A 50-State Strategy to Achieve School Finance Adequacy

Abstract

This article estimates the costs of school finance adequacy in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. by applying the recommendations from an evidence-based model to the student characteristics of each individual state. Using two different prices, (a) the national average teacher salaries adjusted by a comparable wage index and (b) individual state teacher salaries, the authors estimate per pupil costs of adequacy. Results suggest that in 30 states additional resources are needed to reach the funding level for the evidence-based model. The findings do not make adjustments for diseconomies resulting from large numbers of small schools or districts or other state preferences for educational services that could lead to individual state variations from the authors' findings.

Looking Beyond School Walls: An Environmental Scan of Minneapolis Public Schools, 2004-2008

“…We want to be explicit that we are not saying higher portions of poor kids and children with special needs are a bad thing. We are saying that education leaders will typically need to provide more resources to these groups of children to ensure that they are getting the support required (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010).…”

“…Collectively labeled adequacy studies, this scholarship estimates how much should be invested in schools in order that all students, or a considerable portion of them, meet or exceed specified standards. These estimates are typically based on the professional judgment of education experts (Verstegen, 2004), spending patterns of successful schools (Augenblick, Palaich, & Associates, 2011), best practices (Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010) or cost function calculations (Imazeki & Reschovsky, 2003). Less explored in recent school finance literature is an expanded environmental scan of the context in which these investments are made.…”

Education Research in the Canadian Context

“…For these reasons, the province could benefit from a research-based tool on school finance adequacy, such as the EBAM. Before Ontario can make use of the EBAM, however, researchers, policymakers, and education leaders will need to work together to examine and calibrate the instrument for application in their jurisdiction (Adams, 2010;Fazekas, 2012;Odden, Picus, & Goetz, 2010). This article' s intended contributions to the field of education finance and leadership/administration include: a) outlining a process for researchers, policymakers, and education leaders outside of the United States who are interested in calibrating the EBAM and potentially related models for use in their jurisdictions; b) highlighting both the technical revisions and the powerful influence of policy and leadership in calibrating the EBAM; and c) bringing Canadian evidence to the academic discussion on school finance adequacy and education policy funding, as most of the related research has been conducted in the United States.…”

School Funding Formulas

“…These results are often accompanied by court decisions on state education finance systems (Huang et al, 2004, Minorini andSugarman, 1999). The US-wide studies arrive at a more pronounced conclusion: even though most of the states fail to meet adequacy standards, a considerable proportion of them -about 40% of states -scores fairly well (Odden, 2009). Among the states with the most exemplary funding system are Texas and Virginia (Baker, 2001).…”

“…This resulted in a great number of targeted programmes outside the funding formula accompanied by stronger accountability measures (Kendall et al, 2005, DfES and HM Treasury, 2005, Simkins, 2004. Similarly, in the US adequacy litigations and court decisions often address the issue of implementation at the school level; several state legislatures have found it hard to ensure that the extra funding for in-need students is actually spent on improving their education (Odden et al, 2009, Odden and Picus, 2007, Hanushek, 2006b, Ladd and Hansen, 1999. In response to this challenge, countries have implemented accountability measures at the school level which greatly vary in their capacity to control schools (Levacic and Downes, 2004).…”