The Great Recession and Public Education

We examine the impact of the Great Recession on public education finance and employment. Five major themes emerge from our work. First, nearly 300,000 school employees lost their jobs. Second, schools that were heavily dependent financially on state governments were particularly vulnerable to the recession. Third, local revenues from the property tax actually increased during the recession, primarily because millage rates rose in response to declining property values. Fourth, inequality in school spending rose sharply during the Great Recession. We argue, however, that we need to be very cautious about this result. School spending inequality has risen steadily since 2000; the trend in inequality we see in the 2008–13 period is very similar to the trend we see in the 2000–08 period. Fifth, the federal government's efforts to shield education from some of the worst effects of the recession achieved their major goal.

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

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.

So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Nontax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010

We examine changes in the use of nontax revenues for education finance from 1991 to 2010. Beyond the summary of usage over time, we ask whether nontraditional revenues like fees accentuate or mitigate the impact of downturns. More generally, we examine the extent to which school districts have responded to fiscal pressures by turning to nontax revenues. We also document the extent to which the use of nontax revenues varies across districts according to student poverty status. We show that alternative revenues continue to be a small source of local revenues and have increased quite little since the early 1990s. There was at most a minimal shift to nontax revenues in downturns, though there is evidence of greater use of these revenues among school districts facing more permanent fiscal pressures like tax limits. Differential access to fee revenues and other alternative revenues during downturns may slightly accentuate inequities in K–12 education spending.

Public education finance systems in the United States and funding policies for populations with special educational needs.

This research investigates state finance policies for public education using survey methodology. The purpose is to update previous work and the existing knowledge base in the field as well as to provide a compendium of finance and policy options that are used across the states to finance public elementary and secondary schools. Chief state school officers or their designee were queried; data were provided for all 50 states and posted on the web for verification. This article presents the findings together with crosscutting themes including major state apportionment policies for K-12, special student populations, capital outlay provisions and transportation funding.