Analyzing Equity and Adequacy of State School Finance

2014 ◽  
pp. 371-396
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce D. Baker ◽  
Mark Weber

New federal regulations (State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators) place increased pressure on states and local public school districts to improve their measurement and reporting of gaps in teacher qualifications across schools and the children they serve. Yet a sole focus on resource disparities between schools within a state ignores an important driver of those disparities: district-level spending variations, particularly when accounting for differences in student populations. The analyses herein evaluate connections between district and school level spending measures and teacher equity measures (such as salary competitiveness and staff: student ratios), and specifically whether inequality in “access to excellent educators” at the school level is greater in states where funding inequalities between school districts are greater. We find that district spending variation explains an important, policy relevant share of school staffing expenditures in 13 states. In many states, including Illinois and New York, a nearly 1:1 relationship exists between district spending variation and school site spending variation. In California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia, district spending is positively associated with competitive salary differentials, average teacher salaries, and numbers of certificated staff per 100 pupils. In each of these states, district poverty rates are negatively associated with competitive salary differentials, average teacher salaries and numbers of certified staff per 100 pupils. As such, regulatory intervention without more substantive changes to state school finance systems, addressing district-level inequities, will likely achieve little. Current federal policy pressures state education agencies to report and attempt to regulate inequities that arise because of school finance systems over which those agencies have no direct influence. Our analysis suggests that the administration would be more likely to meet its goals if it attempted to more directly address state school finance system disparities, placing pressure on state legislatures to equitably and adequately fund schools, and following through with the requirement that state-to-district equity provisions translate into district-to-school equity. 


AERA Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 233285841987742
Author(s):  
David S. Knight ◽  
Jesús Mendoza

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.


1956 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 581-590
Author(s):  
Axel P. Peterson ◽  
Russell T. Gregg

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. Strike

This article discusses issues of justice concerning school finance with a focus on the development of a conception of equality of educational opportunity. Emphasis is put on discussing the views of the other contributors in this symposium. The main conclusions of the discussion are that (1) equity and adequacy are not inconsistent views because they address fundamentally different questions; (2) adequacy sets a floor under the education that the state owes to all children, but it does not relieve the state of the obligation to provide whatever additional education it chooses to provide equally; (3) equality of opportunity may be limited by conflicting rights; and (4) weighted student funding (WSF) is theoretically attractive because it emphasizes the funding of students rather than districts and is sensitive to relevant differences among them, however the level of theoretical agreement and empirical knowledge required to implement WSF in a nuanced way is not available.


2003 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Odden

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document