measuring inequity in school funding

8/6/2019 Measuring Inequity in School Funding

1/25www.americanprogress.o

Measuring Inequity in School Fundin

Diana Epstein August 2011


2/25

Measuring Inequity in School Fundin

Diana Epstein August 2011


3/25

1 Introduction and summary

3 Background

5 Inequity among states: Funding level and effort

7 Inequity within states: Why intrastate fiscal equity matt

14 How equitable is your state?

16 Recommendations

17 Conclusion

18 Endnotes

19 About the author and acknowledgements

Contents


4/25

iouco a ummay | www.amecapoge.

Introduction and summary

Low-income children end o be concenraed in low-income school disrics,

and hese children oen atend schools ha receive ar ewer resources per pupil

despie heir greaer need.

Since educaion is primarily a sae responsibiliy, more han 90 percen o school

unding comes rom sae and local sources, and he ederal governmen provides

he res.1 Disrics have radiionally drawn much o heir revenue rom local prop-

ery axes, which means disrics in high-wealh pars o a sae are oen undedmore generously han disrics in low-wealh areas.

Over ime, some saes have moved o school nance models in which disrics

receive more unding rom sae sources and rely less on local revenue sreams.

Te shi o higher proporions o sae unding is aimed a ensuring disrics in

lower-wealh areas have access o addiional resources so unding across disrics

is more equiable. In oher saes, however, he level o school unding is sill

largely driven by local axes.

Tis paper discusses he dierences in per pupil unding across saes by highligh-

ing measures o spending and eor. I hen examines he problem o inrasae

scal inequiy and surveys some o he dieren measures ha are used o char-

acerize a saes level o unding equiy among disrics wihin a sae.2 I hen

compares and conrass he dieren measures and presens daa on saes scal

equiy using a variey o measures. Te daa demonsrae ha many saes are no

airly unding heir school disrics.

Policymakers and advocaes should embrace a measure o inrasae equiy o

promoe discussion and reorm. We believe a useul scal equiy measure shouldexpress he relaive level o unding inequiy in a sae, adjus or local cos dier-

ences and include weighs or exra suden needs, capure wheher or no a saes

school nance sysem is progressive or regressive (providing more or less und-

ing o disrics wih a high percenage o low-income children), and be relaively

simple o use and explain.


5/25

2 Cee o Ameca Poge | Meaug iequy scool Fug

Te inequiy in school unding mus be remedied so all children in a sae have

access o he resources hey need o achieve a high levels. Saes should employ

progressive school nance sysems so disrics wih high percenages o low-

income children receive more resources han hose wih ewer low-income

children. Tose saes wihou progressive nance sysems should hereore

underake reorms, a process ha is boh echnically dicul and poliicallychallenging since i is likely o creae unding winners and losers as unds are

disribued in new ways. Because saes may be relucan o underake such a

process, he ederal governmen should consider playing a role in incenivizing

saes o reorm heir school nance sysems.


6/25

Backgou | www.amecapoge.

Background

Decades o lawsuis and cour inervenions have aimed o remedy some o he

inequiies in saes school nance sysems.3 Te earlies cases invoked he ederal

Consiuions equal proecion clause; plainis assered ha educaion was a

undamenal consiuional righ and sudens had a righ o school unding ha

me heir needs. Te cours, however, did no agree.

Plainis hen began o challenge sae nance sysems based on he idea ha

nancing schools should be wealh neural and no dependen on local wealh.Tese cases ocused on he noion o equiy and he unding dispariies among

disrics in a sae. In he 1971 Serrano v. Priestcase, he cour ruled ha Caliornias

school nance sysem violaed he equal proecion clauses o boh he ederal and

sae consiuions. Te 1973 San Antonio v.Rodriguez case in exas, and he subse-

quen Supreme Cour decision, armed ha school nance cases could be success-

ul a he sae level bu ha such cases would no succeed on ederal consiuional

grounds. Te Serrano and Rodriguez decisions led o a series o vicories agains

saes in New Jersey, Washingon, and Wes Virginia, hough plainis suered

deeas in oher saes where cours upheld sae nance sysems as consiuional.

Te nex se o cases ocused on adequacy raher han equiy, wih plainis argu-

ing ha sae educaion clauses required he sae o provide an adequae educa-

ionwih adequae undingor all sudens. In 1989 cours in exas, Monana,

and Kenucky ruled agains he sae on adequacy grounds. More recenly, in 2006

plainis in New York won an adequacy-based case and he cours ordered he sae

legislaure o provide $2 billion more in unding or he schools in New York Ciy.

