Funding

All Research

TITLE
SYNOPSIS
CITATION
For-Profit Colleges

This article look at the students who attend for-profits, the reason they choose these schools, and student out-comes on the number of broad measures and draw several conclusions. The authors write, the evidences shows that public community colleges may provide an equal or better education at lower cost at any for-profits. But budget pressure mean that community colleges and other nonselective public institutions may not be able to meet the demand for higher education. Second, for-profits appear to be at their best with well-defined programs of short duration that prepare students for a specific occupation. But for-profit completion rates, default rates, and labor market outcomes for students seeking associate's or higher degrees compare unfavorable with those of public postsecondary institutions. 

Deming, D., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2013). For-profit colleges. The Future of Children, 137-163.
Report: California and the nation don’t spend enough on school facilities

This article discuss about the history of California spending on school facilities and the impact of the situation. 

Frey, S. (2016). Report: California and the nation don’t spend enough on school facilities. Edsource. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2016/report-california-and-the-nation-dont-spend-enough-on-school-facilities/562142 

Why Money Matters for Improving Education

This article explore the relationship between per pupil spending and learning, particularly in developing countries that spend much lower levels in education than do OECD countries. Their findings suggest that, when education systems spend above $8,000, the association between student learning and per student spending is no longer statistically significant. Therefore, they find a threshold effect after this level of resources is met, indicating a declining relationship between resources and achievement at high levels of expenditure (consistent with other recent literature). There is a positive relationship between student learning and per pupil expenditure among the low-spending countries (below $8,000 per student), but a flat relationship among high-spending countries. 

 Vegas, E. (2016).Why Money Matters for Improving Education. Brooking Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/07/21/why-money-matters-for-improving-education/

Accountability and the ESEA Reauthorization Deal: Your Cheat Sheet

This cheat sheet provide the accountability, early reaction and more details on other aspect (an update of past Politics K-12 cheat sheets, including some new information on which programs made it into the agreement and which are on the chopping block) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). 

Accountability and the ESEA Reauthorization Deal: Your Cheat Sheet. (2015). Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2015/11/accountability_and_the_esea_re.html

Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions.

This study examines how and why teacher quality is inequitably distributed, by reviewing research and examining data on school funding, salaries, and teacher qualifications from California and New York—two large states that face similar demographic diversity and educational challenges.

Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable distribution of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions. education policy analysis archives20, 37.

A Closer Look at Title I: Making Education for the Disadvantaged More Student-Centered

This analysis examines whether the current mechanisms for providing federal education funding to disadvantaged children are effective and whether the system works as originally intended.

Aud, S. L. (2007). A Closer Look at Title I: Making Education for the Disadvantaged More Student-Centered. Heritage Special Report. SR-15. Heritage Foundation.

America's Most Financially Disadvantaged School Districts and How They Got That Way

This report explores some of the most financially disadvantaged school districts in the country and identifies a typology of conditions that have created or reinforced their disadvantage. It report lays out a typology of conditions that lead to severe fiscal disadvantage for local public school systems. It then provides examples of states, state policy conditions, and specific local public school districts identified as being severely financially disadvantaged.

Baker, B. (2014). America's Most Financially Disadvantaged School Districts and How They Got That Way. Washington: Center for American Progress.

The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State and Local School Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending

This report begins by identifying those states where combined state and local revenues are systematically lower in higher-poverty districts–that is, states with “regressive” school funding distributions. Based on this analysis, the authors focus on six states–Illinois, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and North Carolina–where children attending school in higher-poverty districts still have substantially less access to state and local revenue than children attending school in lower-poverty districts. With these states in mind, the authors then go beyond recent reports on school funding inequities to uncover some nontraditional causes of these imbalances.

Baker, B. D., & Corcoran, S. P. (2012). The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State and Local School Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending. Center for American Progress.

Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card: First Edition

The National Report Card is a critique of state school funding systems and the extent to which these systems ensure equality of educational opportunity for all children, regardless of background, family income, place of residence or school. The report makes the assumption that "fair" school funding is defined as "a state finance system that ensures equal educational opportunity by providing a sufficient level of funding distributed to districts within the state to account for additional needs generated by student poverty."

Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2010). Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card. Education Law Center.

Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card: Second Edition

The Second Edition of the National Report Card on public school funding, Is School Funding Fair?, shows that far too many states continue to deny public schools the essential resources they need to meet the needs of the nation's 53 million students and to boost academic achievement. The National Report Card rates the 50 states on the basis of four "fairness indicators" - funding level, funding distribution, state fiscal effort, and public school coverage. The Report provides the most in-depth analysis to date of state education finance systems and school funding fairness across the nation.

Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2012). Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card: Second Edition. Education Law Center.

Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card: Third Edition

The 3rd Edition of Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card details how the Great Recession and its aftermath have affected school funding in the states. The National Report Card (NRC) examines each state's level of commitment to equal educational opportunity, regardless of a student's background, family income, or where she or he attends school. Providing fair school funding -- at a sufficient level with additional funds to meet needs generated by poverty -- is crucial if all students are to be afforded the opportunity to learn and be successful.

Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., & Farrie, D. (2014). Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card: Third Edition. Education Law Center.

The Stealth Inequities of School Funding-How State and Local Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending

This report analyzes the disparity in funding and resources in K-12 education for children of color and low-income families. It found that millions of students–largely low-income students and students of color–continue to attend segregated and economically isolated schools. State and district school finance systems perpetuate and compound these inequities by providing less money to students with the greatest need.

Baker, B., & Corcoran, S. (2012). The stealth inequities of school funding. Center for American Progress, Washington, DC.

Benefits and costs of quality early childhood education

This article reviews the economic studies on early childhood education and places them in the context of the larger knowledge base on this topic. It concludes that well designed programs and policies do produce significant results but, most current programs and policies are not well designed or implemented effectively.

Barnett, W. S. (2007). Benefits and costs of quality early childhood education. Child. Legal Rts. J., 27, 7.

Comparing Closed For-Profit Colleges to Public College Sector

This research compare for-profit college networks with the public sector. The author emphasize economic criteria for evaluating colleges and the need to consider many such criteria to make a valid comparison. In conclusion, public colleges are much cheaper than for-profit colleges. From a student perspective, this difference would have to be offset by a much superior performance of for-profit colleges to be advantageous. However, the evidence tends to point in the opposite direction. While ITT’s post-enrollment student earnings are comparable to those of many public colleges, on the whole the outcomes of public colleges appear to be better than those of the two closed for-profit networks of colleges.

Belfield, C. (2016). Comparing Closed For-Profit Colleges to Public College Sector. CAPSEE. Retrieved from https://capseecenter.org/comparing-closed-for-profit-colleges-to-public-college-sector/

Educational Equity and Effectiveness- The Need for Fiscal Fairness and Fiscal Productivity

This report analyzes two critical, and sometimes competing, issues in school finance reformer: fiscal equity and fiscal efficiency. It makes the case that fiscal equity and fiscal effectiveness are not mutually exclusive, and this nation needs to do more to improve both the fairness and the productivity of public school dollars. In other words, we need to make sure that schools and districts not only get enough money to serve their student populations but also that they then spend those dollars wisely.

Boser, U. (2014). Educational Equity and Effectiveness- The Need for Fiscal Fairness and Fiscal Productivity. Washington: Center for American Progress.

Charter Competition adn District Finances: Evidence from California students.

Using detailed expenditure data for school districts in California, this paper exploits variation in charter school enrollment across time and between districts to evaluate how district spending and overall financial health change as nearby charter sectors expand. Differences between results found in this analysis and those from similar analyses in other states may be explicable in terms of California’s economic and policy context, providing lessons for policymakers.

Bruno, P. (2017). Charter competition and district finances: Evidence from California. Working Paper.

How much are districts spending to implement teacher evaluation systems: Case studies of Hillsborough County Public Schools, Memphis City Schools, and Pittsburgh Public Schools.

This report presents case studies of the efforts by three school districts, Hillsborough County Public Schools (HCPS), Memphis City Schools (MCS), and Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS), to launch, implement, and operate new teacher evaluation systems as part of a larger reform effort called the Partnership Sites to Empower Effective Teaching. 

Chambers, J., Brodziak de los Reyes, I., & O'Neil, C. (2013). How Much are Districts Spending to Implement Teacher Evaluation Systems?.

High-Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals

Although many factors combine to make a successful school, most people agree that quality teachers and school principals are among the most important requirements for success, especially when success is defined by the ability of the school to raise the achievement of its students. The central question for this study is how the quality of the teachers and principals in high-poverty schools in North Carolina compares to that in the schools serving more advantaged students.

Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2006). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. NCL Rev., 85, 1345.

The Feasibility of Collecting School-Level Finance Data: An Evaluation of Data from the School-Level Finance Survey (SLFS) School Year 2014–15

This research and development report field-tested a new model for collection of finance data at the school level—the School- Level Finance Survey (SLFS). The pilot SLFS, collected for fiscal year (FY) 14 (school year 2013–14) and FY 15 (school year 2014–15), was designed to evaluate whether the survey is a viable, efficient, and cost-effective method to gather comparable school-level finance data. 

