policyperspectives

WHAT RESEARCH SAYS ABOUT UNEQUAL FUNDING for Schools in America

by Bruce J. Biddle & David C. Berliner

Interest in the topic of unequal funding for public schools is widespread in Unequal Funding for Schools in America is part of a series, America. Although they may not know about the extent and specific effects “In Pursuit of Better Schools: of funding inequities in our country, most Americans believe that students do What Research Says,” that is supervised by Bruce J. Biddle and better in well-funded schools and that public education should provide a “level David C. Berliner and supported playing field” for all children. However, nearly half of funding for public schools by The Rockefeller Foundation. is provided through local taxes in our country, and this means that large The series summarizes research on major issues facing education differences in funding have long persisted between wealthy and impoverished today, with special emphasis American communities. Efforts to reduce these disparities have surfaced at on how America’s poor and minority students are affected by both the federal and state levels, but these efforts have provoked controversy education policies. Each report in and have been resisted by many. the series reviews and evaluates research and scholarship on a specific topic and concludes Much empirical research has also school funding, but it has also been con- with recommendations based appeared concerned with the effects of tradicted by other well-known reviewers. on research knowledge available unequal school funding, but controversies For example, in 1996, Rob Greenwald, Larry at the time of writing. More have arisen about this research and its find- Hedges, and Richard Laine wrote: information about the series ings. Some authors have claimed that the [Our analysis shows] that school may be found at research shows that differences in school resources are systematically related to http://edpolicyreports.org. funding have very little impact. To illustrate, student achievement and that those rela- Downloadable versions in 1989, economist Eric Hanushek wrote: tions are large [and] educationally im- of these reports may be portant. (Greenwald et al., 1996, p. 384) Detailed research spanning two found at www.WestEd.org/ decades and observing performance policyperspectives or in many different educational settings Given such disputes, what should we http://edpolicyreports.org. provides strong and consistent evidence now believe about school funding and its that expenditures are not systemati- impact? How large are funding inequities cally related to student achievement. in America, why have those inequities ap- (Hanushek, 1989, p. 49) peared, and how do Americans justify them? What kinds of research have appeared on This claim has been embraced by those the effects of funding, what should we now who oppose demands for more equitable conclude from that research, and what is Excellence in research, development, & service 2

Unequal Funding for Schools in America

State Figure 1: New Hampshir New No Sout Massac No Sout We Rhode Rhode New Mexi New Pe Co Wa rt Minnesot rt New Jersey New Oklahoma Mississippi Wisconsin nnsylvania Te h Ca h h Ca h Wyomin New New Ma st Virginia nnec Co Cali Ke Montan Michigan Ne De Louisiana h Dako h Dako Ve Ar Alabam

shin Missouri Geor nnesse Arizon Or Nevada Virginia husett Indiana ntuc Florid Ka Ha lorado ka Alas rmon Main br la ryland Illinoi Idah for Island ro ro Te Ohio Cost-of-Living Within EachStatein1998,Adjustedfor Average AnnualExpendituresPerStudent Ut eg Iowa gt wa ticu York as ns ns waii lin lin xa nia gi on on co ah ky ka ka as as ta ta re o g e e e a a a a a a a a 3,000 s s s t t Expe nditur 4,000 3,804 es perStudent(in 4,629 5,000 4,924 4,939 5,029 5,223 5,268 5,317 5,339 5,430 5,356 5,478 5,599 5,667 6,000 5,763 5,815 5,829 5,817 5,827 5,979 5,989 5,991 5,995 5,998 6,195 6,196 6,215 6,251 6,311 6,349 Th 6,422 6,518 6,544 6,581 6,661 ousand 7,000 6,739 6,746 6,767 6,790 6,799 6,823 6,873 6,908 6,930 7,202 7,255 7,448 s of Dollars) of s 7,635 8,000 7,853 9,000 8,801 instance, thestatewithhighestaveragelevel ated withthestateinwhichonelives.In1998,for communities. Someofthesedifferencesareassoci differences betweenwealthyandimpoverished taxes, half ofthosefundsaregeneratedbylocalproperty federal, state,andlocalsources,butbecausenearly Funding inAmerica Differences inSchoolFunding equities infundingforeducationourcountry? know today,whatshouldandcanbedoneaboutin implied bythoseconclusions?Andgivenwhatwe $8,518), andMontana(with$9,839 and$4,774).On $13,709 and$8,401), $11,507 and$5,260),NewJersey (wheretheywere were $6,442, respectively),Illinois(where thefigures 5th percentilesreceivedanaverage of$15,186and Vermont (whereschooldistrictsatthe95thand Other “winners”intheinequalityderbyincluded the 5thpercentilereceivedonly$7,379onaverage. per studentfortheyear,whereasschoolsrankedat percentile forfundingreceivedanaverageof$16,546 public schoolswithindistrictsrankedatthe95th longest lineinthefigure belongstoAlaskawhere funded districtsforeachstate. trays thedisparitybetweenwell-fundedandpoorly Figure 2wherethelengthofahorizontalbarpor display ofthesedifferencesfor1998appearsin school districtswithinmanystates.Astate-by-state allocated tohisorhercounterpartinUtah. the levelofeducationalresourcesthatwerethen school inNewJerseywasprovidedmorethantwice in 1998,thetypicalstudentthenattendingapublic $3,804 perstudent(seeFigure1). with theworstrecordwasUtahayearlyrateof funding rateof$8,801perstudent,whereasthestate in costofliving)wasNewJersey,withanannual of publicschoolfunding(adjustedfordifferences Public schoolfundinginAmericacomesfrom Large fundingdifferencesalsoappearamong 1 the Americansystemgenerateslargefunding New York(with$13,749and 3 Toillustrate,the 2 Thismeansthat - - - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 3

2

Unequal Funding for Schools in America pearing inFigure3,1,423(or20%) receivedlessthan well-funded schoolsinAmerica. Ofthedistrictsap cates, farmorestudentsattend poorlyfundedthan 1,000 ormorestudentsin1995. this informationforthe7,206districts thatenrolled levels ofper-studentfunding,andFigure3provides of substantialschooldistrictsthatreportvarious way toanswerthequestionislistnumbers country livewithinlargerdistricts.)Thus,abetter isolated towns,butthevastbulkofstudentsinour still featuresmanytrulysmallschooldistrictsserving districts. (TheAmericanpubliceducationsystem but thiswouldgivetoomuchweighttosmallschool of schooldistrictsthatreceiveeachlevelfunding, answer thisquestionmightbetolistthenumbers poorly fundedAmericanschools?Onewayto student fundingintheirschoolsfortheyear. funding, mustmakedowithlessthan$4,000inper- neighborhoods withinstatesthathavelowlevelsof American students,wholiveinpoorcommunitiesor $15,000 ormoreperstudentyear,whereasother now attendingpublicschoolswherefundingissetat have highlevelsoffundingforpublicschools,are communities orneighborhoodswithinstatesthat that someAmericanstudents,wholiveinwealthy for education. have yet eliminated district-level inequities in funding such disparities,butnostates(otherthanHawaii) recently takenmodeststepstoreducethesizeof a group.Aswillbenotedshortly,fewstateshave greater withinsomestatesthanamongtheas funding differsharplyamongthestatesbutare the year). $6,933 and$5,843,respectively,foreachstudent not-so-well-funded districtsreceivedanaverageof in suchstatesasNevada(wherebetter-fundedand district!), anddifferencesinfundingwerequitesmall (because eachoftheseentitieshasonlyoneschool districts receivinghigherandlowerlevelsoffunding Hawaii nodifference the otherhand,withinDistrictofColumbiaand How manystudentsattendwell-fundedand Putting thesetwotypesofdatatogether,welearn What Figure2suggestsisthatdisparitiesin 4 at allappearedbetweenschool 5 Asthisfigure indi - -

State District ofColumbia New Hampshire funding forthenation:$6,632. The dashedlineinthefigure representsthemediandistrict-levelper-student 5th and95thpercentilesfortotalper-student funding(indollars). Notes: North Carolina South Carolina Massachusetts North Dakota South Dakota West Virginia New Mexico Rhode Island Pennsylvania Connecticut Washington Minnesota New Jersey Oklahoma Mississippi Tennessee Wisconsin New York Wyoming Maryland Colorado Kentucky Montana California Michigan Nebraska Delaware Louisiana Vermont Alabama Arkansas Missouri Figure 2: Georgia Arizona Oregon Eachbardisplaystherangeamongdistricts withinthestatebetween Nevada Virginia Indiana Florida Hawaii Kansas Maine Alaska Illinois Idaho Texas Ohio Utah Iowa 3,000 4,029 4,206 4,517 4,607 4,615 4,647 4,665

4,774 4,819 4,881 4,400 4,971 5,026 5,029 5,148 5,260 Per StudentbyStatein1998 Variation AmongDistrictsinTotalRevenues 5,345 5,345 5,351 5,420 5,394 5,450 5,423 5,410 5,507 5,541 5,624 5,715 5,843 5,956 6,010 5,928 6,031 Expenditures perStudent(inThousandsofDollars) 6,151 6,099 6,283 6,274 6,355 6,312 5,800 6,442 6,419 6,507 6,676 6,664 6,736 5,631 6,891 s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 5,975 7,217 7,379 6,265 6,459 7,200 6,570 6,506 6,658 6,672 6,736 8,030 6,933 7,075 7,124 7,049 8,401 7,267 8,518 7,484 7,528 7,597 7,564 7,585 7,556 7,790 7,970 9,168 8,600 8,422 8,432 8,449 8,536 8,603 8,764 8,752 8,891 9,040 9,129 9,190 9,168 10,000 9,358 9,452 9,764 9,731 9,911 9,839 10,400 10,642 10,606 10,774 11,400 10,729 11,507 11,694 12,800 14,200 13,709 13,749 15,600 15,186 17,000 16,546 3

4

Unequal Funding for Schools in America their ownchildren. provide $10,000ormoreperstudentyearfor believe theyareinsufficient sincethesedistricts to debate,but451(or6%)ofthedistrictsclearly Whether suchlevelsoffundingareadequateisopen between $5,000and$6,000perstudentforthatyear. $5,000 in1995andanother2,167(or30%)received ties intotalfunding. this tendstoreduce(butdoesnoteliminate)inequi school districtswithlessaccesstolocalfunds,and special needs.Categoricalgrantsmoreoftengoto are designedtoprovideservicesforstudentswith programs andotherformsofcategoricalgrantsthat state fundingforschoolsisassociatedwithTitleI state, aswelllocal,sources.Mostfederaland thus includingdollarsprovidedfromfederaland represent It shouldbestressedthatthedatainFigure3 total

