全球智库信息集成服务系统

In 1968, a sheet metal worker named Demetrio Rodriguez decided to file a lawsuit against the Edgewood Independent School District, a high-poverty district located just outside of San Antonio, Texas, serving a predominately Mexican American population. Rodriguez, the father of four children enrolled in the Edgewood district, was frustrated that the schools were dramatically underfunded and marred by dilapidated facilities and weak instruction.¹

As part of his suit, Rodriguez joined 15 other parents who sued the state for an inequitable system of financing public schools. The case was filed under Rodriguez’s name because he had been a longtime, leading voice in the community for equal rights. The suit, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, eventually landed in the Supreme Court.²

The court’s decision, however, did not live up to the dream of equal educational opportunity for which Rodriguez and the other parents had hoped. The court struck down the case, arguing that education was not a guaranteed, fundamental right under the U.S. constitution and that Texas’ school finance system did not violate any protected rights.³

More than 40 years later, one of Rodriguez’s children now teaches in the Edgewood Independent School District—the same district that he sued.⁴ The district still gets less than its fair share of funds from the state of Texas. In fact, according to one recent analysis, Edgewood receives about $5,000 less per pupil in education funding than Alamo Heights, a wealthier, neighboring school district.⁵ Just as bad, the district continues to lag behind on academic measures, and many of its students score below grade level.⁶

This is a national problem. Since the 1970s, advocates across the country have filed dozens of school finance lawsuits. That litigation spurred critical conversation and important progress, but many large and pressing problems remain. In nearly half of all states, affluent districts still receive more funding from state and local governments for their schools and students than poorer districts.⁷ In some states, the issue is particularly egregious; for instance, high-poverty districts in Illinois receive 22 percent less in per-pupil funds in state and local dollars than the wealthiest school districts.⁸

Dollars must be at the start of every conversation around equity. Funding is a central component to providing a high-quality education and often leads to improved outcomes. A 2016 study found that, between 1990 and 2011, states that reformed school finance policies in order to allocate more funding to high-poverty school districts narrowed the achievement gap by an average of one-fifth.⁹

But allocating equal funding for every student does not guarantee that all students will have a rigorous educational experience.¹⁰ School finance reform must focus on the quality of every school, from the excellence of the instruction to the rigor of the classes.

This idea is at the heart of this report. The authors argue that the efforts to resolve inequities through the courts or with legislation need to move beyond funding. Furthermore, reforms must focus on both funding levels and equal access to resources shown to be fundamental to a quality education. True educational equity will require two central reforms. First, there needs to be additional resources—not the same resources—in order to meet the needs of at-risk students.¹¹ Second, there should be accountability frameworks to ensure that the key ingredients to student success—access to early childhood programs, effective teachers, and rigorous curriculum—are available to students irrespective of their race, zip code, or economic status.

The authors came to these conclusions after examining the remedies implemented at the state level in response to a court order or as a result of political pressure created by state litigation. Past cases, which have focused on the equity or adequacy of school funding, have increased resources for low-income students but have not consistently ensured that all students have access to a high-quality education. Moreover, in some instances, remedies implemented under these frameworks have led to unintended consequences, including the leveling out of education funding in cases that focus on equity of dollars alone.

Overview of the findings

Based on an analysis of school finance litigation and research on school funding, the authors found the following:

• Money matters for student achievement. A growing body of evidence shows that increased spending on education leads to better student outcomes. When states invest in their public schools and create more equitable school finance systems, student achievement levels rise, and the positive effects are even greater among low-income students. States, districts, and schools must spend their money wisely, targeting their funds toward evidence-based interventions, such as high-quality early childhood programs. Overall, efforts to cut funding for education or services that support children are short-sighted and defy current research.
• Students in high-poverty communities continue to have less access to core academic services that increase student outcomes. Core services that have a significant influence on instructional quality and student performance are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools. These critical services include early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to rigorous curriculum.
• Districts, states, and the federal government play crucial roles in equity. States will have the greatest opportunity to guarantee that all students under their purview have access to a high-quality education, but local, state, and federal governments all play important roles in minimizing inequities in education funding.

