Policy Diffusion of Performance Funding Equity Metrics: Traditional Neighbor and Dyadic Survival Analyses

While previous research on higher education policy diffusion often conceptualizes diffusion as occuring across neighboring governments, we conceptualize policy diffusion as also occuring across pairs of governments (dyads) regardless of geographic proximity. We apply both conceptualizations and use survival analysis techniques to examine factors associated with state adoption of performance funding equity metrics. Results show that the proportion of neighbors with equity metrics is unrelated to the likelihood of adopting a metric for either the 2- or 4-year sector, suggesting no evidence of policy diffusion across borders. The directed dyad analysis reveals that states are less likely to adopt a 4-year metric when the other state in the pair already operates a 4-year metric, indicating that states look beyond neighbors in policy avoidance behaviors. Internal state factors such as higher levels of legislative professionalism and greater enrollment of underrepresented minority and low-income students increase the likelihood of policy adoption. A state is less likely to imitate the adoption of 2-year equity metrics in another state when the pair show greater differences in legislative professionalism, minority and low-income student enrollment, income per capita, and income inequality. Our research highlights the utility of quantitatively modeling policy diffusion across governmental units that are distantly located, especially for higher education policy components that are nationally visible.

How States Fund Education

In the United States, the vast majority of funding for K–12 education is provided through state and local governments to school districts. Throughout history, school districts have remained highly segregated both by income/wealth and by race, leading to reduced levels of funding available for higher need districts compared to wealthier districts. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze funding disparities within states and to determine differences between states with respect to funding equity. First, the chapter begins with a discussion of the sources of revenue for education at the state and local levels. Second, it explains the purpose and design of state aid formulas to reduce funding disparities between districts. Third, using data from the School Finance Indicators Database, the chapter calculates funding effort and progressivity indices for each state. Fourth, it provides case studies on two states with more progressive and less progressive funding, New Jersey and Illinois. Finally, the chapter concludes with policy recommendations on how states can improve their school finance systems to provide adequate levels of funding for higher need districts.

Australia: PISA Australia—Excellence and Equity?

Australia’s education system reflects its history of federalism. State and territory governments are responsible for administering education within their jurisdiction and across the sector comprising government (public), Catholic systemic and other independent schooling systems. They collaborate on education policy with the federal government. Over the past two decades the federal government has taken a greater role in funding across the education sector, and as a result of this involvement and the priorities of federal governments of the day, Australia now has one of the highest rates of non-government schooling in the OECD. Funding equity across the sectors has become a prominent issue. Concerns have been compounded by evidence of declining student performance since Australia’s initial participation in PISA in 2000, and the increasing gap between our high achievers and low achievers. This chapter explores Australia’s PISA 2018 results and what they reveal about the impact of socioeconomic level on student achievement. It also considers the role of school funding and the need to direct support to those schools that are attempting to educate the greater proportion of an increasingly diverse student population including students facing multiple layers of disadvantage.

Property Tax Cap Policy in Indiana and Implications for Public School Funding Equity

The purpose of this research was to examine funding losses experienced by preschool to grade 12 (P–12) public school districts in Indiana, U.S., from an equity standpoint after the implementation of statewide property tax caps. All Indiana public school districts (N = 292) rely on property taxes as a major source of revenue, but districts experienced widely varying losses after the tax reform. Analyses across an array of district characteristics revealed significant relationships between differential funding losses and demographic indicators, including total student enrollment and the percentages of certain minoritized students. Implications for policy and practice include the integration of findings with essential research on funding equity in public education and attention on leadership toward reducing funding disparities.

States as Sites of Educational (In)Equality: State Contexts and the Socioeconomic Achievement Gradient

Socioeconomic achievement gaps have long been a central focus of educational research. However, not much is known about how (and why) between-district gaps vary among states, even though states are a primary organizational level in the decentralized education system in the United States. Using data from the Stanford Education Data Archive (SEDA), this study describes state-level socioeconomic achievement gradients and the growth of these gradients from Grades 3 to 8. We also examine state-level correlates of the gradients and their growth, including school system funding equity, preschool enrollment patterns, the distribution of teachers, income inequality, and segregation. We find that socioeconomic gradients and their growth rates vary considerably among states, and that between-district income segregation is positively associated with the socioeconomic achievement gradient.

Toward equality of educational opportunity: What’s most promising?

Arthur E. Wise, a longtime advocate for K-12 school improvement, reviews 50 years of efforts to promote equal educational opportunities for all children, describing the pros and cons of three main reform strategies: lawsuits focused on funding equity, which have had some success; the standards and accountability movement, which has not; and teacher professionalism, which has immense promise but has yet to be pursued with the commitment it deserves.

Under the Law: Weighing responsibility for providing equitable and adequate education

Questions of responsibility for school funding often hinge on our definitions of community. Historically, in the United States, the community that is responsible for education is the local one, but over time, states have taken more responsibility, particularly in the area of funding. In this column, Julie Underwood considers how questions of responsibility and control have played out in the courts at the federal and state levels. There is no federal right to education, and so much of the litigation related to questions of funding equity has occurred at the state level, with different results in different states. A recent federal case, Cook v. Raimondo, however, seeks to establish that students have a right to an education that provides them with certain civic skills needed to participate in the democratic process.

Finding a Way Forward: Flatland School District Reviews Their Decentralized Model

This case was developed for use with future school and district leaders in an educational setting. There are several topics of discussion that can be developed, including but not limited to decentralization as a large-scale reform, policy implementation, the superintendency, and urban schools. The setting is a fictional southwestern urban school district. Data are presented about student achievement and funding equity/inequity. Students will discuss potential next steps for the main player in the story: a relatively new superintendent whose school board has mixed feelings about the district’s decentralized model, implemented in 2007.