Despie he liigaion, remendous unding dispariies sill exis among school

disrics wihin many saes. Te disribuion o sae revenues oen does noully remedyand some sae unding ormulas may even exacerbaeinequi-

ies among disrics due o heir locaion in richer or poorer pars o a sae. Tis

skewed unding o disrics means ha he resources provided or a childs educa-

ion may be largely dependen on where ha child lives.


7/25


In recogniion o his problem, his year he Deparmen o Educaion is oversee-

ing a congressionally creaed Equiy and Excellence Commission composed o

educaion advocaes, civil righs leaders, scholars, and lawyers. Te commissions

charge is o collec inormaion, analyze issues, and obain broad public inpu

regarding how he Federal governmen can increase educaional opporuniy by

improving school unding equiy. Te commission will also make recommenda-ions or resrucuring school nance sysems o achieve equiy in he disribuion

o educaional resources and urher suden perormance, especially or he su-

dens a he lower end o he achievemen gap.4 A repor is due ou in early 2012.


8/25

iequy amog ae: Fug level a eo | www.amecapoge.

Inequity among states:

Funding level and effort

Te mos basic measure o scal equiy looks across saes and repors he sae

average per pupil expendiure. In compuing he adjused per pupil expendiure

measure, he annual Qualiy Couns repor, rom he widely read publicaion

Education Week, adjuss or local coss using he NCES Comparable Wage Index,

while he unding level measure in he Naional epor Card on Fair School

Funding rom Bruce Baker a ugers and his colleagues a he Educaion Law

Cener includes adjusmens or regional wages, povery, economies o scale,

and populaion densiy.5

Te implici assumpion in comparing unding levels beween saes is ha more

is beter. Tis may or may no be rue, and i is also worh noing ha hese

simple comparisons ignore any discussion o wheher or no he money is being

used eecively or ecienly. Noneheless, he dramaic dierences in per pupil

expendiures beween saes should give us pause. Te educaion received by chil-

dren in a sae such as New York ha spends an average o $15,012 per pupil may

be dieren han ha o children in ennessee who receive only $8,507 per pupil.6

Anoher way o make scal comparisons among saes is o consider how much o

is available resources a sae devoes o educaion. Tis is convenionally known

as eor.Ed Weeks Qualiy Counsmeasures eor as he percen o oal

axable sae and local resources spen on pre-K-12 educaion, and Te Educaion

rus, an educaion policy organizaion, uses a similar eor meric in is Funding

Gaps repors. Te measure in Bakers epor Card denes eor as he raio o

sae spending o sae per capia gross domesic produc.7.

Comparing saes eor can be a crude way o gauge which saes are moreor

lesscommited o unding educaion as compared o all heir oher prioriies.Figure 1 shows he variaion in eor among saes; on average, saes spend 3.8

percen o heir resources on educaion. Some diculy in inerpreing he con-

sequences o sae eor arises, however, i we assume a naional average cos o


9/25


providing a minimally adequae educaion. o mee his average cos, a poorer

sae would have o exer much higher eor han would a rich sae. Simply

using an eor meric or comparison wihou considering overall wealh would

heoreically penalize a rich sae or being able o exer less eor, und educa-

ion appropriaely, and have money le over. In his case, giving sole credence

o eor rankings could creae perverse incenives or rich saes o spend moremoney on educaion bu no necessarily use ha money in ways ha acually

improve suden achievemen.

Figure 1

Percent of total taxable resources spent on education (2008)

Alabama 4.1% Indiana 4.5% Nebraska 3.6% South Carolina 4.5%

Alaska 4.1% Iowa 3.6% Nevada 3.1% South Dakota 2.8%

Arizona 3.7% Kansas 4.1% New Hampshire 4.1% Tennessee 2.9%

Arkansas 4.2% Kentucky 3.7% New Jersey 5.0% Texas 3.4%

Caliornia 3.5% Louisiana 2.9% New Mexico 4.0% Utah 3.7%

Colorado 3.0% Maine 4.8% New York 4.3% Vermont 5.5%

Connecticut 4.2% Maryland 4.5% North Carolina 2.8% Virginia 3.4%

Delaware 2.5% Massachusetts 3.8% North Dakota 2.9% Washington 3.2%

Florida 3.6% Michigan 4.7% Ohio 4.5% West Virginia 4.6%

Georgia 4.3% Minnesota 3.7% Oklahoma 3.3% Wisconsin 4.1%

Hawaii 3.5% Mississippi 4.0% Oregon 3.4% Wyoming 4.2%

Idaho 3.7% Missouri 3.8% Pennsylvania 4.2%

Illinois 3.7% Montana 3.8% Rhode Island 4.3%

Source: Education Counts, available at p://www.ecou.og.
http://www.edcounts.org/http://www.edcounts.org/


10/25

iequy w ae: Wy aae cal equy mae | www.amecapoge.