Historically, the federal government has focused its investment in supporting education and related services on the most at-risk children, and it can uniquely address inequities in per-pupil spending across states. While students within the same school district can receive starkly different levels of funding, the widest variation in per-pupil spending exists across state boundaries. The differences in average state per-pupil spending ranges from around $5,700 to $17,000.¹²

• While state legal cases have been powerful in closing spending gaps, litigation is inadequate. School funding advocates have won a slew of court cases over the past four decades. Many fiscal equity lawsuits were important and led to additional resources for students; however, some cases had unintended consequences on overall levels of spending, for example, in California.¹³ In many cases, a state’s political climate and fiscal capacity proved to be just as important—if not more important—than court rulings in deciding fiscal reform.
• Evaluating school finance policies based on equity or adequacy is insufficient. The most common frameworks used in state school finance cases—evaluating school funding policies based on their “equity” or “adequacy”—do not acknowledge that students in poverty need more from their schools than their more affluent peers. Moreover, neither framework requires courts and policymakers to consider the quality of education, including teachers, curriculum, programs, and social supports.

Next steps

The school funding debate is as important today as it was in 1968 when Rodriguez demanded a better education for his children. Given these findings, the authors recommend principles to guide a new framework for school finance reform: a high-quality finance system. While the past few decades of state litigation focusing on equity or adequacy have increased awareness of the importance of fiscal equity, policymakers must refine the debate in order to achieve a high-quality education for all students.

The authors propose that the following key principles should guide school finance reform at the federal and state levels:

• School funding systems should ensure equal access to core educational services. School equity debates must go beyond funding, and states and local actors must support access to robust services. The Supreme Court of New Jersey described this issue well: The focus should shift from “financing [to the issue of] education itself.”¹⁴ In other words, advocates should be focused on the quality of educational opportunities as the driving goal of an equitable education financing system. Using this as a model, advocates should prioritize increased access to high-quality educational opportunities that raise student achievement as part of an equitable education financing system.
• School funding should provide significant additional resources for low-income students. It costs more to educate low-income students and provide them with a robust education. To overcome issues of poverty, low-income students need significant additional funds. Research shows that increases in school spending result in greater educational and economic outcomes for all students, but these were “more pronounced for children from low-income families.”¹⁵ Additional funding should help to attract highly qualified teachers, improve curriculum, and fund additional programs such as early childhood education. Weighted student funding—which differentiates school budgeting based on the demographics that each school serves—can fund quality programs that will have the greatest impact on the student population.
• Outcomes-based accountability should serve as a check on school funding systems. Student achievement and outcomes matter. Any approach to supporting school finance reform should ensure that the money supports the resources, programs, and services that all students need to be prepared to fully participate in the workforce and their community. Policymakers must simultaneously refine education standards so they are aligned to the changing society and implement rigorous accountability systems to assess if schools are meeting these goals. States should use these outcomes, rather than dollars or other inputs, to evaluate if schools are providing all students with a high-quality education.
• Education and child welfare programs should be fully funded. Research shows that money matters, especially for students in poverty. States should restore, and exceed, funding to pre-Great Recession levels to allocate sufficient funding. In addition, the federal government should maintain or increase funding for necessary programs to support children and working families. Federal funding accounts for 38 percent of states’ education budget—and 8.5 percent of overall spending for public education—so significant cuts to federal programs have severe and lasting effects on the services and opportunities that states can offer to all students.¹⁶

A high-quality education is fundamental to our modern economy and democracy

The goals of public education must evolve with the changing world, and today, schools must prepare students for college, career, and civic engagement.

Ensuring educational opportunities is critical to the health of U.S. democracy, especially as the nation becomes more diverse.¹⁷ Most state constitutions include some language indicating that education is the state’s responsibility and a critical public service, and federal policymakers have long recognized that education strengthens the nation.¹⁸ For example, Thomas Jefferson once said, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”¹⁹

A just K-12 public schooling system should meaningfully prepare all students, including the most disadvantaged, for their roles in public service or democratic governance. This is key to ensuring America’s next generation of leaders serve, defend, and represent the various interests of society. Not surprisingly, the nation’s military also depends on well-educated students. Without a robust education system, the armed forces would lack qualified recruits.