Total Per-Student Expenditures per-student fundsforschool districts, 6 $15,000 and $10,000 to $11,000 to $12,000 to $13,000 to $14,000 to Figure 3: $9,000 to $1,000 to $2,000 to $3,000 to $4,000 to $5,000 to $6,000 to $7,000 to $8,000 to Less than $1,000 $10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 $9,999 $1,999 $2,999 $3,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999 $8,999 gr eate

r American SchoolDistrictsforFiscalYear1995 Total Per-StudentExpendituresforSubstantial 0 1 0 1 22 36 45 66 81 107 175 292 500 521 - Numbers of School Distri School of Numbers 792 1,000 any advanced,industrializednation. by farthehighestrateofpovertyamongchildren this problem,itneedstobenotedthatAmericahas poverty issizable.Tounderstandthemagnitudeof more oftencomefromcommunitieswherestudent whereas thosereportinglowerlevelsoffunding from communitieswherestudentpovertyisminimal, ing higherlevelsoffundingaremorelikelytocome tricts. is displayedinFigure4forsubstantialschooldis poverty rateswithinschooldistricts,andthisrelation the associationbetweenfundingandstudent A goodwaytoanswerthisquestionisexamine which receivelower,levelsoftotalschoolfunding? So, whichschooldistrictsreceivehigher,and 7 Ascanbeseeninthatfigure, districtsreport 1,342 1,500 1,558 ct s 2,000 2,167 2,500 8

- - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 5

4

Unequal Funding for Schools in America To quoteRobertSlavin: depending onthenumberofstudentstheyenroll. from statetaxes,inrichandpoorcommunitiesalike, where publicschoolsarenormallyfundedequally simply nottoleratedinotherdevelopedcountries conducting education.Disparitiessuchastheseare of auxiliaryprofessionals,andotherresourcesfor experience andqualifications,classsizes,presence ties, curricula,equipmentforinstruction,teacher disparities inthequalityofschoolbuildings,facili Funding inOtherCountries American fundingdifferencesgeneratehuge guilders foraminoritychild,exactly theopposite ders areallocatedforalower-class childand1.9 allocated toamiddle-classDutch child,1.25guil number ofpupilsenrolled,but for everyguilder funding isprovidedtoallschools basedonthe need it.IntheNetherlands,forexample,national extra fundingforindividualsorgroupsfeltto equalize funding[acrossthestate]orprovide on localwealth.Otherdevelopedcountrieseither fund elementaryandsecondaryeducationbased To myknowledge,theU.S.isonlynationto

Total Per-Student Expenditures Figure 4: $13,000 and $10,000 to $11,000 to $12,000 to $4,000 to $5,000 to $6,000 to $7,000 to $8,000 to $9,000 to Less than $4,000

$10,999 $11,999 $12,999 $4,999 $5,999 $6,999 $7,999 $8,999 $9,999 gr Rates forSubstantialAmericanSchoolDistricts Total Per-StudentExpendituresVersusStudentPoverty eate r 5 6.4 7.6 7.8 - Pe 10 9.4 rc - en 10.6 ta 11.2 ge of St 12.0 and/or acceptunequalfunding forpublicschools? these statedvalues,whyaremany willingtotolerate provide a“levelplayingfield”for allstudents.Given and thenotionthatpubliceducation canandshould the welfareofchildren,ideal ofequalopportunity, Reasons forUnequalFunding inequitable intheircountry. aware thatfundingforpubliceducationisuniquely funded schools.However,mostAmericansarenot caps becausetheyareoftenforcedtoattendpoorly United Statesthosechildrenfaceadditionalhandi withineducation(andlife).Butinthe difficulties in alladvancednationstheytendtohavemore that arenotexperiencedbyotheryoungsters,and udents Living in in Living udents 15 As arule,Americanssaytheyarecommittedto Poor andminoritychildrenalwaysfaceproblems middle-class whitechildren.(Slavin,1999,p.520) and minoritychildrentypicallyreceivelessthan of thesituationinU.S.wherelower-class 15.4 17.8 Po ve rt 20 y 20.2 22.6 s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 2 5 - 5

6

Unequal Funding for Schools in America

they achieved “success” — moved into the suburbs, suburbs, the into moved — “success” achieved they

crowded into America’s major cities, and then — if if — then and cities, major America’s into crowded

live in such communities. Instead, more persons persons more Instead, communities. such in live

with similar standards of living. of standards similar with

were living in small, relatively isolated communities communities isolated relatively small, in living were

advantages, for early on many American families families American many on early for advantages,

in the nation. In former years this tradition had real real had tradition this years former In nation. the in

them through local property taxes was widespread widespread was taxes property local through them

of the nineteenth century a tradition of funding funding of tradition a century nineteenth the of

financed by voluntary contributions, but by the end end the by but contributions, voluntary by financed

munities. In earlier decades those schools were often often were schools those decades earlier In munities.

nation or the state — but rather their local com local their rather but — state the or nation

thought of as institutions that served — not the the not — served that institutions as of thought

Movement, American public schools have been been have schools public American Movement,

1. Historical and Structural Experiences Structural and Historical 1.

behind this stance. this behind

this form of inequity. Three types of reasons may lie lie may reasons of types Three inequity. of form this

ported but are willing to tolerate and/or accept accept and/or tolerate to willing are but ported

are aware that public schools are not equally sup equally not are schools public that aware are

maintaining them. Sadly, however, many Americans Americans many however, Sadly, them. maintaining

about funding inequities and their own complicity in in complicity own their and inequities funding about

and in doing so they may be able to avoid thinking thinking avoid to able be may they so doing in and

advocates in debates about educational funding, funding, educational about debates in advocates

able to hire lawyers (or politicians) to serve as their their as serve to politicians) (or lawyers hire to able

it over the years. Further, some Americans are often often are Americans some Further, years. the over it

and yet some prominent people have bought into into bought have people prominent some yet and

playing field.” This sounds like a simple-minded idea, idea, simple-minded a like sounds This field.” playing

American public education already provides a “level “level a provides already education public American

small and “don’t matter.” In short, they assume that that assume they short, In matter.” “don’t and small

think, perhaps, that inequities in school funding are are funding school in inequities that perhaps, think,

that some Americans are unaware of the problem or or problem the of unaware are Americans some that

But as time wore on, fewer Americans were to to were Americans fewer on, wore time as But

From their beginnings in the Common School School Common the in beginnings their From

Perhaps the simplest answer to this question is is question this to answer simplest the Perhaps

is uniquely inequitable in their country. their in inequitable uniquely is

that funding for public education education public for funding that

M

ost Americans are not aware aware not are Americans ost

-

-

and the like, but this leads to associated beliefs that beliefs associated to leads this but like, the and

for entrepreneurial activities, workaholic conduct, conduct, workaholic activities, entrepreneurial for

ences for single-family home ownership, supports supports ownership, home single-family for ences

and their resulting private property laws, prefer laws, property private resulting their and

their strong beliefs in the power of personal effort effort personal of power the in beliefs strong their

stance). Americans are known around the world for for world the around known are Americans stance).

mainly from individual effort (and not social circum social not (and effort individual from mainly

individualism

the causes of poverty. One of these, the ideology of of ideology the these, of One poverty. of causes the

also been supported by several belief systems about about systems belief several by supported been also

2. Beliefs About the Causes of Poverty of Causes the About Beliefs 2.

terests in keeping taxes low. taxes keeping in terests

provided the rational for perpetuating their own in own their perpetuating for rational the provided

Thus, traditional customs for funding education education funding for customs traditional Thus,

students left behind in city centers or rural towns. towns. rural or centers city in behind left students

lent schools for the impoverished, “less-deserving” “less-deserving” impoverished, the for schools lent

little reason to pay additional taxes to fund equiva fund to taxes additional pay to reason little

public schools should be funded locally — they saw saw they — locally funded be should schools public

children, but — familiar only with the tradition that that tradition the with only familiar — but children,

equipped, well-staffed public schools for their own own their for schools public well-staffed equipped,

ent suburbs were generally willing to fund well- fund to willing generally were suburbs ent

system was flawed. was system afflu to moved who Parents

schools through local property taxes, but now this this now but taxes, property local through schools

Americans retained the tradition of funding public public funding of tradition the retained Americans

behind in city ghettos. city in behind

and the poorest of recent immigrants) who were left left were who immigrants) recent of poorest the and

ful” minority groups (particularly African Americans Americans African (particularly groups minority ful”

desires to escape further contact with “less success “less with contact further escape to desires

and larger homes, but many were also motivated by by motivated also were many but homes, larger and

style that was associated with green lawns, clean air, air, clean lawns, green with associated was that style

moving to the suburbs those persons gained a life a gained persons those suburbs the to moving

which came to surround those urban centers. In In centers. urban those surround to came which

Resistance to equitable funding for schools has has schools for funding equitable to Resistance

In addition, as the suburbs were formed, formed, were suburbs the as addition, In