Inequity within states:

Why intrastate fiscal equity matters

Numerous sudies demonsrae ha school disrics in many saes are no unded

equiably; ha is, wihin a sae some disrics receive more sae and local money

per pupil han do ohers. Tis paper ocuses only on sae and local unds because

mos ederal unding (or example, ile I) is designed o provide supplemenal

resources on op o whaever he sae and disric are already providing. An analy-

sis o 2004 daa by Te Educaion rus demonsraed ha he highes-povery

disrics in 26 saes received less sae and local per pupil unding han he lowes-

povery disrics.8 Te dierences varied widely among saes; or example, whileIllinois provided $1,924 less per pupil in he highes-povery disrics, Minnesoa

provided $1,349 more.

Inequiy among disrics means ha children in lower-unded disrics do no

have access o he same resourcesmodern buildings, echnology, highly eec-

ive eachers, supplemenal suppors, ec.han do heir peers in disrics wih

higher levels o unding. Furhermore, low-income children and English language

learners need exra resources o overcome disadvanages due o socioeconomic

saus or lack o English language prociency. In many cases, no only are hese

children no receiving equal resources bu hey are also no receiving he exra

suppors hey need in order o succeed.

Te Grea ecession has exacerbaed inequaliies by diminishing sae revenues,

resuling in budge cus o educaion across he counry. Wihou exra unds o

devoe o educaion, saes have o make dicul choices abou how o spend he

unds ha remain. A disric ha receives more money rom local sources and less

rom he sae is in a beter posiion o weaher his sorm han is a disric relian

on a diminishing pool o sae unds.9 A disric ha already has low per pupil

unding is now likely o be hur even more since i canno depend on robus localsuppor o ll in he gaps, making unding inequiies even worse.


11/25


All intrastate equity measures are not the same

A number o dieren researchers have creaed merics ha describe he level o

each saes scal equiy and hen rank or grade he saes on ha measure. Te

general idea behind hese equiy measures is o compare he average sae and

local per pupil revenues in each school disric wihin a sae and see how similarlyor dissimilarly he saes disrics are unded. Federal unds are ypically excluded

because hey are inended o be supplemenal, and hese measures are designed o

analyze how he sae chooses o allocae he resources direcly under is conrol.

Each sae receives a single number o express is equiy/inequiy, which allows or

comparisons o be made among saes.

Tough hese measures are cerainly no perec, hey do highligh he large di-

erences in inrasae equiy ha exis among saes. Tey also serve as a useul

way o acknowledge good saes ha we migh wan ohers o emulae, as well

as shame hose who und heir school disrics inequiably. Some o he measurescapure similar underlying conceps o equiy, ye some are quie dieren, and

i is imporan o undersand wha he measures mean and why we migh avor

using one over anoher.

Cost adjustments

esearchers usually make cerain adjusmens o he school nance daa ha are

used in hese equiy measures. In mos cases, dollar gures are adjused or local

cos dierences using he NCES Comparable Wage Index, or CWI.10 Te CWI

adjuss school nance daa wihin and beween saes so ha comparisons can be

made among dieren pars o he counry in a way ha refecs variaion in he

cos o providing educaion. I is based on he wages o college graduaes in a local

labor marke who are no eachers and has been compued each year rom 1997

hrough 2005.

Weights

In addiion, mosbu no allo he equiy measures use weighs o accoun or

dieren kinds o suden needs. Te raionale behind using weighs is ha i coss

more o educae children wih exra needs, hereore a child in povery or a child

wih disabiliies should coun more han a high-income child or a child wih no

special needs. For example, he measures used byEd Week in is Qualiy Couns


12/25

iequy w ae: Wy aae cal equy mae | www.amecapoge.

repors make adjusmens such ha sudens in povery receive a weigh o 1.2

and sudens in special educaion receive a weigh o 1.9 (or 2.3 or years prior

o 2001).11 Te Educaion russ Funding Gaps repor uses weighs o 1.6 or

sudens in povery, 1.9 or sudens wih disabiliies, and 1.2 or English language

learners.12 Tese examples demonsrae ha he weighs vary beween dieren

approaches, and he equiy measure values will dier depending on which weighsare used. While here is a broad consensus ha i coss more o educae children

wih higher levels o need, research has no deniively esablished how much

exra i acually coss o educae hese children.

Measures of spread

Some inrasae equiy measures assess how unding varies wihin a sae by mea-

suring how much each disrics per pupil unding diers rom he sae mean and

hen aggregaing hose deviaions. For example, in is Qualiy Couns indica-ors,Ed Week repors he coecien o variaion, or CV, as a measure o unding

dispariy among disrics wihin a sae. Te U.S. Deparmen o Educaion uses a

similar measure in is calculaion o he equiy acor or ile I Educaion Finance

Incenive Grans. Te coecien o variaion illusraes he exen o which

disrics in a sae are unded similarly or no, and i is compued by dividing he

sandard deviaion in disric unding by he mean average unding or ha sae.