The strength of the economy is also closely tied to education. Recent studies show that gross domestic product (GDP) has a strong relationship with educational outcomes.²⁰ Moreover, education’s importance to the economy continues to grow. In the 1970s, the majority of jobs were available to individuals with a high school diploma or less.²¹ Today, virtually all well-paying jobs require some college.²² By 2020, only 36 percent of all jobs will require a high school diploma or less. During the recent economic recovery, 95 percent of the jobs created went to workers with postsecondary education or training.²³

Furthermore, education is one of the best predictors of future income. Over a lifetime, a college graduate earns $1 million more, on average, than a student with only a high school diploma.²⁴ Another study found that a millennial with a college degree earns, on average, $17,500 more annually than a millennial with only a high school diploma.²⁵

Persistent inequities in education funding: The local, state, and federal role

After 50 years of state school finance litigation and school finance reform, some states have minimized inequities in per-pupil education across districts within state lines. However, significant inequities remain. Local, state, and federal governments all contribute to overall education funding and perpetuate some of these inequities. As a result, local, state, and federal actors must all work to revamp school funding systems with a focus on quality. States, specifically, will have a central role. The right to an education rests with the state, as articulated in state constitutions, and local and state governments provide the vast majority of school funding. Meanwhile, the federal government must continue to focus its funding and support on high-poverty schools and address inequities that exist across state lines.

Funding inequities with local and state contributions

Although state constitutions indicate that the right to education rests with the state, schools have historically been primarily funded at the local level. Specifically, local property taxes had been the main source of funding for public education. Because districts have vastly different property tax bases, the poorest districts raise less money than more affluent districts, creating disparities in per-pupil expenditures.²⁶ In fiscal year 2012—the most recent year for which data are available—local governments contributed 45 percent of overall education funding; state governments matched local contribution; and the federal government made up for the remaining 10 percent.²⁷

New analyses disaggregate the allocations of local, state, and federal governments. Data compiled by the Urban Institute show that local education funding across the country is still highly regressive—although it has become slightly more progressive between 1995 and 2015. Students in poverty continue to receive less funding than their more affluent peers. High-poverty school districts in only four states—Minnesota, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont—receive more local funds per pupil than more affluent districts.²⁸

State funding formulas generally compensate for regressive local funding.²⁹ A 2018 report by The Education Trust found that in 20 states, high-poverty districts receive at least 5 percent more per pupil in combined state and local dollars than affluent districts. In 23 states, high-poverty and affluent districts receive about the same amount per pupil in state and local dollars. In four states, the highest-poverty districts receive significantly less per pupil in state and local funding than more affluent districts. And in Illinois, high-poverty districts received 22 percent less per pupil in state and local funds than more affluent districts.³⁰

The federal role: Addressing inequities across state lines

Times have changed dramatically since the Rodriguez decision, and there is deepening consensus that federal government has an important role in supporting the education of students with the greatest needs.

The passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—which was reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act—highlighted Congress’ recognition of the need for a federal role in ensuring equal educational opportunities. In fact, the ESEA was passed shortly after the Civil Rights Act, and then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, who championed the bill’s passage, saw the legislation as part of the broader movement for equality.³¹ In his signing speech, Johnson stated, “By passing this bill, we bridge the gap between helplessness and hope for more than five million educationally deprived children.”³² The ESEA’s clear purpose was to ensure a level playing field for low-income and minority students.

The federal investment in education increases the share of funding allocated to high-poverty districts.³³ However, the current federal investment does not minimize funding inequities across state lines, which are greater than the inequities among districts within states. These differences are so stark that students in certain states only receive a fraction of funds that students in other states receive. For example, according to a recent study by the Education Law Center, students in Mississippi only receive about 40 percent of the per-pupil funds of New Jersey students, while students in Alabama receive slightly less than 50 percent of the per-pupil funds as students in Connecticut.³⁴ Not surprisingly, both New Jersey and Connecticut outrank most states in academic performance, whereas Mississippi and Alabama fall toward the bottom of the list.³⁵

The research: Money does matter

These extreme spending inequities have an impact, and a large body of research suggests that money does matter in education. When school districts spend money wisely, they have better outcomes, including higher test scores, increased graduation rates, and other improved indicators of student achievement.³⁸ More money also helps ensure that students have schools with better facilities and more curriculum options. This has clear implications for the public school system, as students who do not get their fair share of dollars do not get an equal chance to compete with their more advantaged peers.