Cornman, S.Q., Reynolds, D., Zhou, L., Ampadu, O., D’Antonio, L., Gromos, D., Howell, M., and Wheeler, S. (2019). The Feasibility of Collecting School-Level Finance Data: An Evaluation of Data From the School- Level Finance Survey (SLFS) School Year 2014–15 (NCES 2019-305). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. 

How Much More Does a Disadvantaged Student Cost?

This paper provides a guide to statistically based methods for estimating the extra costs of educating disadvantaged students, shows how these methods are related, and compares state aid programs that account for these costs in different ways. It shows that large, urban school districts with a high concentration of disadvantaged students would receive far more aid (and rich suburban districts would receive far less aid) if statistically based pupil weights were used instead of the ad hoc weights in existing state aid programs.

Duncombe, W., & Yinger, J. (2005). How much more does a disadvantaged student cost?. Economics of Education Review, 24(5), 513-532.

Why federal spending on disadvantaged students (Title I) doesn’t work

The largest Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) expenditure by far is for its Title I program. This report try to follow the money to see whether Title I funds are spent effectively and whether or not ESEA achieves its objectives. This report suggest focusing effective interventions on the neediest students may provide a way forward that is consistent with fiscal realities.

 

Dynarski, M., kainz, K. (2015). Why federal spending on disadvantaged students (Title I) doesn’t work. Brookings Institutions. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-federal-spending-on-disadvantaged-students-title-i-doesnt-work/

 

Principal Pipeline: A Feasible, Affordable, and Effective Way for Districts to Improve Schools.

The Rand Corporation just released its report evaluating the impact of the Principal Pipeline Initiative (PPI),a project supported by the Wallace Foundation to create and implement a strategic process for school leadership talent management. This report documents what the PPI districts were able to accomplish, describing the implementation of the PPI and its effects on student achievement, other school outcomes, and principal retention. 

Gates, Susan M., Matthew D. Baird, Benjamin K. Master, and Emilio R. Chavez-Herrerias, Principal Pipelines: A Feasible, Affordable, and Effective Way for Districts to Improve Schools, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2666-WF, 2019. 

Incentives in organizations

The author summarizes four new strands in agency theory that help him think about incentives in real organizations. The author concludes by suggesting two avenues for further progress in agency theory: better integration with organizational economics, and cross-pollination with other fields that study organizations. 

Gibbons, R. (1998). Incentives in organizations. Journal of economic perspectives12(4), 115-132.

Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our Schools

This report examines the widespread and unjust district budgeting practices and offers Congress a straightforward legislative path: Fix the so-called comparability provisions of Title I.

Hall, D., & Ushomirsky, N. (2010). Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our Schools. K-12 Policy. Education Trust.

Parallel Lives, Different Outcomes: A Twin Study of Academic Productivity in U.S. School Districts

The goal of this paper was to study twin districts and use the data culled to provide recommendations for how districts can best leverage their school funding investments–in other words, achieve a bigger bang for their educational buck. The findings were: When it comes to education, spending does not always equal results. There are significant funding inequities between demographically similar districts. Districts have limited control over their own expenditures.

Hanna R., Morris B. (2014). Parallel Lives, Different Outcomes: A Twin Study of Academic Productivity in U.S. School Districts. Washington: Center for American Progress.

IPEDS presents NCES postsecondary survey.

Through several postsecondary surveys, NCES collects information about where and how the aid is distributed and whether it had an impact on student outcomes. This brochure describes the NCES postsecondary survey. 

IPEDS presents NCES postsecondary survey. (2018). National Center for Education Statistic, 2017136. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017136.pdf

How much education funding should go directly to classrooms?

This article examines the 65% Solution, a reform proposal for school financing.

Jonsson, P. (2006). Christian Science Monitor

Assessing the cost of instructional coaching.

this study presents and apply a framework for measuring the cost of coaching programs to 3 schools. Then the study discusses strategies for reducing the average cost of instructional coaching. 

Knight, D. S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 52-80.

Why incentive plans cannot work

This paper discusses about reasons for the failure of incentive programs. Studies show the ineffectivity of incentive plans to boost productivity. 

 

Kohn, A. (1993). Why incentive plans cannot work. Harvard Business Review, 71(5), 54–63. Retrieved from http://study.huizhou.gov.cn/lessionnew/bdmpa/MPA-A15/contents/case/cas_008_01.pdf 

How Approaches to Stuck-in-the-Mud School Funding Hinder Improvement

This report highlights the lack of innovation, flexibility, and new ideas in state financing of public education. It concludes: many state and education leaders continue to support and employ methods that prevent schools and principals from undertaking the efforts that they think are most needed to improve education in their classrooms. The use of state categorical–funds to school districts with strict limits on their use–exemplifies this lack of innovation in school finance.