, holds that success and failure result result failure and success that holds ,

-

-

-

-

-

- - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 7

6

Unequal Funding for Schools in America “social capital.” handicapped bylackofappropriate “cultural”or they possessonly“limitedlinguistic codes”orare persons inimpoverishedcommunities failbecause When appliedtothepoor,such beliefssuggestthat traditions withintheAfricanAmericancommunity. shortcomings butratherby“inappropriate”social Blacks inAmericaarenotdisadvantagedbygenetic Daniel PatrickMoynihan(1969),whicharguedthat introduced toitfouryearslaterinabookeditedby Oscar Lewis(in1966),butmostAmericanswere was originallysuggestedbyananthropologist, homes, communities,orethnicgroups.Thisnotion (or “inferior”)traditionsinthesubculturesoftheir persons failtosucceedbecauseofinappropriate poverty table, genetic“flaws” sharedbypoorpersons. essentialism arguesthatpovertyresultsfromintrac other inheritedtraits.Whenappliedtothepoor, ferences ingeneralintelligence,specific skills, or factors arelargely(ifnotsolely)responsiblefordif advanced taintedevidencesuggestingthatgenetic Herrnstein andCharlesMurray(1994),whohave cates suchasArthurJensen(1972)andRichard it isstillbeingarguedtodaybyAmericanadvo Kamin (1981)andStephenJayGould(1981), the UnitedStateshasbeentoldbybothLeon Master Race.”Thestoryofhowthisthesisentered ization of“undesirable”personsand“Breedinga Europe tojustifyproposalsfortheeugenicsteril was usedbothinthatcountryandContinental It aroseinBritainthenineteenthcenturyand This latterthesisisnotstrictlyAmerican,ofcourse. whatever lackofsuccessestheyhaveexperienced. inherit geneticcharacteristicsthataccountfor Americans, Hispanics,Nativeorwomen) it thatless-privilegedgroups(suchasAfrican skills, effort,andability. because poorpersons,themselves,lackappropriate American adultssaidthatpovertyappearsprimarily Eliot Smith(1986)foundthat their massivesurveyonthetopic,JamesKluegeland blame poorpersonsfortheirlackofsuccessinlife.In And stillotherbeliefsdrawfromthe For another,beliefsin thesis.Suchbeliefsarguethat“minority” 10 9 essentialism more thanhalf , whichhave culture of ofall - - - - does notaffectstudentachievement.Suchclaims who haveassertedthatleveloffundingforschools from prominentresearchers,reviewers,andothers American publicschoolshasbeenfueledbyclaims 3. ContestedStudies equal schoolfunding. people torationalizetheirresistanceproposalsfor publicly today,webelievetheyarestillusedbymany neighborhoods. Whilethesebeliefsarerarelyheard were tofundpublicschoolsequallyinrichandpoor hence itwouldonlywastetaxdollarsifAmerica are unlikelytobenefit froma“quality”education, gument thatchildrenfromimpoverishedhomes from acrossthenationandwas, atthattime,the from severalthousand,randomly selectedschools Rights Actof1964.Thestudyhad involvedstudents Center forEducationStatisticsin responsetotheCivil study thathadbeencommissioned bytheNational to as“TheColemanReport”),describedamassive of EducationalOpportunity and hiscolleagues. student achievementwasreleasedbyJamesColeman In 1966,however,amajorreportconcernedwith represent thewiderangeofschoolsfoundinAmerica. most ofthesehadusedsmallsamplesthatdidnot on thistopichadalreadyappearedbytheearly1960s, student achievement.Althoughafew,modestsurveys look atthehistoryofresearchonschoolfundingand Coleman Report. opined that: cation. Toillustrate,TheHeritageFoundationhas and oftenreflect ideologieshostiletopublicedu do notseemtohavetheevidenceontheirside, In addition,reluctancetoprovideequalfundsfor Each ofthesebeliefsystemscanleadtothear Early StudiesofSchoolFundingandThe What couldjustifysuchaclaim? that concentrateonsalarylevelsandclasssize. ment] willbefarmoresuccessfulthan[those] that [reformsfocusedonperformanceassess school achievement....Researchdemonstrates fact, revealthatspendinghaslittlebearingon Virtually allstudiesofschoolperformance,in 12 To answer this question, we should Thisdocument,entitled (nowcommonlyreferred s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P Equality - - - 11 7

8

Unequal Funding for Schools in America peer groupsintheirschoolsweremajorgenerators factors relatedtostudents’homebackgroundsand surprising conclusion.Inbrief,theReportfoundthat the determinantsofachievementandcametoa other equityissues,butitsthirdsectionfocusedon ducted (inAmericaorelsewhere). largest educationalsurveythathad community associatedwithschools inthestudy classroom procedures,academic press,orsenseof measures forclassroomsize,teacher qualifications, (To illustratethelatter,study includedno now knowntobeassociatedwith schooleffects. ables, andhadfailedtomeasurecrucialvariables mistakes whenassigningindicatorstomajorvari techniques tovalidatetheirprocedures,hadmade Report’s authorshadfailedtouseavailablescaling appeared intheReport. for schooleffectsonstudents’achievementshad errors likelytohavereducedthesizeofitsestimates attack itsauthors. to “explainaway”theReport’sconclusionsand disadvantaged childrenbecamealarmedandbegan public educators,politicalliberals,andadvocatesfor about publicschoolshadbeenvindicated,whereas sector rejoicedbecausetheirnegativeopinions little effect.Conservativeforceshostiletothepublic “proven” thatschools(andtheirfunding)hadbut the publicwasledtobelievethatresearchhad factors waswidelytrumpetedinthepress.Thus, its conclusionabouttheineffectivenessofschool with greatfanfare),bywell-knownscholars,and It wasreleased,however(withoutpriorreviewbut — and,asaresult,almostnobodyactuallyreadit. and statisticswerecomplex,itstextwasmurky (p. 325). of his[sic]backgroundandgeneralsocialcontext” bear onachild’sachievementthatisindependent investigators wrote:“Schoolsbringlittleinfluenceto and peerfactorsweretakenintoaccount.Thus,the school funding)hadlittle-to-noimpactoncehome of achievement,butthatschoolquality(andlevel However, atthetime,manydidnotnoticethat T Many resultsdiscussedintheReportconcerned he ColemanReportwaslengthy,itsprocedures 13 Amongotherthings,the ever been con - - not tohavebeenassociatedwithgreaterstudent then-recent increasesineducationfundingseemed about adecadelaterKennethBoulding,notingthat of mostpublicenterprises(includingeducation),and begun topreachadoctrinethatfavoredprivatization in theirfield.Intheearly1960s,MiltonFriedmanhad responding toideasexpressedbyinfluential leaders investing inpubliceducation.Indoingso,theywere studies tryingtoestimatethesizeofeffects(ifany) a sizablegroupofeconomistsbegantopublish ated falselydeflatedestimatesforschooleffects. dard proceduresforstatisticalanalysesthatgener impact.) Inaddition,theReporthadusednonstan on schoolprocessesthatprobably — thus,ineffect,ithadconcentrateditsefforts methodological problems.Most werebasedon that mostofthestudiesreported sufferfrom Hanushek, andtheissuehasremained unresolved. inequities infundingbuthasbeenattackedby by educatorsandthosemotivatedtoredress funding. resulting pooledestimatessuggest their findingsthroughstatisticalaggregation,the tive neteffectsforfunding,andifonecombines bulk ofstudiesbyeconomistshavereportedposi Hedges, andRichardLainehavenotedthatthe For example,meta-analystsRobGreenwald,Larry Hanushek’s claimshavealsoattractedopposition. world ofpubliceducation. of fundingisnotrelatedtoachievementinthereal tive ties.ThishasledHanushektodeclarethatlevel Hanushek, aninfluential economistwithconserva net effectsforschoolfunding,afactnotedbyEric and mosthave surveys withsmallsamples. these modelswere(again)testedinstudiesbasedon studying theeffectsofeducationalinvestments,and of theireconomist-colleaguestoposemodelsfor of theAmericaneconomy.” school industry[mightbe]apathologicalsection achievement, gaveaspeechsuggestingthat“the Efforts byEconomists. A majorprobleminresolvingthis disputeis A goodmanysuchstudieshavesinceappeared, 17 This latterconclusionhasbeenwelcomed not reported statistically significant reported statisticallysignificant 16 At aboutthesametime, 15 On theotherhand, These ideasledsome sizable don’t have an effects of 14 - - - 18 - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 9

8

Unequal Funding for Schools in America meet threespecific conditions. concerned withtheeffectsofschool fundingshould tools foranalyzingdata.Inaddition, strongsurveys scaling procedures,andemploy appropriatestatistical able sources,makeuseofvalidated measuringand conditions usingwell-designedsurveys. next beststrategyistoexaminetheoutcomesofsuch exist intherealworldofAmericaneducation,soour Nevertheless —andtragicallysuchconditions conditions ofadequateandinadequatefunding. or perhapsschooldistrictsareassignedrandomlyto an experimentinwhichstudents,classrooms,schools, conditions. However,itwouldbeunethicaltodesign subjects areassignedrandomlytodifferentprocess would betoconductexperimentsinwhichresearch education? Asinotherfields, thebestwaytodothis take topindowntheeffectsofdifferentialfundingin study offundingeffectsshouldlooklike.Whatdoesit Features ofStrongStudies their results. topic, andusefulthingscanbelearnedbyreviewing number ofstrongstudieshavealsoappearedonthe funding havebeenflawed. Onthecontrary, a Their Findings Other Studiesand learned abouttheissuebyreviewingtheirfindings. in therealworld,anditisnotclearthatmuchcanbe are poortoolstouseforestimatingfundingeffects niques forstatisticalanalysis. ated withmulticollinearity,andinappropriatetech nonvalidated scales,poorregressionmodelsassoci ment. Manyalsoemployedquestionablemeasures, — thatmayornotbetiedtostudentachieve ries, student-teacherratios,oradministrativecosts ated schoolcharacteristics—suchasteachersala school fundingdirectlybutratherfunding-associ of Americanschools,andmostdidnotexamine small As arule,strongsurveyscollectdatafromreli To dothis,itisnecessarytoexplainwhatastrong Fortunately, notallstudiesoftheeffects samples thatdidnotrepresentthefullrange 19 Thus,asagroupthey First, theyshould - 20

- - - - - advantages, andthelatteralsoleadtomorepositive of fundingarealsoassociatedwithgreaterstudent funding andstudentoutcomes,butsincehighlevels positive, base-levelcorrelationsbetweenschool (Nearly munity thatstudentsbringwiththemtotheschool. or othertypesofadvantageinthehomecom controls forlevelofincome,socioeconomicstatus, funding conditions.) nation, suchasastate,thatexhibitswiderangeof across thecountryorageographicentitywithin sentative sample,byrandommeans,fromschools (Normally thisisdonebydrawingalargeandrepre of bothwell-fundedandimpoverishedschools. be based ground conditions—thatcannot orshouldnotbe race, ethnicity,homeadvantage, orotherback examine theimpactofvariables —suchasgender, can havemanyadvantages.Among others,theycan done atthestatelevel. and -.700forcomparableeffectswhenanalyseswere whereas Biddle(1997)reportedcorrelationsof+.433 the effectsofschoolfundingandstudentpoverty, found correlations of +.361 and -.412, respectively, for school districts,KevinPayneandBruceBiddle(1999) ing eighth-grademathematicsachievementamong up theaggregationladder.Toillustrate,whenstudy the sizesofbase-levelstatisticschangeasonegoes units. sis shouldalsobemeasuredforthesameanalytic districts, orstates, for fundingeffectsaretobemade sis shouldalsoapplytoclassrooms—orifestimates classrooms, example, ifeffectsoffundingaretobeexaminedfor associated withonly regression analysis.) funding. Normallythisisdonethroughtheuseof when estimatingthoseassociatedwithschool for” theeffectsofhomeorcommunityadvantage student outcomes,onemust“backout”or“control Second, Surveys thatmeettheconditions describedabove And 21 Thereasonforthislastrequirementisthat third, all onsizablesamplesthatincludeexamples such studiesshouldincludestatistical studies offundingimpacthavereported then allothervariablesusedintheanaly such studiesshouldexamineeffects the othervariablesinanaly one 22 level ofaggregation.For s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P schools, school ------

