Schools with greatest needs get least funding, says report
|
Overview
Title: Funding Gaps 2006
Author(s): Goodwind Liu, Assistant Professor of Law, Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California-Berkeley; Ross Weiner and Eli Pristoop, Education Trust; Marguerite Roza, Research Assistant Professor in the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington
Research Methods: Descriptive statistics
Publisher: Education Trust
Peer Reviewed: No
Released: December 2006
The question: The report examines three major questions to determine if education funds are equitably distributed to low-income and minority students: 1) How are federal education funds for low-income students distributed among states? 2) What are the spending differences among school districts within states? 3) How are education funds allocated within school districts?
The study: The report examines how federal, state, local education funds are allocated to determine if low-income and minority students receive their fair share of education funds. At the federal level the report examines how funds from Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which are meant to level the playing field for poor children, are allocated to states. The report goes on to examine how states allocate their state and local revenues to school districts. To do so the report analyzed the 2003-04 financial data from the nation’s approximately 14,000 school districts to calculate a funding gap. The funding gap is a comparison of the average per student revenues for the highest poverty districts – defined as those in the top 25 percent in terms of the percent of students living below the federal poverty line -- to the per student revenues in the lowest poverty districts. The report concludes by investigating how districts allocate teacher salaries and unrestricted funds between their high poverty and low poverty schools.
Full Report: http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/CDEF9403-5A75-437E-93FF-EBF1174181FB/0/FundingGap2006.pdf
|
Schools with the greatest need are given less according to the most recent Education Trust report Funding Gaps 2006. Schools serving our nation’s minority and low-income students receive less funding than schools serving more advantaged students. According to the report all three primary sources of education funding, the federal government, states, and districts, contribute to the funding disparity.
At the federal level the report finds that Title I funds are unevenly distributed to wealthier states that already have the ability to spend more on education. But even state and local revenues are not distributed equitably to districts. The report shows high poverty districts receive less per-student funding from the state than do low poverty districts. Once districts receive their federal and state funds they tend to spend more on their low poverty schools than on the high poverty schools where more funds are needed.
The findings
How are federal education funds for low-income students distributed among states?
- Funding gaps between states are larger than the funding gaps within states. The ten highest spending states spent 50 percent more dollars per pupil than the ten lowest spending states that also serve a disproportional share of the nation’s poor children.
- Title I exacerbates the funding gap between wealthy and poor states. Wealthy states that are able to spend more on education receive more Title I funds per poor students than poorer states that are unable to spend as much even though they serve more poor students. For example, Maryland received 51 percent more Title I aid per poor student than Arkansas even though Maryland has fewer poor children.
What are the spending differences among school districts within states?
- High poverty districts receive fewer local and state funds than low poverty districts in 26 of the 49 states studied.
- On average nationally, state and local funds provide $825 less per student in high poverty districts than in low poverty districts.
- When the numbers are adjusted to account for the higher cost of educating economically disadvantaged students the gap widens with high poverty districts receiving $1307 less per student than low poverty districts. A typical high poverty elementary school of 400 students would receive $522,800 less per year than an affluent elementary school of 400 students. /li>
How are education funds allocated within school districts?
-
Less money is spent on teacher salaries in high poverty schools than on teacher salaries in low poverty schools within the same districts. Since teachers in high poverty schools tend to have less experience and fewer credentials that correspond to higher salaries than teachers in low poverty schools, districts dole out more in salaries for their low poverty schools than their high poverty schools. In Austin, TX, for example, the average salary for teachers in their high poverty schools is $3837 less than the average salary for teachers in their low poverty schools.
-
Districts assign a larger share of unrestricted funds to low-poverty schools. California’s high poverty elementary schools receive $788 fewer unrestricted funds per student than low poverty schools.
Keep in mind
-
The report does not study any link between education funding and student achievement. It should not be interpreted from this report that more equitable funding will close the achievement gap in of itself.
-
Research on the distribution of unrestricted funds is still in the early stages; further research needs to be conducted to gain a better understanding of how districts allocate unrestricted funds.
Conclusion
If it is to be expected that all students shall receive a high quality education, schools that serve the students with the greatest needs should receive the funds to do so. But according to this report, the schools with greatest challenges get the least resources to meet them.
Even though federal and state policies contribute to the funding gap there is still a great deal district officials can do to determine if the funds they do receive are reaching the schools with the greatest need. One option the report recommends is for districts to track spending by school level not just by category or program as is common practice. This will enable district officials to determine if their unrestricted funds are reaching their highest need schools.
The report also recommends that districts report what each school actually spends on teacher salaries instead of the practice of salary averaging across schools, which can hide the existence of low poverty schools that spend more on teacher salaries than high poverty schools. In this way, district officials can make sure they are providing the most effective educational resource -- teachers -- to the students who need them most, and take a big step forward in providing all students with a high quality education.
|
Print