A value o zero means ha all disrics are unding equally, and a larger coecien

indicaes greaer dispariy in unding among disrics.

Our concepion o equiably unding disrics does no necessarily mean across-

he-board equal per pupil unding. Some sudens have greaer needs and hus i

coss more o provide hese children wih a high-qualiy educaion. A sae migh

acually preer a unding scheme ha allocaes more resources o disrics ha

serve many low-income children o one ha unds all disrics equally. Te down-

side o using a saisic such as he CV is ha i canno disinguish beween a sae

in which rich disrics receive more sae and local resources han poor disrics

and a sae in which poor disrics receive more sae and local resources han rich

disrics. Te CV saisic could be similar in eiher case because i is only measur-

ing absolue dierences wihou speciying a direcion. For example, rich disricsin Illinois end o receive more sae and local resources han do poor disrics,

whereas he opposie is he case in Minnesoa. Te CV or Illinois in 2007 was

0.151 and i was a very similar 0.154 or Minnesoa. (see Figure 4) Tis eaure

o he saisic has implicaions or any calculaionincluding he ederal ile I

ormulaha uses he CV as he basis or unding allocaions.


13/25


Ed Week also repors a dieren measure o spread called he resriced range, which is

dened as he dierence beween spending levels o he disric a he 95h percenile

in spending and ha o he disric a he 5h percenile. A low value or his saisic

means ha ha saes disrics are unded more similarly han hey are in a sae wih

a large dierence in per pupil unding beween high- and low-spending disrics. A

similar measure called he resriced range raio is he resriced range saisic dividedby he spending o he disric a he 5h percenile.

Boh o hese measures have he advanage o excluding he very high and very low

spending disrics a each end o he disribuion so ha he overall score or he

sae is no skewed by any poenial ouliers. Te disadvanage o hese measures

is ha hey do no consider he spending levels o any o he disrics in beween

he 5h and 95h percenile, so hey may no provide a complee picure o a saes

school nance sysem.

Measures of progressivity

I coss more o educae children who come rom low-income amilies, are English lan-

guage learners, or who qualiy or special educaion services o he same level as hose

children who do no have hese exra needs. Tis paper ocuses primarily on school

unding equiy as i relaes o children rom low-income amilies. For his purpose,

he mos useul equiy measures are hose ha assess wheher a saes nance sysem

is progressiveproviding more unding o disrics wih a high percenage o low-

income childrenor regressiveproviding more unding o disrics serving ewer

low-income children. Unlike he measures o spread discussed above, hese progressiv-

iy measures explicily disinguish beween progressive and regressive school nance

sysems and subsequenly assign more avorable scores o hose ha are progressive.

One o he simples measures o progressiviy is he wealh-neuraliy scoreEd

Week uses. Tis meric assesses wheherand how muchsae and local revenue

is relaed o a disrics propery wealh. Negaive numbers correspond o a nega-

ive correlaion beween revenue and wealh such ha poorer disrics in a sae

end o receive more unding per pupil han do wealhy disrics. Posiive numbers

correspond o a posiive correlaion beween revenue and wealh; ha is, wealhierdisrics end o have more per pupil unding han poorer disrics.

In is Funding Gaps repors, Ed rus measures unding progressiviy by compar-

ing he average per pupil sae and local revenues in he 25 percen o disrics wih

he highes povery wih ha o he disrics in he 25 percen o disrics wih he


14/25

iequy w ae: Wy aae cal equy mae | www.amecapoge.o

lowes povery.13 Te unding gap is negaive when he highes-povery disrics

receive comparaively less revenue, corresponding o a regressive unding scheme,

whereas a posiive unding gap indicaes a progressive sysem where he highes-

povery disrics receive more revenue per pupil. Tis povery gap is calculaed boh

wihou a weighed adjusmen or low-income sudens and also wih a 40 percen

weigh adjusmen or low-income sudens.

Te U.S. Deparmen o Educaion uses a similar meric in is new online daa

Dashboard, again comparing sae and local revenues in he highes-povery and

lowes-povery quariles o disrics.14 o compue his measure, he dierence in

average revenue beween he highes-povery and lowes-povery disrics is divided

by ha o he lowes-povery disrics. Tis calculaion yields a percenage; a posiive

percenage represens progressive unding and a negaive percenage represens

regressive unding. Te Dashboard inerace allows he user o adjus he suden

weigh or low-income sudens rom zero percen o 100 percen, and he resuls or

each sae change accordingly.