9

1

0 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

found inschools. environments, orthetypesofteachersandstudents ings, processesoccurringinclassroomsandschool fications, classsizes,theconditionsofschoolbuild differences infundingsuchaslevelsofteacherquali — particularlythoselikelytobeassociatedwith may (ornot)bearoneducationaloutcomes the jointeffectsofvarioustypesvariablesthat manipulated inexperiments.Theycanalsoexplore effects havebeenpinneddown convincingly. alternative processes)beforewe decidethatfunding findings fromvariousstudies(involving controlsfor the criteriasetforthabove—we mustalsolookat funding effects—well-conducted surveysmeeting Even ifweconfineourattentiontostrongstudiesof apparent effectoneisstudying. alternative processesthatmightaccountforthe which collectivelyruleout“all”reasonablycredible, conduct severalsurveys,usingdifferenttechniques, establish thecaseforacausalrelation,onemust might have“explainedaway”itsfindings. Thus,to out thatithadnotyetruledallalternatives survey offundinganditsoutcomes,criticsmaypoint examine. for example)thatnoinvestigatorhasyetthoughtto achievements (perhapsattitudesfavoringeducation, dents’ homesorcommunitiesthatarealsotiedto might alsobeaffectedbyotherconditionsinstu funding forthoseschools.)Ordifferences would thereafterbemorewillingtoprovidegreater dren hadproventobehighachieversovertheyears estly resourcedschoolswherelargenumbersofchil unlikely, itisatleastpossiblethatparentsinmod tions intherealworldgootherway.(However achievement outcomes?Hardly.Perhapscausalrela mean thatthosefundingdifferencesgeneratedthe level ofhomeorcommunityadvantage).Doesthis higher levelsofstudentachievement(controllingfor that thoseschoolswithgreaterfundingalsohave schools whereleveloffundingvariesanddiscovers let usassumethatasurveyexaminessampleof ficulty pinningdowncausalrelations.Forexample, Thus, nomatterhowcarefullyoneconstructsa On theotherhand,evenstrongsurveyshavedif 23 The bottomline? ------former wereroughlytwicethesizeofthosefor sociated withachievement,buteffectsforthe and per-studentrevenueswithinschoolswereas Hirlinger (1995)foundthatbothstudentpoverty school districtsinOklahoma,Ellinger,Wright,and study ofeleventh-gradeachievementscoresamong in thehomeorcommunity.Toillustrate,their effects are net effectsforstudentoutcomes,butthatthese studies reportthatleveloffundingistiedto Asarule,such we citewillindicatetypicalfindings. though notallofthemarelistedhere,theexamples found? Indeed,suchstudies strong studies,andifsowhathavethosestudies Strong StudyFindings student outcomes? or communitymakeforsmall largedifferencesin level ofschoolfundingandadvantages inthehome student advantage.Howlargeare thoseeffects?Do associated withdifferencesinschool fundingand International StudiesofAchievement Research onRelatedIssues challenge thisconclusion. funding hassubstantialeffects.Weseenoreasonto eses, andallofthesestudieshaveconcludedthat techniques designedtoruleoutalternativehypoth former wereagainlargerthanthoseforthelatter. ment intheeighthgrade,butthateffectsof both associatedwithlevelofmathematicsachieve student expenditureswithinschooldistrictswere that averagestudentsocioeconomicstatusandper- National AssessmentofEducationalProgress,found And Wenglinsky(1997a),usingdatadrawnfromthe International StudyofMathematicsAchievement. across thenationthatparticipatedinSecond achievement scoresamongschooldistrictsfrom Biddle (1999)forthedeterminantsofeighth-grade latter. SimilarresultswerereportedbyPayneand Bearing thesecautionsinmind,canwelocate So farwehavenotdiscussedthesizeofeffects Collectively, thesestudieshaveemployedvarious smaller than thoseforlevelofadvantage can be found, 24 andal sizable - - - - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 1 1

1

0 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

study —Turkey,Jordan,andIran. to thoseoftheworst-scoringnations intheTIMSS and eachearnedlowachievement scoressimilar inadequate fundingandservemany poorstudents, (New York)SchoolDistrict.Both ofthelatterreceive Dade CountyPublicSchoolsandtheRochester worst scoring countriesfromabroad.Incontrast,thetwo with thosefromHongKong,Japan,andothertop- earned low numbersofimpoverishedstudents,andboth these entitiesenjoyhighlevelsoffundingandserve districts from the Chicago North Shore area). Both of in-the-World” Consortium(composedofschool public schooldistrictandtheself-proclaimed“First- reported forAmericaweretheNaperville,Illinois, the UnitedStates. states, schooldistricts,andconsortiawithin earned byothernations,withthosefromspecific eighth-grade mathematicsachievementscores, Mathematics BenchmarkingReport, in variouscountries, (TIMSS), whichdealtwithstudentachievements Third InternationalMathematicsandScienceStudy of EducationalAchievementrecentlypublishedits beginning toappear. achievement. Fortunately, such comparisons are now earned byothercountriesininternationalstudiesof poverty isrampant,withachievementscores communities wherefundingisinadequateand poverty islow,versusthosefromotherAmerican munities wherefundingisadequateandstudent student achievementscoresfromAmericancom The InternationalAssociationfortheEvaluation One waytoanswersuchquestionsiscompare -scoring AmericanentitiesweretheMiami- high A but thattheseeffects are is tiedto achievement scoresthatcomparedwell s 26 Thetwobest-scoringentities 25 a rule,somestudiesreportthatleveloffunding of advantage inthehomeorcommunity.of advantage and in2001theyreleaseda sizable whichcompared net effects forstudentoutcomes, - smaller levels ofchildhoodpovertyinsomeAmerica’s are indeed.Doinadequateschoolfundingandhigh national studies.Arethesedifferencessizable?They the highest-andlowest-achievingnationsininter that areroughlyequivalentinsizetothoseseparating tage andfundinggenerateachievementdisparities the yearsfrom1967to1991and nineschooldistricts Miles andRichardRothstein(1995), whichcovered careful studyofspendingpatterns reportedbyKaren school program: decision toheadanew,national,for-profit, of YaleUniversity,saidwhenattemptingtojustifyhis trate, hereiswhatBennoSchmidt,formerPresident crease hasnotgeneratedachievementgains.Toillus has increasedsharplyinrecentyears,butthis public schoolsisthataggregatefundingfor Funding DifferencesOverTime International MathematicsandScienceStudy.) their studyofachievementscoresfromtheSecond reported byKevinPayneandBruceBiddle,1999,in similar comparisonsweremadeandeffectsizes achievements inthosecommunities.(Notealsothat matter, buttheyaremajorfactorsresponsibleforlow major Thus, welearnthatdifferencesinstudentadvan A strong refutation of this claim may be found in a Another claimsometimesmadebycriticsof has producedverylittlereturn. nation’s investmentineducationalimprovement lower SATscoresthanagenerationago.The Overall, highschoolstudentstodayareposting yet dropoutratesremaindistressinglyhigh.… inpublicschoolssince1965… (after inflation) We haveroughlydoubledper-pupilspending communities matter?Notonlydothey than thoseforlevel s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 27 private - - - - 1 1

1

2 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

cal andmentalhandicaps,thosefromimpoverished needs of disadvantaged students — those with physi responsibilities forourschoolsdesignedtomeetthe dates andcourtdecisionshavecreatedahostof today’s publicschools.Infact,recentlegislativeman students isonlyoneofmanyintendedoutcomesfor that enhancingtheachievementsofmainstream sampled fromacrossthenation.Theseauthorsnoted these effectsappear? higher levelsofstudentachievement, andwhydo strategies, prevalentinwell-funded schools,leadto restate thequestion,whatadditional resourcesor achievement, howisthistaskaccomplished? Or,to Student Outcomes Funding, Resources,and of NewYork.) creases inspendingforschooldistrictsfromthestate 1995, havealreadypublishedsimilarfindings forin (Note thatHamiltonLankfordandJamesWyckoff, not generatehigherlevelsofstudentachievement. funding forschoolshasbeen“wasted”becauseitdid provides littlesupportfortheclaimthatadditional with additionalresearch,longitudinalevidence provided forneedsassociatedwithbasicinstruction. during theseyearsveryfewadditionaldollarswere average agewasincreasing;andsoforth.Incontrast, increased salariesforateacherpopulationwhose lunch programs;another28percentwenttofund in school;another8percentwenttoexpandschool- instruction, andcounselingaimedatkeepingyouths went todropoutpreventionprograms,alternative to supportspecial-educationstudents;8percent one-third ofnetnewdollarsduringthisperiodwent for publicschoolssignificantly. underfunded but,takentogether,haveraisedcosts vated, andthelike—mandatesthathaveoftenbeen English athome,thosewhoareunrulyandunmoti ties, thosefromimmigrantfamilieswhodonotspeak homes, thoserepresentingracialandethnicminori If MilesandRothstein’sworkcanbeconfirmed As aresult,MilesandRothsteinfound,about If better-fundedschoolsgeneratehigherlevelsof new - - - - - teaching andmanagingclassrooms,moreexperience, have more subject-matter knowledge, greater skills in ments amongtheirstudents?Becausethoseteachers better qualificationsabletogeneratemoreachieve of teacherqualification. are apparentlyassociatedwiththesedifferinglevels Moreover, largedisparitiesinstudentachievement generate betterachievementscoresamongstudents. competency tests;theseteachers,inturn,helpto education, moreexperience,andhigherscoreson to beableattractteacherswithhigherlevelsof districts, andclassroomswithinthoseschoolsseem Better-funded schooldistricts,schoolswithinthose are associatedwithteacherqualifications. Inbrief: appear fromtheeffort.Sofarmostimpressive tion, too,andinterestingfindings havebegunto much effectinthemiddle-school orhigh-school has notyetappearedindicating thatclasssizehas self-concept amongyoungstudents —butevidence classroom culture,andhigherlevels ofacademic student contacts,moreeffective socializationinto ences leadtomorefocusedandsupportiveteacher- grades duction raisesachievement teacher instructswithinaspecific classroom.) class sizereferstothenumberofstudentsagiven in theschoolwhodonotteach.Properlyconceived, nurses, socialworkers,andotherserviceprofessionals school ordistrictlevelandoftencountscoaches, student-teacher ratioisnormallymeasuredatthe associated withthisassumption.(Amongothers, assumed torepresentclasssize, a proxyvariable—student-teacherratiothatis examined classsizedirectlybutrathertheeffectsof one thing,somestudiesoftheproblemhavenot fications, butthisconclusionmaynotbevalid.For appear tobeweakerthanthoseforteacherquali As arule,theeffectssofarreportedforclasssize help generatebetterachievementamongstudents. to reduceclasssizes,andsmallerclassesseemalso and perhapsmoreabilitytoinspirestudents. Various studieshavebeguntoexplorethisques For another,evidenceindicatesthatclass-sizere In addition,better-fundedschoolsareoftenable —inpartbecauseearlysmall-classexperi 28 Whyareteacherswith when appliedintheearly 29 butproblemsare -

- - - - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 1 3

1

2 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

effect arenowbecomingknown. the resourcesandstrategiesassociated withthis not onlygeneratebetterstudent achievements,but achievements. andclasssizeasgeneratorsofstudent qualifications (and other)mechanismsinteractwithteacher research willalsobeneededtoferretouthowthese with fundingforclassroomresources.Additional (1998) hasreportedachievementeffectsassociated funds appliedtoschoolupkeep.AndMartaElliott Elizabeth Harter(1999)hasfoundsimilareffectsfor they arelowthoseachievementgapsgreater. from richandpoorhomesarereduced,butwhen ditures arehigh,achievementgapsbetweenstudents that whenfundingforinstructionandcapitalexpen Wenglinsky (1998) has reported a study, which found begun toexploretheselattereffects,too.Harold student achievement,andafewstudieshave schools. Someofthesearesurelyalsorelatedto that generallyarenotavailableinpoorlyfunded risk” ineducation. from minoritygroupsnormallydeemedtobe“at are greaterforstudentswhoimpoverishedor vantages instudentoutcomesandthattheseeffects actions generatebothimmediateandlong-termad the earlygrades,andthesestudiesconfirm thatsuch concerned withtheeffectsofreducingclasssizein experiments andtrialprogramshavealsoappeared strong study hasalreadydonethis,andthatreported grades. Fortunately,atleastonewell-craftedsurvey erly, oneshouldfocuseffortsonclasssizeintheearly ated differencesinclasssizeonachievementprop years. Thus,tostudytheeffectsoffunding-associ The bottomline?Higherlevels of schoolfunding Well-funded schoolsalsoenjoyotheradvantages help generatebetter achievement amongstudents. reduce classsizes,andsmallerclassesseemalsoto effects forclasssize. B 31

etter-funded schools areoftenableto 30 Inaddition,strongfield - - - - not likely to live in affluent Americansuburbs,soin not likelytoliveinaffluent one thing,asweknow,disadvantagedfamiliesare ally tworeasonswhythiseffectshouldoccur.For of unequalschoolfunding,andyetthereareactu will sufferparticularlyfromtheAmericansystem obvious thatstudentsfromdisadvantagedfamilies Differential Impact to attendpoorlyfundedschools. ity familiesarelikelytosufferparticularly whenforced suggest thatstudentsfromimpoverishedandminor serving impoverishedstudents.Theselatterresults associated withschoolupkeepare ported thattheachievementeffectsoffundinglevels funded schools.AndElizabethHarter(1999)hasre status homesare between studentsfromhighandlowsocioeconomic Wenglinsky (1998)foundthatgapsinachievement too. Assuggestedabove,inhisrecentstudy,Harold research isbeginningtosupportthisassumption, the extrahelpneededforsuchstudents—and have adequateacademicresourcesifitistoprovide school fundingisinadequate—surelya that suchstudentswouldsufferparticularlywhen within thetypicalAmericanschool.Oneassumes as theirmiddle-class,White,native-speakingpeers English isasecondlanguagedonotachieveaswell American andHispanicfamilies,homeswhere that studentsfromimpoverishedhomes,African fare insuchschools?Extensiveresearchhasshown students areprovidedsecond-classeducations. to attendpoorlyfundedpublicschoolswheremany many caseschildrenfromthosefamiliesareforced Given theevidencereviewedabove,itseems But howdodisadvantagedchildren,inparticular, greater in poorlyfundedthanwell- s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P greater in schools must - - - 1 3

1

4 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

respond to differences in funding for education. and more research is also needed to see how these tors of student success or failure in education (and life), Many other measures have also been studied as indica ed on standardized measures of student achievements. studies of funding outcomes to date have concentrat Other OutcomeMeasures politan area,theUnitedStates Constitution does among schooldistrictsintheSan Antoniometro court ruledthat,despiteglaring inequitiesinfunding Rodriguez. entitled landmark Supreme Court decision, rendered in 1973, tunities, andyetsuchacontentionwasdeniedin tions that violate Americans’ claims for equal oppor think thatinequitableschoolfundingcreatescondi donors wholiveinthesuburbs. ticians remaindependentonsupportfromwealthy to changethissituationaslongmanyfederalpoli at riskineducation.Concertedeffortwillberequired services forspecificgroupsofstudentsdeemedtobe ability amongeducatorsortoprovideadditional focus eitheronpoliciesdesignedtoincreaseaccount debates abouteducationalreformshavetendedto — amongthenationalmedia.Instead,recentfederal been greatinWashington,DCand—asaresult lems, butinterestinschoolfundingissueshasnot the Presidentforleadershipregardingnationalprob policies. AmericansnormallyturntoCongressand address themwouldbethroughchangesin between states,andthismeansthattheidealwayto what can be done to help solve this problem today? school funding has been intense. Given such facts, suburban resistance to plans for greater equity in public erty taxes has deep historical roots in our country, and Unequal Funding Doing SomethingAbout Funding inequitiesarefoundbothwithinand The funding of public schools through local prop As the findings reviewed above suggest, most But whataboutthefederalcourts?Onewould San AntonioIndependentSchool Districtv. That year,byafive-to-four vote,thehigh 32 federal ------four statements: state, butresultsfromthemcanbesummarizedwith ries oftheseeffortshavevariedsharplyfromstateto still pendinginatleast31states. of thestates,andthesesuitshavebeenupheldorare erty taxeshavebeenfiled inmorethanthree-fourths legality ofunequalfundingbasedondistrictprop equal opportunities.Asaresult,suitschallengingthe state constitutionshavewordingsthatmandate has beendeadinstatecourts.Onthecontrary,many funding, atleastforthenearfuture. federal courtactiontoremedyinequitiesinschool be equalized. not requirethatfundingamongschooldistricts valid andagreed-uponmeasures of“adequacy.” no meansclearhowonewould goaboutdeveloping to say,thisshiftopensacanof worms, sinceitisby of schoolfundingtooutcome measures. Needless conservative politicaldemands seekingtolinklevel to fundingthatistrulyequitable,aswellrecent despair thataffluent Americans willeverconsent compete inthelabormarket.” equal opportunitiestoplayrolesascitizensand adequate educationsothatallstudentshave whether schoolshavesufficient fundsto“provide of supportforschools,thelattertermreferringto begun toshiftawayfrom“equity”“adequacy” This doesnotmeanthatthefundingequityissue Meanwhile, thefocusofsomestatelitigationhas    

First, particularlywhensuccessful,thesesuits inequities inschoolf And fourth,theseactionshavenot addressed to whichtheywereaddressed. but noteliminatethewithin-stateinequities Third, thesereformshavetendedtoreduce in place. levels offundingforaffluentschooldistricts impoverished schooldistrictswhileleaving vided additionaldollarsfromstatetaxesfor Second, inmanycasessuchactionshavepro signed toprovidegreaterfundingequity. follow-up actionsbystatelegislaturesde have stimulatedbothpublicinterestand 33 Thisdecisioneffectivelyforeclosed unding amongthestates. 35 Thisshiftreflects 34 Detailsandhisto 36 - - - - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 1 5

1

4 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

about unequalfundinganditseffects: er, thesematerialssuggestanumberofconclusions unequal funding,andotherresources.Takentogeth Census, strongsurveysconcernedwiththeeffectsof tained bytheOffice ofEducationandBureauthe unequal schoolfundingfrompublicrecordsmain Its Effects? Unequal SchoolFundingand What DoWeNowKnowAbout As noted,goodinformationisavailableabout    

property taxes hasdeephistoricalrootsinourcountry,property taxes extra fundingfordisadvantaged students. out thestate.Somenationsalso provide general taxrevenuesforallschools through they provideequalper-student fundingfrom schools withlocalpropertytaxes; instead, it, otheradvancednationsdo Although mostAmericansarenotawareof varies inverselywithcommunityaffluence. munities areabletoprovidefortheirschools this meansthattheamountoffundingcom schools comesfromlocalpropertytaxes,and because muchofthesupportforpublic American fundingdifferencesappear,inpart, many (butnotall)states. appear bothbetweenthestatesandwithin Sharp differencesinpublicschoolfunding receive $10,000ormorefortheirstudents. year foreachstudent,affluent districtsmay school districtreceivesroughly$5,000per more, andalthoughthe“typical” substantial can rangefromlessthan$4,000to$15,000or school districts,annualfundingperstudent sharply unequalfunding.AmongAmerica’s Public schoolsinAmericaareprovided and suburban resistance toplansforgreaterequity and suburbanresistance in publicschool fundinghasbeenintense. T he fundingofpublicschools throughlocal not fund public - - - - dicate that: In addition,initialresultsfromrelatedstudiesin     

tional methodsforfundingeducation,desires differences, unthinkingacceptanceoftradi flects severalfactors:ignoranceaboutfunding Opposition toequityinschoolfundingre correct fundinginequities. powerful Americansoftenopposeeffortsto funding forpublicschools,butaffluent and Most Americanssaytheysupportequal where fundingisinadequateand poverty comparative studies;scoresfrom districts the level isminimalaresimilartothose earnedby funding issubstantialandstudent poverty scores fromAmericanschooldistrictswhere school fundingare The jointeffectsofstudentadvantageand funding. school in differences with associated also are effects net smaller) (although sizable but cation, edu in outcomes to deal great a matters community or home the within advantage student of level that) indicate studies (Strong on studentoutcomes. and theirfundinghavelittle-to-noneteffects greatly, butthatdifferencesamongschools vantages inthehomeorcommunitymatter level offunding“doesnotmatter”—thatad (and reviewersofresearch)whoassertthat supported byclaimsfromsomeresearchers Opposition tofundingequityhasalsobeen ism, essentialism,orthecultureofpoverty. the causesofpovertythatreflect individual to keeppersonaltaxeslow,andbeliefsabout highest -scoring countriesininternational sizable s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P ; achievement ------1 5

