scholarly journals Toward a Rich Data Future for School Finance Research

AERA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 233285841988773
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Baker ◽  
Matthew M. Chingos
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Data ◽  
School Finance ◽  
School Funding ◽  
Special Topic ◽  
Data Systems ◽  
California Department ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Education Data ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Rich Data

This special topic is intended to advance research in school finance using two newly produced compilations of multiple longitudinal data systems, the School Finance Indicators Database ( http://schoolfinancedata.org/ ) and the Urban Institute, Education Data Explorer ( https://educationdata.urban.org/data-explorer/ ). This special topic contains two articles taking advantage of comprehensive longitudinal data on school finance. The first, by Victoria Sosina and Ericka Weathers, uses panel data from the School Finance Indicators Data System from 1999 to 2013 to evaluate whether and to what extent changes to Black-White and Latinx-White demographic differences among districts leads to greater resource disparity over time. The second article, by Knight and Mendoza, combines data from the Census Fiscal Survey with data from the California Department of Education to explore whether differences in data on and measures of school funding equity matter (i.e., lead to similar or different conclusions) when evaluating the effects of California’s 2013 adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula.

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.

scholarly journals Coign of vantage and action: Considering California’ local accountability and school finance plans for English learners

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Vasquez Heilig ◽  
Lisa S. Romero ◽  
Megan Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Local Control ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Learners ◽  
Local Community ◽  
Educational Equity ◽  
Public Schooling ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula

Local control has been a bedrock principle of public schooling in America since its inception. In 2013, the California Legislature codified a new local accountability approach for school finance. An important component of the new California Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) approach is a focus on English learners (ELs). The law mandates that every school district produce a Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) to engage the local community in defining outcomes and determining funding for ELs. Based on an exploratory analysis of a representative sample of LCAPs, we show that, although California’s new approach offered an opportunity to support locally-defined priorities and alternatives to top-down accountability, few if any districts had yet took full advantage of the opportunity. That is, the school districts in our sample had not yet engaged with the local community to facilitate significant changes to accountability or redistribution of funding and resources to support educational equity for ELs.

The Effect of School Funding on Opportunity Gaps for Students With Disabilities: Policy and Context in a Diverse Urban District

2020 ◽  
pp. 104420732097054
Author(s):  
Rebecca A Cruz ◽  
Joon-Ho Lee ◽  
Alexandra G. Aylward ◽  
Catherine Kramarczuk Voulgarides
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Students With Disabilities ◽  
School Finance ◽  
School Context ◽  
School Funding ◽  
Education Programs ◽  
Urban District ◽  
Local Control Funding Formula ◽  
Special Education Programs ◽  
Opportunity Gaps

School finance reform has recently centered on providing schools with more equitable access to resources to reduce opportunity gaps for students. Although special education is often a prominent part of larger equity conversations, special education funding is commonly excluded from school funding reform initiatives. Given the costly nature of special education programs, it is imperative that scholars and policy makers understand the effects of funding changes on outcomes for these students. In this study, we examined the effect of California’s Local Control Funding Formula, in addition to school context and student compositional characteristics, to identify changes in special education students’ achievement rates. Using a combination of publicly available data sources and local district data, we assessed differences in academic outcomes (i.e., achievement scores) between elementary students with and without disabilities in both high- and low-poverty schools, given increases in spending for special education programs.

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 Does Money Matter in the Long Run? Effects of School Spending on Educational Attainment

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Hyman
Keyword(s):  
School Finance ◽  
College Enrollment ◽  
School Funding ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
School Finance Reform ◽  
Funding Formula ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Proposal A ◽  
School Spending

This paper measures the effect of increased primary school spending on students' college enrollment and completion. Using student-level panel administrative data, I exploit variation in the school funding formula imposed by Michigan's 1994 school finance reform, Proposal A. Students exposed to $1,000 (10 percent) more spending were 3 percentage points (7 percent) more likely to enroll in college and 2.3 percentage points (11 percent) more likely to earn a postsecondary degree. The effects were concentrated among districts that were urban and suburban, lower poverty, and higher achieving at baseline. Districts targeted the marginal dollar toward schools serving less-poor populations within the district. (JEL H75, I21, I22, I28)

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.

“Theoretically all Children are Equal. Practically this can Never be So”: The History of the District Property Tax in California and the Choice of Inequality

2020 ◽  
Vol 122 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Matthew Gardner Kelly
Keyword(s):  
School Finance ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Property Tax ◽  
School Funding ◽  
State Governments ◽  
Property Taxation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Long Term Trends ◽  
Funding Disparities

Background/Context Dealing mostly in aggregate statistics that mask important regional variations, scholars often assume that district property taxation and the resource disparities this approach to school funding creates are deeply rooted in the history of American education. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study This article explores the history of district property taxation and school funding disparities in California during the 19th and 20th centuries. First, the article documents the limited use of district property taxation for school funding in California and several other Western states during the 19th century, showing that the development of school finance was more complicated than standard accounts suggest. Then, the article examines how a coalition of experts, activists, and politicians worked together during the early 20th century to promote district property taxation and institutionalize the idea that the wealth of local communities, rather than the wealth of the entire state, should determine the resources available for public schooling. Research Design This article draws on primary source documents from state and regional archives, including district-level funding data from nine Northern California counties, to complete a historical analysis. Conclusions/Recommendations The history of California's district property tax suggests the need for continued research on long-term trends in school finance and educational inequality. Popular accounts minimizing the historical role of state governments in school funding obscure how public policies, not just market forces shaping property values, create funding inequalities. In turn, these accounts communicate powerful messages about the supposed inevitability of funding disparities and the responsibility of state governments to correct them. Through increased attention to long-term trends in school funding, scholars can help popular commentators and policymakers avoid assumptions that naturalize inequality and narrow the possibilities for future funding reforms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document