores ◽  
Christopher A. Candelaria ◽  
Sarah E. Kabourek
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
State Level ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Legislative Reforms ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Substantial Heterogeneity ◽  
Level Effect

Abstract Sixty-seven school finance reforms (SFRs), a combination of court-ordered and legislative reforms, have taken place since 1990; however, there is little empirical evidence on the heterogeneity of SFR effects. In this study, we estimate the effects of SFRs on revenues and expenditures between 1990 and 2014 for 26 states. We find that, on average, per pupil spending increased, especially in low-income districts relative to high-income districts. However, underlying these average effect estimates, the distribution of state-level effect sizes ranges from negative to positive—there is substantial heterogeneity. When predicting SFR impacts, we find that multiple state-level SFRs, union strength, and some funding formula components are positively associated with SFR effect sizes in low-income districts. We also show that, on average, states without SFRs adopted funding formula components and increased K-12 state revenues similarly to states with SFRs.

scholarly journals Does the Measurement Matter? Assessing Alternate Approaches to Measuring State School Finance Equity for California’s Local Control Funding Formula

AERA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 233285841987742
Author(s):  
David S. Knight ◽  
Jesús Mendoza
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
District Level ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
State School ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Finance Equity ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Funding Level

Scholars have not reached consensus on the best approach to measure state school finance equity. The regression-based approach estimates the relationship between district poverty rate and funding level, controlling for other district cost factors. A second commonly used approach involves estimating the weighted average funding level for low-income students or other subgroups. Meanwhile, policymakers have preferences for their own data systems and poverty indicators when reading reports and assessing progress. We constructed parallel, district-level panel data sets using data from the California Department of Education and the U.S. Census. We estimated changes over time in district-level school finance equity under California’s Local Control Funding Formula, using multiple school finance measurement approaches, with each of the two data sets. Our results show that different methods and analytic choices result in policy-relevant differences in findings. We discuss the implications for policy and future research.

scholarly journals A preliminary analysis of California’s New Local Control Funding Formula

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Wolf ◽  
Janelle Sands
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
First Year ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Early Implementation ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
K 12 ◽  
Public Education Finance

California recently overhauled its K–12 public education finance system. Enacted in 2013, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) replaced California’s 40-year-old funding formula. The LCFF increases district officials’ fiscal flexibility; provides more resources to districts serving larger proportions of low-income, English learner (EL), and foster youth students; and requires district officials to engage community members in district decisions. This article expands on a study conducted by a team of 12 independent researchers that investigated the early implementation of the LCFF. The study sought to answer three research questions: (a) how are district officials using their newfound budget flexibility? (b) how are district officials engaging parents and other stakeholders? (c) what are the opportunities provided to districts under the LCFF and the challenges it creates for them? Data include 71 semi-structured interviews with district stakeholders across 10 diverse districts in California and 22 interviews with county office of education (COE) officials across the state. Findings include that respondents were cautiously optimistic about the LCFF. District officials appreciated increased budget flexibility and the focus on community engagement. Inevitably, however, district and COE officials experienced challenges in implementing the law during its first year. 

The Sequential Scale-Up of an Evidence-Based Intervention: A Case Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 318-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaime Thomas ◽  
Thomas D. Cook ◽  
Alice Klein ◽  
Prentice Starkey ◽  
Lydia DeFlorio
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Sequential Approach ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Low Income Families ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Policy makers face dilemmas when choosing a policy, program, or practice to implement. Researchers in education, public health, and other fields have proposed a sequential approach to identifying interventions worthy of broader adoption, involving pilot, efficacy, effectiveness, and scale-up studies. In this article, we examine a scale-up of an early math intervention to the state level, using a cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention, Pre-K Mathematics, has produced robust positive effects on children’s math ability in prior pilot, efficacy, and effectiveness studies. In the current study, we ask if it remains effective at a larger scale in a heterogeneous collection of pre-K programs that plausibly represent all low-income families with a child of pre-K age who live in California. We find that Pre-K Mathematics remains effective at the state level, with positive and statistically significant effects (effect size on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort Mathematics Assessment = .30, p < .01). In addition, we develop a framework of the dimensions of scale-up to explain why effect sizes might decrease as scale increases. Using this framework, we compare the causal estimates from the present study to those from earlier, smaller studies. Consistent with our framework, we find that effect sizes have decreased over time. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our study for how we think about the external validity of causal relationships.