Te downside o using eiher o hese quarile-based measures is ha hey exclude

he middle 50 percen o disrics and canno evaluae wheher he unding paterns

are sysemaic across all o a saes disrics.15 A more complex measure o progressiv-

iy is he unding disribuion meric in Bakers epor Card.16 A regression model

esimaes he relaionship beween suden povery concenraion in a disric and

sae and local revenues, and hen predics disric unding levels a zero percen, 10

percen, and 30 percen povery. Te model esimaes wheher unding levels increase

or decrease on average as a disrics concenraion o povery increases and compues

he raio o prediced unding a 30 percen povery o ha a zero percen povery.

Te higher he raio, he more progressive is he saes unding scheme. While his

measure provides a more complee picure o a saes unding across disrics, is

complexiy is a disadvanage and hus may no be accessible o a broad audience.

How the intrastate measures are related

Simple correlaions can describe how he equiy measures are relaed o each oher.

Since he measures are somewha idiosyncraic in erms o how hey dene nega-ive or posiive numbers, he easies way o inerpre hese correlaions is o look a

he absolue value. A large number (in absolue value) means ha he wo equiy

measures are likely measuring he same underlying aspec o a school nance sysem.

As one measure increases, he oher measure increases by a similar amoun. A small

number (in absolue value) implies ha he wo equiy measures are likely measur-


15/25


ing dieren aspecs o a school nance sysem. As one measure increases, he

oher measure increases by a much largeror much smalleramoun. Te values

or correlaion coeciens can range rom -1 o +1.

Figure 2 displays he correlaion coeciens beween each pair o measures.17 As

expeced, he progressiviy measures (wealh neuraliy, unding gap, Deparmeno Educaion, and disribuion) are airly well correlaed wih each oher. For

example, he correlaion beween he adjused unding gap measure and he

Deparmen o Educaions adjused Dashboard measure is a sizeable 0.71. On

he oher hand, while he coecien o variaion and resriced range are highly

correlaed wih each oher, he correlaions o progressiviy measures are much

weaker. For example, he correlaion beween he CV and he adjused unding

gap measure is only 0.25. Tis is no surprising considering ha he measures

o spread and he measures o progressiviy are evaluaing dieren aspecs o a

saes school nance sysem.

Figure 2

Correlations between fiscal equity measures

CorrelationsCoefficient

of variation

Restricted

range

Wealth

neutrality

FG

unadjusted

FG

adjusted

ED

unadjusted

ED 40%

weight

Bak

(distrib

Coefcient o variation 0.62 -0.36 0.26 0.25 0.47 0.48 0.1

Restricted range -0.32 0.22 0.14 0.31 0.29 0.0

Wealth neutrality -0.48 -0.45 -0.59 -0.58 -0.5

FG unadjusted 0.98 0.67 0.68 0.6

FG adjusted 0.67 0.71 0.6

ED unadjusted 0.97 0.6

ED 40% weight 0.6

Baker (distribution)


16/25

iequy w ae: Wy aae cal equy mae | www.amecapoge.o

Figure 3

Categories of intrastate equity measures

Measures of spread Measures of progressivity

Coefcient o variation Wealth neutrality

Restricted range Funding gap (unadjusted and adjusted)

Department o Education Dashboard equity

measure (with or without weights)

Distribution (Baker)

Using he correlaion daa, we can divide he inrasae equiy measures ino he

wo caegories shown below in Figure 3. Te measures o spread are useul in

demonsraing he level o equaliy in how a sae unds is school disrics, while

he measures o progressiviy show how he level o unding is relaed o a dis-

rics level o povery.


17/25


How equitable is your state?

While all hese merics assess some aspec o scal equiy, hey are clearly capur-

ing dieren eaures o a saes school nance sysem. A simple measure o spread

does no consider any goals oher han pure unding equiy beween disrics,

while progressiviy measures reward saes ha und high-povery disrics a lev-

els higher han low-povery disrics. Figure 4 compares he saes rankings (wih

1 being he smalles spread, or he mos progressive, depending on he measure)

on various equiy measures rom dieren sources and demonsraes ha he rank-

ings can be quie dieren depending on he measure used.18 Comparing equiymeasures in his way is helpul in raising quesions abou which kind o scal

equiy policymakers and advocaes preer o use. Te choice o measure maters,

and he specic equiy goal should be explicily idenied beore passing judg-

men on he relaive equiy among saes.

For example, ake he sae o New Jersey. Looking a jus he CV or he resriced

range would lead one o believe ha he sae is highly inequiable, and in erms

o per pupil resource equaliy beween disrics, i is. As he measures o progres-

siviy demonsrae, however, New Jersey provides signicanly more unding o

is highes-povery disrics.19 On he oher hand, Florida and Wes Virginia rank

highly on he measures o spread, meaning ha mos o heir disrics receive

abou he same amoun o per pupil unding. In erms o progressiviy, hough,

hese saes are in he middle (or worse) o he U.S. rankings.

