Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health

A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (‘NIH’) between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black (‘AAB’) Principal Investigators (‘PIs’) skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or ‘awarded’). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers (‘ICs’). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on ‘AAB Preferred’ topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding for these topics was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates, not to peer-reviewer preferences.

National Institutes of Health Institute and Center Award Rates and Funding Disparities

A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") between 2011-2015. The report noted that applications submitted by African American or Black ("AAB") Principal Investigators ("PIs") skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or "awarded"). It was suggested that the lower award rates may be related to biases of peer reviewers against topics preferred by AAB PIs. However, the previous report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ("ICs"). In a re-analysis, I find that 10% of 148 algorithmically-designated topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on "AAB Preferred" topics are indeed funded at lower rates than applications on other topics, but their peer review outcomes are similar. The lower rate of funding for applications focused on AAB Preferred topics is likely primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates. In probit regression analyses, I find that topic choice does partially explain race-based funding disparities, but IC-specific award rates explain the disparities to an even greater degree.

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.

School funding disparities and the plight of Latinx children

This article provides a systematic decomposition of disparities in school funding by race and ethnicity using two new data resources. First, we use a national district level panel of data from the School Finance Indicators Database to evaluate recent (2012 – 2017) disparities in school revenue and spending by race in addition to poverty, across and within all states and within selected states. Next, we use data from the National Education Cost Model (NECM) to evaluate disparities in spending against estimates of “costs” of achieving national average student outcomes to determine racial differences in gaps between current spending and costs of equitable outcomes. As Latinx shares increase, per pupil spending and revenue decrease, respectively by about 4% to 7% for districts that are approximately 100% Latinx compared to those that have few or no Latinx students, controlling for poverty. More striking, when controlling for poverty, a district that is 100% Latinx is nearly 2.5 times as likely as a district that is 0% Latinx to be financially disadvantaged (have revenue 90% of labor market average, and poverty greater than 120%), when controlling for poverty and 28.5 times as likely when not controlling for poverty. Finally, spending is less adequate to achieve national average outcomes, across states, in districts serving larger shares of Latinx students.

NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores

Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications’ final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014–2016, we examine assigned reviewers’ preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration—the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores—disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities—yet do not explain all of the variability—in preliminary overall impact scores.

“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

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.

AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE DRIVERS OF SECONDARY SCHOOL FUNDING DISPARITIES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM SELECTED PUBLIC SECONDARY GENERAL EDUCATION SCHOOLS IN THE NORTH WEST REGION OF CAMEROON

Purpose: School funding has been and remains a source of worry to governments of many countries in the world. The government of Cameroon in an attempt to attend to this worry spends huge financial resources each year as funding to the school system. This study attempted to investigate into the appropriateness of government funding to public secondary general education schools in Cameroon, using the North West Region as a case study. Specifically, the study aimed at: (a) investigating the causes of funding disparities between schools, (b) scrutinizing the effects of funding on school performance, and (c) elucidating the grass root perspectives on appropriate measures to enhance funding to schools.Methodology: The study made use of the stratified random sampling technique to select a total of 115 schools, and data was collected using questionnaires. To ascertain the reliability of the instrument used, a pilot test was carried out. The data was analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. The probit and ordered logistic regression models were employed to test the hypotheses of the study.Findings: The findings from the study reveal among others that: (a) school enrolment, school needs, influence by some stakeholders and age of school all have significant effects on funding, (b) that funding in the form of infrastructure, running credits and staffing all affect school performance, and (c) that schools should be funded based on their actual needs.Contribution to policy, practice and policy: These results policy-wise suggest that funding to schools should take into consideration the enrolment, needs, and age of the school. Also, that adequate infrastructure, running credits and staff should be provided to schools since these affect academic performance.

Crowdfunding for lung cancer costs.

e18340 Background: Online crowdfunding, where individuals create campaigns to solicit donations, has grown as an avenue to combat the financial toxicities of cancer. The online platform GoFundMe hosts more than 80% of the global market for crowdfunding and has raised over US $5 billion from more than 50 million donors. While medical expenses are the leading cause of crowdfunding campaigns, limited research is available on the use of crowdfunding for cancer costs. Further, no studies have evaluated the use of crowdfunding for patients with lung cancer. Methods: In January 2019, we reviewed the first 200 consecutive campaigns that resulted for “lung cancer” on GoFundMe. Campaigns were included for analysis if their description stated funds were to be used for medical costs for a patient with lung cancer in the United States. Standardized data was collected from each campaign. Descriptive statistics were used to aggregate results. Multivariable linear regression analysis were performed to examine predictors of funds raised, adjusting for campaign duration. Results: The 157 included campaigns raised a total of US $1.2 million (mean $8,364) from 11,919 donors (median 53). Compared to a similar 2018 study, our study showed lung cancer campaigns raised less than breast cancer (mean $16,026) but more than prostate cancer (mean $1,449) campaigns. Nine campaigns that were seeking funds for alternative treatment raised a total of $119,660 (mean $13,296). Narratives of financial need that were significantly associated with greater funds raised were family financial need (+$7,416), medical costs not covered by insurance (+$7,369), and the campaign stating the patient was a never-smoker (+$8,162) (all P values < 0.05). Conclusions: Lung cancer has received less research funding relative to other cancer types and our study suggests a similar disparity with crowdfunding for medical costs. The “blame-the-victim” attitude that contributes to this funding disparity also exists within lung cancer crowdfunding as evidenced by the significantly greater amount of funds raised for campaigns that explicitly stated the patient was a non-smoker. Efforts to study crowdfunding for cancer costs should address the ethical implications of exacerbating funding disparities and funding for alternative treatments.

US teacher protests also imply other challenges

Subject Education-related protests in the United States, and their wider political, economic and industrial implications. Significance In recent weeks, thousands of US public-school teachers have staged protests or gone on strike over pay levels and working conditions. They are also protesting the quality of teaching materials and buildings for students. Impacts State governments and school districts face more lawsuits over education-funding disparities. Though not exclusively, Republican-controlled states likely face a greater chance of education-related protests. Social media will facilitate the organisation of protests, potentially getting around weak labour unions in right-to-work states. Poor salaries will discourage new recruits and encourage teachers to move states or careers for higher pay. More foreign-born labour (including teachers) may be needed, potentially provoking some domestic pushback.