Does Your Local Control Accountability (LCAP) Plan Deliver on the Promise of Increased or Improved Services for English Learners? 10 Research Aligned Rubrics to Help Answer the Question and Guide Your Program

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
English Language ◽  
First Year ◽  
District Leaders ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
New School ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula

As California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) came into effect in 2013, districts were given more flexibility to use state resources and create a new school finance system to improve/increase services for students with greater needs for support, including English Learners (ELs), students from low-income backgrounds, and foster youth. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) were tasked with preparing the Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to describe how districts use their plans to meet their annual goals for all students. To aid LEAs in their design and implementation of programs to address the needs of ELs, Californians Together, the California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE), California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), and the Center for Equity for English Learners (CEEL) collaboratively developed the rubrics with 10 focus areas that have a high impact on ELs. These areas include: (1) English Language Development, (2) Parent Engagement, (3) Professional Development, (4) Programs and Course Access, (5) Expenditures, (6) District Wide Use of Concentration and Supplemental Grant Funds, (7) School Wide Use of Concentration and Supplemental Grant Funds, (8) Actions and Services, (9) Proportionality, and (10) English Learner Data to Inform Goals. These 10 rubrics and their corresponding indicators are based on research-based principles and practices for English Learners. These rubrics were first employed in the review of first-year LCAPs by the above-mentioned organizations and remain an important analytical instrument for district leaders to gain insights into the planning for and improving programs and services for ELs.

Can Government Raise Child-Care Quality? The Influence of Family Demand, Poverty, and Policy

1993 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce Fuller ◽  
Stephen W. Raudenbush ◽  
Li-Ming Wei ◽  
Susan D. Holloway
Keyword(s):  
Child Care ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Maternal Employment ◽  
State Level ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Tax Credits ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Preschool Quality ◽  
Competitive Prices ◽  
K 12

The quality of child-care centers and preschools—situated in a mixed market—varies enormously. Advocates for higher quality urge higher subsidies and stricter central regulation. Market advocates argue instead that local demand and parental-choice remedies will spark quality gains while ensuring competitive prices. Federal and state governments have responded with an array of policy interventions: targeting subsidies on preschools serving low-income families; enacting statewide quality standards; creating tax credits and vouchers for the “working poor” and middle-class families. This article assesses the influence of these alternative policies on preschool quality, based on a national survey of 1,805 centers in 36 states. Discrete policy effects are assessed after taking into account the influence of contextual sources of family demand: statewide levels of wealth, maternal employment, and poverty rates. Contrary to K–12 patterns, we find that center quality is higher in centers receiving greater subsidies. However, the subsidy effect depends on the particular indicator of quality being observed; effects are also conditioned by state-level contexts. Statewide sources of family demand, antecedent to policy interventions, help to raise certain facets of preschool quality. Tax credits hold no discernible influence on quality. Implications for building policy strategies in “managed choice” school settings are discussed.

scholarly journals The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms *

2015 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-218 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Kirabo Jackson ◽  
Rucker C. Johnson ◽  
Claudia Persico
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Adult Outcomes ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
School Finance Reform ◽  
Point Reduction ◽  
K 12 ◽  
School Spending

Abstract Since the Coleman Report, many have questioned whether public school spending affects student outcomes. The school finance reforms that began in the early 1970s and accelerated in the 1980s caused dramatic changes to the structure of K–12 education spending in the United States. To study the effect of these school finance reform–induced changes in public school spending on long-run adult outcomes, we link school spending and school finance reform data to detailed, nationally representative data on children born between 1955 and 1985 and followed through 2011. We use the timing of the passage of court-mandated reforms and their associated type of funding formula change as exogenous shifters of school spending, and we compare the adult outcomes of cohorts that were differentially exposed to school finance reforms, depending on place and year of birth. Event study and instrumental variable models reveal that a 10% increase in per pupil spending each year for all 12 years of public school leads to 0.31 more completed years of education, about 7% higher wages, and a 3.2 percentage point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families. Exogenous spending increases were associated with notable improvements in measured school inputs, including reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries, and longer school years.

scholarly journals Masking the Focus on English Learners: The Consequences of California’s Accountability System Dashboard Results on Year 4 Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Magaly Lavadenz
Keyword(s):  
Local Control ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
California Department ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Policy Mechanisms