Finally, some saes such as New York and Illinois display airly wide variaion

using measures like he CV or resriced range bu rank jus as badlyi no

worseusing measures o progressiviy such as he unding gap or Deparmen o

Educaion measure. Tese highly regressive saes are providing ewer resources o

heir high-povery disrics even hough hose disrics serve many disadvanagedchildren wih high levels o need.


18/25

how equable you ae? | www.amecapoge.o

Figure 4

State rankings on different fiscal equity measures

2007 2007 2007 2004 2007 2006

State CV Rank Restricted

rangeRank

Wealth

neutralityRank

Funding gap

(40% weight)Rank

Dept. Ed.

(40% weight)Rank

Baker

(distribution)

Alabama 0.105 4 $2,510.00 6 0.185 42 -$656.00 38 -16.2 44 0.89

Alaska 0.336 49 $10,806.00 49 -0.253 1 $2,054.00 1 35.9 1 NA

Arizona 0.193 40 $2,902.00 17 0.069 22 -$736.00 39 -8.5 37 1.04

Arkansas 0.119 5 $2,878.00 15 0.060 20 -$500.00 34 -1.2 19 1.04

Caliornia 0.161 30 $2,901.00 16 0.022 11 -$259.00 21 -0.1 16 1.03

Colorado 0.140 17 $2,679.00 9 0.121 30 -$440.00 31 15.6 2 0.92

Connecticut 0.139 15 $5,331.00 41 0.035 12 $59.00 14 -9.8 39 1.14

Delaware 0.141 18 $5,357.00 42 0.336 49 -$371.00 26 -1.5 20 0.89

Florida 0.095 2 $2,218.00 3 0.196 43 -$461.00 32 1.0 14 0.91

Georgia 0.127 10 $3,472.00 24 0.130 33 -$292.00 23 -5.3 27 1.03

Idaho 0.218 45 $2,816.00 12 0.314 48 -$257.00 20 -6.8 32 0.88

Illinois 0.151 22 $5,079.00 40 0.165 38 -$2,355.00 48 -23.3 46 0.78

Indiana 0.159 28 $3,778.00 31 -0.003 7 $93.00 13 5.7 11 1.17

Iowa 0.123 7 $2,673.00 8 0.050 18 -$176.00 17 -2.1 23 1.05

Kansas 0.157 26 $3,550.00 26 -0.019 5 -$885.00 42 0.8 15 0.92

Kentucky 0.131 11 $2,967.00 19 0.035 13 $448.00 7 -0.1 17 1.03

Louisiana 0.190 39 $2,507.00 5 0.272 47 -$481.00 33 -14.4 43 0.91 Maine 0.146 20 $4,166.00 36 0.130 34 -$543.00 36 -7.4 35 0.85

