We study the impact of post-1990 school finance reforms, during the so-called “adequacy” era, on absolute and relative spending and achievement in low-income school districts. Using an event study research design that exploits the apparent randomness of reform timing, we show that reforms lead to sharp, immediate, and sustained increases in spending in low-income school districts. Using representative samples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we find that reforms cause increases in the achievement of students in these districts, phasing in gradually over the years following the reform. The implied effect of school resources on educational achievement is large. (JEL H75, I21, I22, I24, I28)

We study the impact of post-1990 school finance reforms, during the so-called "adequacy" era, on absolute and relative spending and achievement in low-income school districts. Using an event study research design that exploits the apparent randomness of reform timing, we show that reforms lead to sharp, immediate, and sustained increases in spending in low-income school districts. Using representative samples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we find that reforms cause increases in the achievement of students in these districts, phasing in gradually over the years following the reform. The implied effect of school resources on educational achievement is large.

We study school facility investments using administrative records from Los Angeles. Exploiting quasi-random variation in the timing of new facility openings and using a residential assignment instrument, we find positive impacts on test scores, attendance, and house prices. Effects are not driven by changes in class size, peers, teachers, or principals, but some evidence points toward increased facility quality. We evaluate program efficiency using implied future earnings and housing capitalization. For each dollar spent, the program generated $1.62 in household value, with about 24 percent coming directly through test score gains and 76 percent from capitalization of non-test-score amenities. (JEL H75, H76, I21, I26, J31, R31, R53)

We provide descriptive evidence on the level and within-state distribution of school capital expenditures over the past two decades. We relate these to the fiscal institutions governing capital funding across states. Within-state differences in capital expenditures between the highest-and lowest-income school districts fell considerably following the Great Recession. Spending declined in the highest-income districts, while state support for low-income districts remained stable. Suggestive evidence points to the importance of constraints on districts' ability to raise local funding and the structure of state support in explaining these differences and trends over time.

No abstract