California’s Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), signed into law in 2013, centers equity as a key to increased and improved services for three targeted student subgroups, including English Learners (ELs), low-income students, and foster youth. As a component of LCFF, districts develop Local Control and Accountability Plans (LCAPs) to specify their goals and strategies for using LCFF funds for equity and continuous improvement purposes. The California Model Five by Five Grid Placement Report (Spring 2017 Dashboard) included the Five by Five Placement Grid, a key function of which is to identify the needs of diverse ELs. The Dashboard and the LCAPs are two policy mechanisms with great promise in combining school finance and accountability reform to promote equity and coherent state-wide. In this report, Lavadenz and colleagues review the EL policy context and examine the connection between the two contemporary policy mechanisms in California, namely the Year 4 LCAP and the California Department of Education’s Accountability Model (Spring 2017 Dashboard). The authors use a sample of 26 California school districts with high numbers/percentages of ELs and conclude that California’s current accountability system diminishes the urgency to respond to educational needs of the English Learner subgroup and undermines the equity intent of the LCFF. Few promising practices and assets-based approaches were identified in the LCAPs, and there is minimal mention of metrics focused on EL outcomes. The authors provide recommendations at state, county office of education and district levels.

scholarly journals The Rural/Nonrural Divide? K–12 District Spending and Implications of Equity-Based School Funding

AERA Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 233285842098254
Author(s):  
Tasminda K. Dhaliwal ◽  
Paul Bruno
Keyword(s):  
School Finance ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
School Funding ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Underserved Students ◽  
Rural Districts ◽  
School Year ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
K 12

In the 2013–2014 school year, the state of California implemented a new equity-minded funding system, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). LCFF increased minimum per-pupil funding for educationally underserved students and provided greater autonomy in allocating resources. We use the implementation of LCFF to enrich our understanding of rural school finance and explore the implications of equity-based school finance reform across urbanicity (i.e., between rural, town, suburban, and urban districts) and between rural areas of different remoteness. Drawing on 15 years of financial data from California school districts, we find variation in the funding levels of rural districts but few differences in the ways resources are allocated and only modest evidence of constrained spending in rural areas. Our results suggest that spending progressivity (i.e., spending advantage of higher-poverty districts) has increased since LCFF, although progressivity is lowest in rural districts by the end of the data panel.

Tennessee Education Savings Account: Tipping the Scales From Equity to Choice

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 98-110
Author(s):  
Erin Curtin
Keyword(s):  
School District ◽  
School Choice ◽  
State Level ◽  
Poverty Line ◽  
Comprehensive Education ◽  
Policy Window ◽  
Federal Poverty Line ◽  
Scholarship Program ◽  
Shelby County ◽  
K 12

This article provides an analysis of Tennessee’s newly signed Education Savings Account policy, a school choice initiative. The policy provides vouchers, in the form of a debit card, to students in grades K-12 who are at or below 200% of the federal poverty line and are zoned to attend a Nashville, Shelby County, or Achievement School District school. Using the Policy Window Framework the author uncovers that the policy was created in a federal and state-level political convergence, which attempted to place equity at the forefront of the issue. However, using Levin's Comprehensive Education Privatization Framework, we can see that neoliberal ideals of choice and efficiency conquer equity in the finalized policy. The author predicts the outcomes of this new policy using this framework in tandem with 3 case studies: Louisiana Scholarship Program, DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and Tennessee’s Individualized Education Accounts.

Navigating the Complex Maze of Ethics CPE

2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard O. Rockness ◽  
Joanne W. Rockness
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Ethics Education ◽  
State Level ◽  
Course Content ◽  
Complex Maze ◽  
Education Literature ◽  
Current State ◽  
Multiple State ◽  
Ethics Courses ◽  
Overall Effectiveness

ABSTRACT: This paper evaluates the current state of ethics CPE requirements for the CPA profession in the context of the ethics literature in philosophy, business, and accounting and documents the development of state-level ethics requirements for CPAs. It presents a detailed analysis of ethics CPE requirements by state including hours required, frequency required, acceptance of ethics CPE across state lines, and course content. The paper then proposes changes in the content of CPE-required ethics courses consistent with the ethics education literature and to reduce the complexity of meeting multiple state requirements. The recommendations would improve the overall effectiveness of ethics CPE for CPAs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document