Maryland 0.120 6 $3,322.00 22 0.166 39 -$432.00 28 -5.9 30 0.89

Massachusetts 0.198 43 $7,014.00 46 0.048 17 $694.00 4 8.8 9 1.19

Michigan 0.138 13 $3,679.00 28 0.163 37 -$1,072.00 44 -12.0 40 0.93

Minnesota 0.154 25 $3,395.00 23 0.045 16 $950.00 3 11.2 6 1.38

Mississippi 0.160 29 $4,121.00 35 0.235 45 -$191.00 18 -6.8 34 0.96

Missouri 0.157 27 $3,640.00 27 0.090 24 -$271.00 22 -13.0 42 0.88

Montana 0.289 48 $5,066.00 39 0.092 25 -$1,148.00 45 11.6 5 1.17

Nebraska 0.186 36 $3,784.00 32 -0.178 2 $210.00 10 -1.0 18 0.99

Nevada 0.138 14 $2,627.00 7 -0.014 6 -$297.00 24 NA NA 0.74

New Hampshire 0.197 41 $5,758.00 44 0.145 35 -$1,297.00 46 -12.7 41 0.64

New Jersey 0.189 38 $8,251.00 48 0 9 $1,069.00 2 13.2 3 1.40

New Mexico 0.218 46 $3,911.00 34 0.013 10 $679.00 5 8.4 10 1.14

New York 0.152 23 $6,167.00 45 0.107 26 -$2,927.00 49 -22.8 45 0.82

North Carolina 0.132 12 $2,849.00 13 0.242 46 -$543.00 37 -5.6 29 0.84

North Dakota 0.215 44 $2,869.00 14 0.121 31 $17.00 15 9.9 8 0.82

Ohio 0.168 33 $3,729.00 29 0.039 15 $113.00 12 -6.2 31 1.31

Oklahoma 0.184 35 $2,914.00 18 0.037 14 -$213.00 19 -1.7 21 1.07

Oregon 0.144 19 $3,010.00 20 0.068 21 $302.00 9 2.1 13 1.09

Pennsylvania 0.163 31 $4,367.00 38 0.166 40 -$1,511.00 47 -30.4 48 0.84

Rhode Island 0.125 9 $4,229.00 37 0.108 27 -$394.00 27 -6.8 33 1.02

South Carolina 0.153 24 $3,243.00 21 0.166 41 $127.00 11 -3.0 24 1.02

South Dakota 0.183 34 $3,749.00 30 -0.003 8 -$438.00 30 11.0 7 1.26

Tennessee 0.123 8 $2,760.00 11 0.154 36 $330.00 8 -5.5 28 1.12

Texas 0.197 42 $3,819.00 33 0.118 29 -$757.00 41 -9.1 38 0.93 Utah 0.164 32 $1,979.00 1 -0.043 3 $663.00 6 11.8 4 1.51

Vermont 0.219 47 $7,073.00 47 0.124 32 -$894.00 43 -1.9 22 0.97

Virginia 0.139 16 $3,542.00 25 0.201 44 -$436.00 29 -25.5 47 0.84

Washington 0.146 21 $2,332.00 4 0.083 23 -$110.00 16 -4.0 26 0.96

West Virginia 0.083 1 $2,105.00 2 0.113 28 -$345.00 25 -7.5 36 1.00

Wisconsin 0.101 3 $2,731.00 10 0.059 19 -$742.00 40 -3.9 25 0.96

Wyoming 0.188 37 $5,667.00 43 -0.040 4 -$539.00 35 3.0 12 1.08


19/25


Recommendations

Despie heir imperecions, measures o inrasae scal equiy canand

shouldbe used o characerize a saes school nance sysem. Policymakers

and advocaes should embrace a measure o inrasae equiy o promoe

discussion and reorm. We believe ha a preerred measure should be one ha

has he ollowing characerisics:

Relative size: Te measure should illusrae he relaive size o inrasae unding

inequiies so ha comparisons can be made among saes and so ha improve-mens or worsening condiions over ime can be documened.

Local cost adjustment and weights: Te measure should adjus nance daa o

properly accoun or he local cos dierenials in providing educaion, and i

should employ weighs or sudens wih exra needs.

Progressivity: We avor a measure ha capures he direcion o inequiy, ha is,

progressiviy or regressiviy, because low-income children have exra needs. Since

i coss more o provide a high-qualiy educaion in a disric serving a high per-

cenage o low-income children, such disrics should receive more sae and local

resources. In oher words, a saes school nance sysem should be progressive.

Simplicity: Tere is meri o having a simple measure ha is relaively easy o use

and explain. Measures ha require regressions and simulaions may have echni-

cal advanages bu heir complexiy makes hem poor choices or widespread

use by advocaes and policymakers.

O he measures surveyed in his paper, he adjused Ed rus Funding Gaps mea-

sure and he weighed Deparmen o Educaion Dashboard equiy measure mosclosely mee hese crieria. Boh unorunaely have he disadvanage o excluding

he wo middle quariles o daa rom he calculaion, so we leave open he possibil-

iy ha a more comprehensiveye sill simplemeasure could be developed.


20/25

Cocluo | www.amecapoge.o

Conclusion

No mater which scal equiy measure is used, i is clear ha disrics wih a high

percenage o low-income children are no receiving heir air share o sae and

local educaion unding in many saes. While some saes have made changes o

heir nance sysems in recen years, we hope ha more saes will recognize he

problem o inrasae inequiy and ake seps o insiue reorms. School nance

reorm ineviably creaes winners and losers, and we recognize ha change is

easier when fush budges allow or hold-harmless provisions and ransiion

unding schemes. Noneheless, dicul scal condiions should no be used as anexcuse o perpeuae inequiy. Tere will never be a perec ime or school nance

reorm, so now is as good a ime as ever or saes o prioriize progressive school

unding ha can help increase he achievemen o disadvanaged sudens.

In he absence o saes eors o reorm hemselves, he ederal governmen

could play a role in incenivizing saes o creae more progressive school nance

sysems. SinceBrown v. Board of Education, he ederal governmen has played a

criical role in ensuring sudens have equal access o a qualiy educaion, and his

role remains imporan oday when inequiy persiss. Te Obama adminisraions

ace o he op program demonsraed ha he ederal governmen can encour-

age signican reorm a he sae level as 34 saes amended or passed new educa-

ion laws in response o his compeiive unding. Congress and he Deparmen

o Educaion should consider using uure compeiive unding programs as a

mechanism or he ederal governmen o encourage saes o engage in school

nance reorm in exchange or ederal dollars.