1

6 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

embraced analternativevision forpubliceduca own benefit. cised bystudents(andtheirfamilies) solelyfortheir access toeducationisapersonal righttobeexer that voiceshaverecentlyappeared arguingthat tive thoughtinourcountry,itishardlysurprising vidual efficacy and the recent flowering of conserva Policy Implications Finally: Given Americans’traditionalbeliefsaboutindi    

tricts largely in place. in largely tricts dis suburban rich, for funding leaving while districts funded poorly for funds state in increases some provoked have efforts latter The legislatures. and courts state in place taken recently has funding unequal with concerned activity considerable but level, federal the at weak been have inequities funding reform to efforts political and Legal resources whenschoolsareunderfunded. are morelikelytobehurtbylackofacademic to attendpoorlyfundedschools,andthey two reasons:Thosestudentsaremorelikely American inequitiesinschoolfundingfor dents aremorelikelytosufferinresponse The achievementsofdisadvantagedstu sizes intheearlygrades. ger teacherqualificationsandsmallerclass higher levelsofstudentachievement:stron greater schoolfundinghavebeentiedto Two typesofresourcesassociatedwith achievement. would generateincreasesinaveragestudent not beenusedforadditionalresourcesthat demands placedonpublicschoolsandhave recent yearshavebeendrivenlargelybynew Aggregate increasesinschoolfundingduring lowest level isexcessivearesimilartothoseofthe 37 -scoring foreigncountries. And yet,Americanshavealso long ------— oftenaffluent Americanswholiveinthesuburbs, However, sucheffortsareopposedbypowerfulforces reforms designedtoprovidegreaterfundingequity. effects inourcountry,mostAmericans stand thehugesizeoffundingdifferencesandtheir “level playingfield.” that publiceducationcanandshouldprovidea ideal ofequalopportunity,andstressesthebelief the welfareof needed forademocraticgovernment,embraces school systemthatgeneratestheinformedcitizenry Dewey. This vision has stressed the need for a public who ledtheCommonSchoolMovement,andJohn Adams, ThomasJefferson,JamesMadison,those tion thatwasenunciatedinthewritingsofJohn gies youshouldconsider: ested ingreaterfundingequity,hereareafewstrate member, parent, civil servant, or political leader inter funding reforminthefaceofsuchopposition. issue, then,ishowtomobilizepotentialsupportfor their politicalalliesinfederalandstatecapitals.The sector, right-wingthink-tanksandfoundations, business leadersopposedtotaxesandthepublic Given thislatter,broadervision,oncetheyunder If you are an educator, administrator, school board  

funding equity. legal andlegislativeactionsfavoring greater work withothersatthestatelevel tosupport support ofimpoverishedschools;and(c) Congress tomakethecaseformorefederal education; (b)lobbyyourrepresentativesin funding inequitiesandtheirimplicationsin of themediatoraisepublicawareness funding reform:(a)workwithrepresentatives Become politicallyactiveinsupportof findings thatcontradictthoseclaims. oppose equitablefunding,andtheresearch effects sometimesmadebythosewho American schools,theclaimsaboutfunding associated withequityandfundingin Become familiarwiththefactsandissues all children inthenation,upholds will support - - - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 1 7

1

6 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

greater fundingequityinthecourtsandlegislatures. servant, welcomeopportunitiestomakethecasefor and inthefuture.And,ifyouareajuristorpublic for individualstudentsandAmericansociety,now funding forpublicschoolsandtheirconsequences torial piecesthatfocusattentiononinequitiesin encourage theproductionofnewsitemsandedi the SouthBronx,latterserving largenumbersof vastly differentvenuesinNewYork City,Riverdale,and contrasts educationprovidedin schools fromtwo, Kozol’s inequity withinasingledistrictappears inJonathan (see Rothstein,2000).Amovingillustrationoffunding school serving less-privilegedchildrenwithinaspecific leged childrenwithinagivendistrictortoclassrooms funds mayalsobeassignedtoschoolsservingless-privi to thedistrictlevel.Inadequate school fundingconfined 4 NoristheAmericanpracticeofinequitablepublic Education Statistics(2000a). 1998, SchoolDistrictDataBook,NationalCenterfor using informationfromtheCommonCoreofDatafor Resource Center,U.S.DepartmentofEducation(2002), plied byMarkGlanderattheNationalEducationData 3 Figure2waspreparedwithcalculationskindlysup Education andtheBureauofCensus. regular reportspublishedbytheDepartmentof funds providedforschoolsinAmericacomefrom (2000), p.82.Theseandmostdataconcernedwith 2000, 2 Figure1reportsdataappearingin for EducationStatistics(2000b),p.102. 1 See Endnotes If, ontheotherhand,yourepresentmedia, a supplementpublishedby The ConditionofEducation2000, Savage Inequalities reforms designedtoprovidegreaterfundingequity. in ourcountry, mostAmericans O of fundingdifferences andtheireffects (1991)wheretheauthor nce they understand thehugesize nce theyunderstand Education Week Quality Counts National Center - - - reducing classsizesintheearlygrades). ing, motivating,andretainingqualified teachers and with greaterstudentachievement(suchasrecruit schools today,thatarenowknowntobeassociated effort onstrategies,moreoftenfoundinwell-funded public schoolwithinadequatefunds,trytofocus 8 SeeRainwater&Smeeding(1995). Tabulation componentfoundin the samesource. rates camefromthe1990censusSchoolDistrictSpecial students thatyear.Informationforstudentpoverty came fromschooldistrictsenrolling1,000ormore for EducationStatistics(2000a),andthedatadisplayed for 1995,SchoolDistrictDataBook,NationalCenter played in Figure 4 came from the Common Core of Data 7 AsinFigure3,informationforschoolfundingdis destroys ourdemocracy.” for ourschoolsisnarrowandunlovely;actedupon,it community wantsforallitschildren.Anyotherideal wants forhis[sic]ownchild,thatmustbewhatthe old, isrelevanthere:“Whatthebestandwisestparent 6 JohnDewey’smaxim(1889/1900),nowacentury Book, NationalCenterforEducationStatistics(2000a). Common CoreofDatafor1995,SchoolDistrict 5 Figure3waspreparedusinginformationfromthe grams, facilities,andfundingallocationinsuchdistricts. children arelessoftenheededindebatesaboutpro tricts. Theyappearbecausetheneedsofdisadvantaged obviously hugeinsomeofAmerica’slargerschooldis concerning suchwithin-districtinequities,buttheyare impoverished children.Systematicdataarenotavailable In addition,ifyouareaneducatorservingina will support s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P - - - - 1 7

1

8 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

11 TheHeritageFoundation(1989). (1988). Coleman and (1984); Bourdieu (1970); Bernstein 10 See Weiner (1993). of individualism,aresultalsosupportedbyZucker& ity groups—aremorelikelytosubscribetheethos male,andare who areaffluent, have more often enjoyed “success” — for example, those 9 found inFortune&O’Neil(1994); Fortune&Spofford- 19 Additionaldiscussionsofthese problemsmaybe of fundingareunbiased. assume thatHanushek’sjudgments abouttheimpact 1995). Giventheseactivities,itis nolongerpossibleto of aconservativeeducationalagenda(seeHanushek, sions aboutschoolfundinginabroaderendorsement And, inreturn,Hanushekhasembeddedhisconclu in variousforumswherefundingequityisdebated. complimented hisefforts,andaskedhimtotestify cal conservativeswhohaveextolledhisconclusions, for fundingeffectshaveendearedhimtosomepoliti 18 Hanushek’sdeclarationsaboutthelackofevidence Hedges, &Laine(1996);andHedgesGreenwald(1996). 17 SeeHedges,Laine,&Greenwald(1994);Greenwald, 1996b). 1996a, 1991, 1989, (1986, Hanushek example, for See, 16 15 SeeFriedman(1962)andBoulding(1972). and hisreanalysesweregenerallyignored. but Colemandidnotstressthisfactinhislatertext, ses generatedlargerestimatesfortheeffectsofschools, Coleman (1972).Aswouldbeexpected,thesereanaly of projectdatausingregressiontechniques—see ally correctedthislattererrorinsubsequentreanalyses disappeared fromtheanalysis.JamesColemanactu the variabilityassociatedwithschoolshadalready student achievements,andthismeantthatmuchof these threeenvironmentsoverlapinhowtheyaffect communities hadbeentakenoutoftheanalysis.But made only which estimatesforthesizeofschooleffectswere 14 Inbrief,theReportusedstep-wiseproceduresin & Kain,1972),buttheirvoiceswerelargelyignored. Bowles &Levin,1968;CainWatts,1970;andHanushek 13 Actually,afewcriticsdidspeakoutatthetime(see Mood, Weinfeld,&York(1966). 12 SeeColeman,Campbell,Hobson,McPartland, Kluegel andSmithalsoreportthatAmericanswho after the effectsofstudents’homesand not members ofminor - - - - - families whomovedtothesuburbshavedonebetter of these and moves, resultshave shown that children of able. Studieshavenowbeguntoappearonoutcomes random basis,asprivatehousingunitsbecameavail were assignedtothesealternatives,onamore-or-less suburbs, otherstomostlyBlackurbanareas.Families moved throughtheprogram,sometoprimarilyWhite ropolitan area.Morethan4,000familieshavebeen private housinglocatedthroughouttheChicagomet of segregated,low-rentpublichousingunitsinto funds) beganmovingAfricanAmericanfamiliesout Chicago HousingAuthority(withhelpfromfederal lawsuit challengingsegregatedhousing,in1976the tion programinChicago.Asaresultofsuccessful tion hasbeenprovidedbythe“Gautreaux”desegrega 20 Aninterestingpartialexceptiontothisgeneraliza (1992); Payne&Biddle(1999);andWenglinsky(1997b). Richardson (2000);Lockwood&McLean(1997);Monk example, surveysthatstudiedthe relationbetweencig butnotimpossibletask.Take, for 23 Thisisadifficult poverty offamilies. such effectscannotbeassessed if onestudiesonlythe certainly leadtodepressedstudent achievements,but crime orinadequatehealthfacilities,andthesecan impoverished communitiescanhavehighratesof also comeintoplayathigherlevels.Toillustrate, gation. Ontheother,additional(substantive)factors that correlationsgrowlargerathigherlevelsofaggre one goesuptheaggregationladder,andthismeans sizes oferrorvariances.Butvariancesshrinkas tistics, suchascorrelations,involveestimatesforthe substantive reasons.Ontheonehand,base-levelsta 22 Suchdifferencesappearforbothtechnicaland such data—seeBryk&Raudenbush(1992). Hierarchical LinearModeling,appropriateforanalyzing must useanadvancedstatisticaltechnique,suchas senting morethanonelevelofaggregation,thestudy 21 Or,ifdataarecollectedfromanalyticunitsrepre to thesuburbs. advantages mayalsohavehelpedstudentswhomoved rates ofcrimeanddrugabuse,thelike—these community institutionssupportingeducation,lower numbers ofstudentsfromimpoverishedhomes,more were located,alsoenjoyedotheradvantages—smaller those schools,andthecommunitiesinwhichthey a possibleeffectofdifferencesinschoolfunding.But children attendedbetter-fundedschools,thissuggests life) —seeKaufman&Rosenbaum(1992).Sincethose on almostallmeasuresofsuccessineducation(and ------s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 1 9

