蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

There鈥檚 a prevailing principle in the U.S. that funding disparities are at the root of education inequality, with poorer districts receiving less money than their wealthier counterparts. But a recent study has actually found , documenting that over the past nearly 50 years high-poverty and predominantly non-white districts across all 50 states actually spent more per student on average.

That being said, a number of these districts face higher labor costs, which offsets at least some of that advantage, according to the research from Brookings.

The findings 鈥渞aise questions about what I see as a predominant narrative that local property tax finance means that poor schools don鈥檛 have as much money and that that is a core, structural cause of inequality, and I just think it鈥檚 not,鈥� said Sarah Reber, a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings and the report鈥檚 lead author. 

鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean giving poor schools more money wouldn鈥檛 help. It could help,鈥� she added, but 鈥渋f we鈥檙e spending all of our time 鈥� focused on the level and allocation of school funding, we鈥檙e missing other important things.鈥�

To do this work, Reber and her colleagues used data collected by the Census Bureau, which surveys school districts on their spending and enrollment. They then divided districts into five groups, or quintiles, based on poverty rates and racial composition, with the first quintile being the least poor and the fifth being the most and the first quintile having the lowest share of non-white students and the fifth having the most.

They found that spending allocations across these five poverty brackets is U-shaped, with the poorest and wealthiest districts spending the most. Since the early 2000s, the poorest districts have outspent even the wealthiest ones. Part of this U-shape can be explained because states send more money to high-poverty districts, while affluent public schools are more likely to be in wealthier, higher-spending states.

While these findings weren鈥檛 necessarily surprising to Reber, she felt it was important to document because there is such a strongly held conviction in the opposite.

Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the right-leaning think tank American Enterprise Institute, echoed this point and said the Brookings researchers, 鈥渄eserve credit for taking a careful look at the data and trying to illuminate the real situation on the ground because 鈥� many of these conversations can be driven more by narrative than by the stark reality.鈥�

Reber added the caveat that while funding is likely not the prime cause of education inequity, there is still significant causal research that shows when funding is increased it improves outcomes.

鈥淚 definitely don’t want to put myself in the 鈥榤oney doesn’t matter鈥� (group), like we shouldn’t care about that at all,鈥� she said. 鈥淏ut I think this idea that people have that obviously the reason that schools that serve poor students are struggling is that they have less money (is) not the case. For one thing they don’t 鈥� they have more money.鈥�

Reber also emphasized the importance of the historical lens of the research. She found that patterns in spending by both poverty and racial compositions remained largely consistent in each end of the five decades the authors examined, though there were some changes in the middle years. Beginning in the 1980s and early 1990s, spending was less targeted to higher-needs students, but that shifted back to earlier patterns after 1995. 

The findings that most surprised her, she said, were around racial composition: She was not anticipating that within states, predominantly non-white districts have had more funding than their counterparts throughout the entire five-decade period studied. That being said, because many of these districts are in urban areas, 鈥渢heir purchasing power is not as different as that (level of funding) would make it seem because they鈥檙e facing higher wages.鈥�

High-poverty and mostly non-white districts were also disproportionately hit by the Great Recession, since 鈥渢he federal aid was both not enough for how long the recession shock lasted 鈥� and wasn’t really targeted,鈥� said Reber.

鈥淥ver the 鈥�90s and 2000s, there had been this increase in state funding that was increasingly targeted to higher-poverty districts,鈥� she added, 鈥渟o that was part of how you’re getting that increased (levels of directed funding) during that period, but then that made them vulnerable to cuts from state funding during the recession.鈥�

A large body of previous research has looked at differences in spending within states, but in Reber鈥檚 work she found, 鈥渢he differences across states swamp all of this within-state difference that gets so much attention.鈥�

In commenting on these large differences between states, Hess, of AEI, argued, 鈥渢he real irony is that so much of the progress we鈥檝e been seeing in the last five or seven years is in relatively low-spending states like Mississippi and Louisiana and Tennessee” while 鈥渕any of the states which spend most expansively have been performing at remarkably low levels. So certainly what matters with money is very much what you do with it.鈥�

In the report, the authors note that their findings might seem to contradict other reports on school funding equity that suggest primarily non-white and high-poverty school districts receive less funding. They point to the widely cited from EdBuild, which found 鈥減redominantly white school districts get $23 billion more than their nonwhite peers.鈥�

To explain these discrepancies with the 2019 report in particular, they point to two main differences in methodology: EdBuild adjusted for regional cost-of-living differences and looked at only state and local revenue, whereas Brookings studied total current spending 鈥� including from federal revenue, which disproportionately benefits largely non-white districts. 

The single biggest allocation of federal funding for K-12 schools is Title I, which this year sent in additional money to schools with high concentrations of low-income students.

Rebecca Sibilia, who was the CEO of EdBuild at the time the report was released, acknowledged the decision to leave out federal funding streams was somewhat 鈥渃ontroversial,鈥� but argued it was the right call given their research question and organization were specifically focused on state funding formulas.

鈥淭he state dictates how much money school districts will receive from the state, and also what the tax policy is for how much you can raise from local taxes,鈥� said Sibilia, who is now the executive director of EdFund, a national education research and advocacy nonprofit. 鈥淎nd so our critical concern was, 鈥楢re these funding formulas working for kids who need the resources most?鈥欌��

Ultimately, the differences 鈥渏ust highlight that there are different ways to accurately measure whether or not kids are getting their fair share,鈥� Sibilia added, emphasizing that Reber鈥檚 differing methodology made sense to determine which districts get the most money overall.

Reber emphasized that her work was not meant to make any argument against poorer districts receiving more money, but rather just to document the phenomenon. She also argued it鈥檚 equally important to be thinking about how schools can be using their money better.

鈥淥bviously, there鈥檚 places that are spending much less and not really getting demonstrably worse outcomes,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 important to try and learn from that and try to figure out what the barriers to being more productive with spending are.鈥�

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.