For instance, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study, state fiscal reforms have had a positive impact on student outcomes—particularly among low-income students. In fact, the study found that spending increases improved high school graduation rates among low-income students and increased their adulthood earnings by 10 percent.³⁹ The study also found that, of the various approaches to school spending reform, fiscal initiatives that guaranteed a baseline amount of per-pupil funds—otherwise known as “foundation plans”—were the most effective in increasing overall per-pupil spending and reducing the wealth-based funding disparities between poor and affluent districts. Note that, when it comes to policy approaches, foundation plans are most similar to an adequacy framework—a point explored in greater detail below.⁴⁰

Another recent NBER study confirmed this idea that fiscal reforms in adequacy cases have led to more progressive funding systems and increased student outcomes. In this study, researchers found that over the past 25 years, fiscal reforms—either as a result of a court order or a legislative effort—improved states’ education spending priorities and reduced funding disparities between high- and low-poverty districts. These reforms also contributed to student gains in reading and mathematics, with the largest increases among low-income students.⁴¹

Relatedly, beginning in 2010, a decline in public spending on education has negatively affected student outcomes. During the Great Recession, state and district funding for public education declined dramatically. As of 2017, 29 states’ funding had yet to rise to prerecession levels.⁴² One study found that districts with the largest declines in public education spending during the recession had lower student achievement levels, which worsened throughout the recession.⁴³ C. Kirabo Jackson, a professor of human development and social policy at Northwestern University, asserts that the decline in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores in 2015 and 2017 is tied to the decline in education spending following the Great Recession.⁴⁴

There are dramatic gaps in access to core educational services

Inequities go beyond money. Core services, which make a huge difference in instructional quality and student performance, are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools. Put simply, school funding debates must go beyond the raw numbers and evaluate whether students have equitable access to the resources needed for success, including early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to challenging curriculum.

Early childhood education is a critical tool to level the playing field for students in poverty who generally start school academically behind their more affluent peers. For example, some studies suggest that, compared with their higher-income peers, low-income students start school with a smaller vocabulary.⁴⁵ High-quality early childhood education can lessen the differences and have a lasting impact on student achievement.⁴⁶

Yet students in poverty are less likely to attend preschool programs. In 2013, about 54 percent of children with family incomes below $50,000 did not attend any preschool, while only 36 percent of children with high-income families did not attend any preschool.⁴⁷ Expanding access to high-quality preschool is a focus of many district and state policymakers, but only three states and the District of Columbia have universal preschool.⁴⁸

The effectiveness and experience of teachers also have a pronounced impact on instructional quality. No other in-school factor has as significant an impact on student achievement as the teacher at the front of the room.⁴⁹ And yet, high-poverty schools generally employ fewer effective teachers. In Washington, D.C., for instance, a much smaller percentage of highly effective teachers work in high-needs areas versus affluent ones.⁵⁰ Another report examined data from Los Angeles Unified School District and found that teachers in the top 25 percent of effectiveness are less likely to instruct lower-income students, as well as students who are Latino or black.⁵¹

Higher-poverty schools also have fewer experienced teachers and greater teacher turnover.⁵² In school year 2012-2013, there was 22 percent teacher turnover in the highest-quartile-poverty schools, whereas there was only 13 percent turnover in schools with less than 34 percent of students in poverty.⁵³ Teacher experience most significantly increases effectiveness in the first five years in the classroom, but teachers with 20 years or more of experience achieve larger student gains, on average, than teachers with five years or less of experience.⁵⁴ Moreover, high teacher turnover creates instability and negatively affects student achievement within schools.⁵⁵

Rigorous curriculum can significantly increase academic outcomes and prepare students for college and the workforce.