1

8 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

hold qualified teacherswhowouldotherwisemigrate hold qualified but alsoforadditionalsalariesneeded torecruitand educational programsandextra physical facilities dents. Suchfundswouldbeneeded notonlyforspecial schools thatservelargenumbers ofimpoverishedstu they (liketheDutch)shouldprovide inpubliceducation, selves toa“levelplayingfield” 36 Indeed,ifAmericansweretrulytocommitthem Hansen (1999);andLadd&(1999). 35 Rothstein(2000,p.74);alsoseeLadd,Chalk,& and Rothstein(2000). 34 SeeMorales(1997);Murray,Evans,&Schwab(1998); 33 SeeKoski&Levin(2000);orRothstein(2000). 32 SeeMintrom(1993). (1995); andWordetal.(1990). (2001); Glass,Cahen,Smith,&Filby(1982);Mosteller Berliner (2002);Finn,Gerber,Achilles,&Boyd-Zaharias 31 SeeBiddle&Berliner(Winter2002); 30 SeeFerguson&Ladd(1996). (1997a, b). 29 See,forexample,Ferguson(1991)orWenglinsky (1996). Elliott (1998);Ferguson(1991);and&Ladd 28 See,forexample,Darling-Hammond&Post(2000); forward byHanushek(1996b). 27 QuotedinRothstein(1993).Seealsoclaimsput 26 SeeMullisetal.(2001). 25 SeeMullisetal.(2000). and Wenglinsky(1997a,b). Ferguson (1991);Harter(1999);Payne&Biddle (1987); Ellinger, Wright, & Hirlinger (1995); Elliott (1998); 24 See,forexample,Biddle(1997);Dolan&Schmidt cause lungcancer. case and eventuallythoughtfulpersonsdecidedthatthe thereafter that controlled for all these factors and more, like), butadditionalsurveyswouldshortlyappear in stressfulorpollutedcities,poornutrition,andthe might alsocausecancer(suchasgeneticfactors,living they hadnotyetexaminedothercrucialeventsthat causal relationbetweensmokingandcancerbecause established a complain thatthosesurveyshadnotyet arette smokingandlungcancer.Foryearscriticswould had been made,thatcigarettesmokingdidindeed extra funding for - -

Biddle, B.J.&Berliner,D.C.(2002). Delta Kappan,79 real correlatesofstatedifferencesinachievement. Biddle, B.J.(1997).Foolishness,dangerousnonsense,and London: Routledge&KeganPaul. Theoretical studiestowardsasociologyoflanguage. Bernstein, B.(1970). References 37 SeeChubb&Moe(1990),forexample. inequalities withinlargeschooldistricts.) Rothstein, 2000,discusseshowthisproblemgenerates teachers frompoorertoricherschoolsinTexas,while (Ferguson, 1991,documentsthemigrationofqualified to schoolsservingfewer“problematic”students. Institution. America’s schools. Chubb, J.E.&Moe,T.M.(1990). Sociological Review,35 policy inferencesfromtheColemanReport. Cain, G.G.&Watts,H.W.(1970).Problemsinmaking Newbury Park,CA:SagePublications. linear models:Applicationsanddataanalysismethods. Bryk, A.S.&Raudenbush,S.W.(1992). evidence. scholastic achievement:Anappraisalofsomerecent Bowles, A.&Levin,H.M.(1968).Thedeterminantsof Harvard UniversityPress. judgment oftaste Bourdieu, P.(1984). Review ofEducationalResearch,42, sible pathologicalsectionoftheAmericaneconomy. Boulding, K.(1972).Theschoolingindustryasapos www.WestEd.org/online_pubs/small_classes.pdf) San Francisco:WestEd.(Alsoavailableathttp:// about smallclasses&theireffects Biddle, B.J.&Berliner,D.C.(2002). http://edpolicyreports.org) Education, ArizonaStateUniversity.(Alsoavailableat University ofMissouriandPhoenix,AZ:College Columbia, MO:DepartmentofPsychologicalSciences, effects, RockefellerReportsonPovertyandEducation. TheJournalofHumanResources,3, (1), 8–13. (R. Nice,Trans.).Cambridge,MA: Washington, DC:TheBrookings Distinction: Asocialcritiqueofthe Class, codesandcontrol,vol.I: (2), 228–242. s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P Politics, markets,and (Policy Perspectives). Small classesandtheir What researchsays 129–143. Hierarchical American 3–24.

Phi - 1 9

2

0 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

(Supplement), S95-S120. of humancapital. Coleman, J.S.(1988).Socialcapitalinthecreation York: VintageBooks. seminar ontheColemanReport nity: PapersderivingfromtheHarvardUniversityfaculty Moynihan (Eds.), of EducationalOpportunity.”InF.Mosteller&D.P. Coleman, J.S.(1972).Theevaluationof“Equality The BrookingsInstitution. reform ineducation (Ed.), matters: AnanalysisofAlabamaschools.InH.F.Ladd Ferguson, R.F.&Ladd,H.F.(1996).Howandwhymoney Journal onLegislation,28 evidence onhowandwhymoneymatters. Ferguson, R.F.(1991).Payingforpubliceducation:New achievement? to learn:Doesmoneywellspentenhancestudents’ andopportunity Elliott, M.(1998).Schoolfinance 299–308. ment inOklahoma. Brains forbucks?:Schoolrevenueandstudentachieve Ellinger, K.,Wright,D.E.III,&Hirlinger,M.W.(1995). 2000: Whoshouldteach, Education Week. Education Review,6 odological andpolicyconsiderations. impact ofexpenditureonachievement:Somemeth Dolan, R.C.&Schmidt,R.M.(1987).Assessingthe University ofChicagoPress. Dewey, J.(1899/1900). New York:TheCenturyFoundationPress. education asanengineforsocialmobility R.D. Kahlenberg(Ed.), teaching andleadershipinlow-incomeschools.In in teachingandschooling:Supportinghigh-quality Darling-Hammond, L.&Post,(2000).Inequality U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice. Equality ofeducationalopportunity. J., Mood,A.M.,Weinfeld,F.D.,&York,R.L.(1966). Coleman, J.S.,Campbell,E.Q.,Hobson,C.J.,McPartland, Holding schoolsaccountable:Performance-based Sociology ofEducation,71 (2000,January13).Qualitycounts On equalityofeducationalopportu American JournalofSociology,94 (pp.265–298).Washington,DC: (3), 285–299. The SocialScienceJournal,32 A notionatrisk:Preservingpublic The schoolandsociety. (2), 465–498. 19 (18) (Supplement). (pp. 146–167).New Washington, DC: Economics of (3), 223–245. (pp. 127–167). Harvard Chicago: (3),

- - - Center, U.S.DepartmentofEducation. Washington, DC:NationalEducationDataResource Glander, M.(2002).Personalcommunication. University ofChicagoPress. Friedman, M.(1962). 7 Does moneymakeadifference? critique ofmethodsusedtoanswerthequestion: A Fortune, J.C.&Spofford-Richardson,S.(2000). 20 A methodologicalcritique. analyses andthestudyofeducationalfundingequity: Fortune, J.C.&O’Neil,J.S.(1994).Productionfunction College Record,103 (2001). Theenduringeffectsofsmallclasses. Finn, J.D.,Gerber,S.B.,Achilles,C.M.,&Boyd-Zaharias,J. Brookings Institution. and adultsuccess The effectofschoolresourcesonstudent achievement performance. InG.Burtless(Ed.), Hanushek, E.A.(1996b).Schoolresourcesandstudent 66 school resourcepolicies. Hanushek, E.A.(1996a).Amorecompletepictureof spending fetishes. Hanushek, E.A.(1995,November).Movingbeyond 28 may notbegoodpolicy. “reform” Hanushek, E.A.(1991).Whenschoolfinance 18 ditures onschoolperformance. Hanushek, E.A.(1989).Theimpactofdifferentialexpen Economic Literature,24 inpublicschools. Production andefficiency Hanushek, E.A.(1986).Theeconomicsofschooling: Review ofEducationalResearch,66 effect ofschoolresourcesonachievement. Greenwald, R.,Hedges,L.V.,&Laine,R.D.(1996).The Norton. Gould, S.J.(1981). School class size: Research and policy. Glass, G.V., Cahen, L.S., Smith, M.L., & Filby, N.N. (1982). (2), 21–31. (Summer), 21–46. (3), 397–409. (2), 423–456. (4), 45–65. (pp.43–73).Washington,DC:The The mismeasureofman. Educational Leadership,53 (2), 145–183. Capitalism andfreedom. (3), 1141–1177. Review ofEducationalResearch, Harvard JournalonLegislation, JournalofEducationFinance, Educational Researcher, Research intheSchools, Does moneymatter? (3), 361–396. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. New York: (3), 60–64. Journal of Teachers Chicago: - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 2 1

2

0 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

schools. J. (1991). Kozol, Record, 102 Rodriguez: Whathavewelearned? yearsafter Koski, W.S.&Levin,H.M.(2000).Twenty-five York: AldinedeGruyter. Americans’ viewofwhatisandoughttobe. Kluegel, J.R.&Smith,E.R.(1986). 14 suburbs. and employmentoflow-incomeblackyouthinwhite Kaufman, J.E.&Rosenbaum,(1992).Theeducation versy In H.J.Eysenck&L.Kamin(Eds.), Kamin, L.(1981).SomehistoricalfactsaboutIQtesting. Harper &Row. Jensen, A.R.(1972). New York:TheFreePress. reshaping ofAmericanlifebydifferencesinintelligence. Herrnstein, R.J.&Murray,C.(1994). 12 The HeritageFoundation.(1989). Educational Researcher,23 of differentialschoolinputsonstudentoutcomes. money matter?Ameta-analysisofstudiestheeffects Hedges, L.V.,Laine,R.D.,&Greenwald,R.(1994).Does The BrookingsInstitution. ment andadultsuccess matter? Theeffectofschoolresourcesonstudentachieve student performance.InG.Burtless(Ed.), changed? Therelationbetweenschoolresourcesand Hedges, L.V.&Greenwald,R.(1996).Havetimes 281–302. elementary schools. relate tostudentachievement:InsightsfromTexas Harter, E.A.(1999).Howeducationalexpenditures Report the HarvardUniversityfacultyseminaronColeman equality ofeducationalopportunity:Papersderivingfrom public policy.InF.Mosteller&D.P.Moynihan(Eds.), “Equality ofEducationalOpportunity”asaguideto Hanushek, E.A.&Kain,J.F.(1972).Onthevalueof (3), 229–240. (4). (pp. 90–97).NewYork:Wiley. (pp.146–167).NewYork:VintageBooks. NewYork:Crown. EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis, (3), 480–513. Savage inequalities: Childrenin America’s Genetics andeducation. Journal ofEducationFinance,24 (pp.74–92).Washington,DC: (3), 5–14. Beliefs aboutinequality: The intelligencecontro Education Update, Teachers College The bellcurve: Does money New York: New (3), On - -