21/25


1 Feeal Eucao Buge Pojec , avalable a p://ebp.ewameca.e/backgou-aaly/cool-ace/p(laaccee Jue 2011).

2 We ave clue oly ome o e moe commoly ue meaue oe o lluae e age o poble way o meaue a-ae equy.

3 Fo moe omao o e oy o cool ace lgao, ee:Eloe Paacof, how e Feeal Goveme Ca impove scoolFacg syem (Wago: te Bookg iuo, 2008).

4 Equy a Excellece Commo, avalable a p://www2.e.gov/abou/bcomm/l/eec/ex.ml.

5 Buce d. Bake, dav G. scaa, a daelle Fae, i scoolFug Fa? A naoal repo Ca (newak, nJ: EucaoLaw Cee, 2010).

6 scool Face, avalable a: p://www.eweek.og/mea/ew/qc/2011/16o.30.ace.p.

7 Bake, scaa, a Fae, i scool Fug Fa?

8 te Eucao tu, Fug Gap 2006 (2006).

9 Fo a compao o ow cu wll afec bo a c a a pooc new Yok ae, ee: rc dc, Poo dc,TheNew York Times, Mac 26, 2011, avalable a p://www.yme.com/2011/03/27/opo/27u1.ml.

10 Lo L. taylo a Wllam J. Fowle J., A Compaable Wage Appoaco Geogapc Co Ajume (Wago: naoal Cee oEucao sac, 2006), avalable a p://www.eucaoewy-

ok.com/p/ce-2006321.p.

11 Qualy Cou, avalable a p://www.eweek.og/ew/qc/ex.ml .

12 te Eucao tu, Fug Gap 2006.

13 te povey level o a c ee o e pece o ue ec lvg below e eeal povey le.

14 Fo moe omao ee: Ue sae Eucao daboa,avalable a p://aboa.e.gov/aboa.apx.

15 tee ocomg ae oe : Bake, scaa, a Fae,i scool Fug Fa?

16 Bake, scaa, a Fae, i scool Fug Fa?

17 d.C. a hawa ave bee exclue becaue eac a oly oec. te yea o aa ue ae e ame a ow Fgue 4.FG ee o e Eucao tu Fug Gap meaue a Ed eeo e depame o Eucao daboa meaue.

18 d.C. a hawa ave bee exclue becaue eac a oly oec. te Bake (buo) meaue ue a ee-yea aveageo aa om 20052007 a labele 2006 o mplcy. teCV, ece age, a weal eualy meaue ae avalableo moe ece yea, bu 2007 aa ae ow ee oe ocompae meaue ug mla yea.

19 t eul om a ee o lawu a cou eco kow ae Abbo cae.

Endnotes
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance/printhttp://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance/printhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/index.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2011/16sos.h30.finance.pdfhttp://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2011/16sos.h30.finance.pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.educationnewyork.com/pdfs/nces-2006321.pdfhttp://www.educationnewyork.com/pdfs/nces-2006321.pdfhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/index.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/index.htmlhttp://dashboard.ed.gov/dashboard.aspxhttp://dashboard.ed.gov/dashboard.aspxhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/index.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/ew/qc/index.htmlhttp://www.educationnewyork.com/pdfs/nces-2006321.pdfhttp://www.educationnewyork.com/pdfs/nces-2006321.pdfhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/27/opinion/27sun1.htmlhttp://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2011/16sos.h30.finance.pdfhttp://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2011/16sos.h30.finance.pdfhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/index.htmlhttp://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/index.htmlhttp://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance/printhttp://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/school-finance/print


22/25

Abou e auo a ack owlegeme | www.amecapoge.o

About the author

Diana Epstein is a Senior Educaion Policy Analys a American Progress. Her

work ocuses on issues o scal equiy and human capial in educaion. Prior o

joining American Progress, she was a senior analys a Ab Associaes where she

conduced research and program evaluaions in educaion policy and naionalservice policy. Prior o ha she was a docoral ellow and policy analys a he

RND Corporaion in Caliornia. She is also a wo-year alum o he AmeriCorps

Naional Civilian Communiy Corps program.

Diana holds a docorae in policy analysis rom he Pardee RND Graduae

School, a masers in public policy rom he Goldman School a UC Berkeley,

and a bachelors o science in applied mah-biology rom Brown Universiy.

Acknowledgments

Te Cener or American Progress hanks he Ford Foundaion or providing

suppor or his paper.


23/25


24/25


25/25

The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute

dedicated to promoting a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunity

or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to

these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies relect these values.

We work to ind progressive and pragmatic solutions to signiicant domestic and

international problems and develop policy proposals that oster a government that

is o the people, by the people, and or the people.

Made possible

with support from

measuring inequity in school funding

Documents