The Intersectionality of Educating Black Students in Michigan: Public School Finance, Racial Segregation, and Housing Policy

This research investigates Michigan’s system for funding public schools, particularly for Black students, via critical race theory, focusing on structural racism and discrimination embedded in education finance laws, housing policies, and residential and educational segregation. Our research questions are (i) How does district per-pupil funding in Michigan vary by race and income? (ii) Does variation by race and income depend on whether funding is from state or local sources? (iii) How does district property wealth in Michigan vary by race and income? and (iv) How does the proportion of property wealth Michigan districts commit to local education funding vary by race and income? We find that the average Black student receiving free or reduced-price lunch (FRL) receives $411 less per pupil than the average White student receiving FRL and $783 less per pupil than the average White student who does not receive FRL. These disparities stem entirely from differences in locally sourced district revenues that are the result of vast differences in property wealth. On average, a one-percentage-point increase in a district’s proportion of Black students receiving FRL is associated with a $2,354 decrease in taxable value of property per pupil, implying that a district with all Black students receiving FRL would have $235,400 less taxable value per pupil than a district with no Black students receiving FRL. Through its continued reliance on local property taxation, the school finance system in Michigan is just another example of how laws and policies reinforce structural racism and discrimination against Black students. This study can discern a self-reinforcing system that relegates Blacks to a subordinate socioeconomic status regarding school finance, segregation and housing policy, and discrimination.

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

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.

Prioritizing School Finance Equity during an Economic Downturn: Recommendations for State Policy Makers

State budgets temporarily crashed amid the COVID-19 pandemic and economic shutdown, placing education funding at risk. To demonstrate implications for school finance, we show that (1) school districts are racially segregated along class lines; (2) higher-poverty districts receive a greater share of funds from state, as opposed to local sources, making them especially vulnerable during economic downturns; and (3) many states made across-the-board K-12 budget reductions following the Great Recession, but those cuts disproportionately impacted high-poverty districts. A decade later, state legislators may face similar fiscal challenges. Instead of enacting acrossthe-board cuts, states can identify specific funding programs that already benefit lower-poverty districts or wealthier students. We demonstrate how this approach would work under different state finance models and offer recommendations for state policy makers.

Test-Based Accountability and the Effectiveness of School Finance Reforms

A recent literature provides new evidence that school resources are important for student outcomes. This paper examines whether school accountability systems that incentivize performance (such as No Child Left Behind) raise the efficiency with which additional resources get spent. We leverage the timing of school finance reforms to compare funding impacts on student test scores between states that had accountability in place at the time of the reform and states that did not. The results show that finance-reform-induced increases in student performance are driven by those states where the reform was accompanied by the presence of test-based accountability.

The Effects of Campus Shooting on School Finance and Student Composition

Between 1999 and 2018, 210 shootings have occurred on public school campuses in the United States. The increased need for security and student support may crowd out instructional resources post-shooting. Shootings may also cause students, especially those from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds, to move away, leading to declines in enrollment. Both changes in the budget allocation and the student composition could exert a negative impact on achievement. First, we examine the effects of campus shootings on public school districts’ revenue, expenditure, debt, and staffing using a long panel of district-year data. Results from event study and difference-in-differences analyses indicate that shootings increase per-pupil spending by $248, which is funded primarily through increased federal transfers. Most spending increases occur in noninstructional functions, such as pupil support services, and capital projects, but they do not crowd out instructional spending. Using school-level data, we show that shootings are followed by a decline in enrollment, driven almost exclusively by reductions in students who do not receive free- or reduced-price lunch. Private schools in the area also experience enrollment drop. In sum, despite the increased intergovernmental transfers, campus shootings reduce the desirability of the community and lead to the exit of relatively well-off families.

Wie die Arbeitslosenversicherung die Wirtschaft stabilisiert

ZusammenfassungDie Arbeitslosenversicherung schützt die Arbeitenden vor grösseren Einkommensausfällen in der Rezession und hilft, den Wohlstand über die Zeit zu glätten. Sie ist auch ein wichtiger automatischer Stabilisator, der die Konjunkturschwankungen dämpft. Gerade die Arbeitslosen haben häufig eine hohe Konsumquote und geben in der Rezession jedes zusätzliche Einkommen aus. Die Absicherung der Einkommen stützt zudem die Kreditfähigkeit der Haushalte. Eine solide finanzierte Arbeitslosenversicherung stabilisiert die Konsumnachfrage und festigt die Widerstandskraft der Wirtschaft. Christian Keuschnigg und Michael Kogler, Herausgeber.Marco Di Maggio, Amir Kermani (2017), Unemployment Insurance as an Automatic Stabilizer: The Financial Channel, Harvard Business School Finance Working Paper.