Quarterly, 21 achievement: Whatdoesitmean? years ofdataoneducationalfundingandstudent Lockwood, R.E.&McLean,J.E.(1997).Twenty-five culture ofpoverty. Lewis, O.(1966). 195–218. York. gone? AnanalysisofschooldistrictspendinginNew Lankford, H.&Wyckoff,J.(1995).Wherehasthemoney National AcademyPress. matter: FinancingAmerica’sschools. Ladd, H.F.&Hansen,J.S.(Eds.).(1999). tives. Issuesandperspec and adequacyineducationfinance: Ladd, H.F.,Chalk,R.,&Hansen,J.S.(Eds.).(1999). eighth grade. International MathematicsandScience Studyatthe ematics report:FindingsfromIEA’s repeatoftheThird & Smith,T.A.(2000). K.D., Garden,R.A.,O’Connor,K.M.,Chrostowski,S.J., Mullis, I.V.S.,Martin,M.O.,Gonzalez,E.J.,Gregory, Books. Basic sciences. social the from Perspectives (1969) (Ed.). D.P. Moynihan, 113–127. in theearlyschoolgrades. Mosteller, F.(1995).TheTennesseestudyofclasssize WI: RethinkingSchools. the futureofpubliceducation Peterson (Eds.), by-state overview.InS.Karp,R.Lowe,B.Miner,& Morales, J.(1997).Thecourtsandequity:Astate- Analysis, 14 finance reform. An updateandassessmentofitsroleineducation Monk, D.H.(1992).Educationalproductivityresearch: Research Quarterly,46 funding havefailed:Towardsapositivetheory. Mintrom, M.(1993).Whyeffortstoequalizeschool spending. gone?: Changesinthelevelandcompositionofeducation Miles, K.H.&Rothstein,R.(1995). Washington, DC:NationalAcademyPress. Educational EvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,17 Washington,DC:EconomicPolicyInstitute. (4), 307–332. (2), 3–11. Chestnut Hill,MA:BostonCollege. Educational EvaluationandPolicy Funding forjustice:Money,equity,and La vida:APuertoRicanfamilyinthe New York:RandomHouse. TIMSS 1999internationalmath (4), 847–862. The FutureofChildren,6 . On understanding poverty: poverty: understanding On . (pp. 61–67).Milwaukee, s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P Where’s themoney Educational Research Washington, DC: New York: York: New Making money Political Equity (2), (2), - - 2 1

2

2 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

cation resources. reformandthedistributionofedu Education-finance Murray, S.E.,Evans,W.N.,&Schwab,R.M.(1998). Boston College. districts inaninternationalcontext. TIMSS 1999-EighthgradeachievementforU.S.statesand Smith, T.A.(2001). K.M., Chrostowski,S.J.,Gregory,K.D.,Garden,R.A.,& Mullis, I.V.S.,Martin,M.O.,Gonzalez,E.J.,O’Connor, Century FoundationPress. engine forsocialmobility (Ed.), behalf ofdisadvantagedchildren.InR.D.Kahlenberg Rothstein, R.(2000).Equalizingeducationresourceson The AmericanProspect,13 Rothstein, R.(1993).Themythofpublicschoolfailure. and PublicAffairs,SyracuseUniversity. No. 127).Syracuse,NY:MaxwellSchoolofCitizenship perspective The realincomeofAmericanchildreninacomparative Rainwater, L.&Smeeding,T.M.(1995). Educational Researcher,28 child poverty,andmathematicsachievement. Payne, K.J.&Biddle,B.J.(1999).Poorschoolfunding, Department ofEducation. Office ofEducationalResearchandImprovement,U.S. The conditionofeducation2000. National CenterforEducationStatistics.(2000b). Department ofEducation. of EducationalResearchandImprovement,U.S. 1997/98 Common coreofdataforschoolyears1993/94through National CenterforEducationStatistics.(2000a). 789–812. A notionatrisk:Preservingpubliceducationasan (a compact disk). Washington, DC: Office (acompactdisk).Washington,DC:Office (Luxembourg IncomeStudyWorkingPaper The AmericanEconomicReview,88 Mathematics benchmarkingreport: (pp.31–92).NewYork:The (6), 4–13. (Spring), 20–34. Washington, DC: Chestnut Hill,MA: Doing poorly: (4), - Wenglinsky, H.(1998).Financeequalizationandwithin- Service. and howtheydon’t. educational expendituresimprovestudentperformance Wenglinsky, H.(1997b). Sociology ofEducation,70 of schooldistrictspendingonacademicachievement. Wenglinsky, H.(1997a).Howmoneymatters:Theeffect Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rethinking schoolfinance: Anagendaforthe1990s. 24 enhanced achievement? Slavin, R.E.(1999).Howcanfundingequityensure London: RoutledgeFalmer. sociology: Anencyclopedia P.W. Cookson,Jr.,&A.R.Sadovnik(Eds.), Shouse, R.C.(2002).Schooleffects.InD.L.Levinson, Applied SocialPsychology,23 ceptions ofpoverty:Anattributionalanalysis. Zucker, G.S.&Weiner,B.(1993).Conservatismandper Department ofEducation. K–3 class-sizestudy. Student/teacher achievementratio(STAR):Tennessee’s Lintz, C.M.,Achilles,Folger,J.,&Breda,C.(1990). Word, E.,Johnson,J.,Bain,H.P.,Fulton,D.B.,Zaharias,J.B., Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 20 spending andthesocialdistributionofachievement. school equity:Therelationshipbetweeneducation (4), 519–528.CitingOddin,A.(Ed.).(1992). Princeton,NJ:EducationalTesting Nashville: TennesseeState Whenmoneymatters:How JournalofEducationFinance, (3), 221–237. (pp. 519–524).NewYork& (12), 925–943. Education and (4), 269–283. Journal of San - s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P 2 3

2

2 Unequal Funding for Schools in America

About theAuthors widely forhisresearchandpublicationson of Missouri.Asocialpsychologist,heisknown Psychology andofSociologyattheUniversity States andAustralia. tion amongschoolprincipalsintheUnited research andreportsastudyofutiliza claims abouttheweakimpactofeducational thored withLarrySaha),challengeswidespread His latest book, David Berliner)—chosenby The ManufacturedCrisis — chosenbyTheMuseumofEducation;and Teaching the 20 effects withinAmericaneducationduring recently identifiedashavinghadunique,major Center, LakeComo,Italy. Foundation’s BellagioStudyandConference and aResidentScholarattheRockefeller Social PsychologyofEducation, director, thefoundingeditorofanewjournal, and abroad,Biddlehasbeenaresearchcenter tion. TherecipientofvarioushonorsinAmerica and researchknowledgeutilizationineduca of classroomteaching,youthdecision-making, role theory,theofteacher,study Two ofBiddle’stwelvepublishedbookswere Bruce J.Biddle th century:his1972work, (co-authoredwithMichaelDunkin) The Untested Accusation isProfessorEmeritusof (co-authored with Education Week. aFulbrighter, The Studyof (co-au -

- - serves onitsBoardofDirectors. Berliner wasemployedatWestEdandcurrently Psychological Association(APA).Inthe1970s, of EducationalPsychologytheAmerican Research Association(AERA)andtheDivision president ofboththeAmericanEducational Study intheBehavioralSciences,andisapast Education, aFellowoftheCenterforAdvanced is amemberoftheNationalAcademy of EducationatArizonaStateUniversity.He articles, technicalreports,andbookchapters. Berliner hasauthoredmorethan150published Perspectives onInstructionalTime. Psychology He isco-editorof Educational Psychology, co-author (withN.L.Gage)ofthetextbook, Casanova) of The ManufacturedCrisis, is co-author(withB.J.Biddle)ofthebestseller, the NationalEducationAssociation(NEA).He guished contributionsfromAPA,AERA,and Berliner istherecipientofawardsfordistin David C.Berliner andthebooks Putting ResearchtoWork, The HandbookofEducational is Regents’Professor nowinitssixthedition. s e v i t c e p s r e P y c i l o P co-author(withUrsula Talks toTeachers Inaddition, and and - 2 3

About WestEd

Policy Perspectives (www.WestEd.org/ WestEd, a nonprofit research, development, and service agency, works with education

policyperspectives) presents visiting authors’ and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults. While WestEd serves the states of Arizona, California, own views and/or research on issues relevant Nevada, and Utah as one of the nation’s Regional Educational Laboratories, our to schools and communities nationwide. WestEd agency’s work extends throughout the United States and abroad. It has 16 offices welcomes submission of papers on a topic nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona, Southern California, and its headquarters in San Francisco. not previously addressed in Policy Perspectives

or presenting a different viewpoint to a Policy For more information about WestEd, visit our Web site: WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or toll-free, (877) 4-WestEd; or write: WestEd/730 Harrison Street/San Francisco, CA Perspectives paper already published. Address 94107-1242. drafts and/or inquiries to Colleen Montoya, ©2003 WestEd. All rights reserved. (Originally published by Education Policy Perspectives Executive Editor, Policy Reports Project.) 4665 Lampson Avenue, The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily Los Alamitos, California, 90720; reflect the views or policies of The Rockefeller Foundation or WestEd; nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by WestEd. 562.799.5105; fax, 562.799.5138; or email, WestEd is providing this forum for visiting authors and is interested in presenting a wide [email protected]. range of views and/or research.

Non-Profit U.S. Postage PAID Los Alamitos, CA ® 90720 730 Harrison Street Permit No. 87 San Francisco California 94107-1242

Address service requested