Lazarin, M. (2013). How Approaches to Stuck-in-the-Mud School Funding Hinder Improvement. Center for American Progress.

Performance pay and productivity

Much of the theory in personnel economics relates to effects of monetary incentives on output, but the theory was untested because appropriate data were unavailable. A new data set for the Safelite Glass Corporation tests the predictions that average productivity will rise, the firm will attract a more able workforce, and variance in output across individuals at the firm will rise when it shifts to piece rates.

Lazear, E. P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review90(5), 1346-1361.

Cost-effectiveness and educational policy.

This article provides a summary of measuring the fiscal impact of practices in education
educational policy.

Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2002). Cost-effectiveness and educational policy. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

The Behavioralist Goes to School: Leveraging Behavioral Economics to Improve Educational Performance

This paper explore the power of behavioral economics to influence the level of effort exerted by students in a low stakes testing environment. This paper find a substantial impact on test scores from incentives when the rewards are delivered immediately. There is suggestive evidence that rewards framed as losses outperform those framed as gains. 

Levitt, S. D., List, J. A., Neckermann, S., & Sadoff, S. (2016). The behavioralist goes to school: Leveraging behavioral economics to improve educational performance. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy8(4), 183-219.

Reversing the Rising Tide of Inequality: Achieving Educational Equity for Each and Every Child

This report examines the current available state remedies for inequity; examine the Equity and Excellence Commission’s findings regarding the inequities that exist in U.S. educa�tion and its five-part agenda to address them; and conclude with recommendations designed to operationalize that agenda and make equal educational opportunity a reality for each and every child in the United States.

Lewis, T. (2013). Reversing the Rising Tide of Inequality: Achieving Educational Equity for Each and Every Child. The Leadership Conference Education Fund

Getting Down to Facts: Five Years Later

This report commemorates the fifth anniversary of the Getting Down to Facts project, which sought to provide a thorough and reliable analysis of the critical challenges facing California’s education system as the necessary basis for an informed discussion of policy changes aimed at improving the performance of California schools and students. The report focuses on the four key issues that received emphasis in the Getting Down to Facts studies: governance, finance, personnel, and data systems.

Loeb, S. (2013). Getting Down to Facts: Five Years Later Policy Analysis for California Education

Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education

This report examines how local school district funding is allocated in a way that hurts poor and minority students. The four papers include: (1) the history of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its comparability provision, (2) the unexpected consequences of the comparability provision in practice, (3) the ways in which Title I might be fixed, and (4) the ways in which those fixes might be implemented with positive results.

McClure, P., Wiener, R., Roza, M., Hill, M. (2008) Ensuring Equal Opportunity in Public Education The Broad Fouundation

Secret Recipes Revealed- Demystifying the Title I, Part A Funding Formulas

This report analyzes funding inequities in the context of four formulas that determine the amounts and destinations of grants under Title I, Part A. States with small populations and low concentrations of poor children receive radically larger grants on a per-poor-child basis than states with larger populations, including those with substantial rural poverty. Children living in concentrated poverty are poorly served by a labyrinthine funding scheme comprising four separate formulas. This paper exposes the technical considerations that should inform a smarter, fairer approach to funding grants under Title I, Part A

Miller, R. (2009). Secret recipes revealed: Demystifying the Title I, Part A funding formulas. Washington: Center for American Progress.

Funding Gaps 2015: Too Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the Most

This analysis provides an overview of funding equity by race and poverty concentration across states the funding disparities across the nation and within states. It finds that nationally, the highest poverty districts receive about $1,200 less per student than the lowest poverty districts. The differences are even larger–roughly $2,000 per student–among districts serving the most and the fewest students of color.

Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams. (2015). Funding Gaps 2015: Too Many States Still Spend Less on Educating Students Who Need the Most. The Education Trust.

Will anyone even qualify for the much-debated federal charter school program grant?

Good news coming from the Ohio Department of Education that the long-awaited Charter School program (CSP) grant funds will be soon available. However, the bad news is based on the announced criteria, hardly anyone will qualify for the money. 

O'Leary, J. D. (2017). Will anyone even qualify for the much-debated federal charter school program grant?. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/will-anyone-even-qualify-much-debated-federal-charter-school-program-grant

Financing the Education of High-Need Students

This report focuses on three specific challenges that are often encountered when districts–especially small ones–grapple with the costs of serving their highest-need special-education students.

Richmond, M., Fairchild, D. (2013). Financing the Education of High-Need Students Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Comparable but Unequal- School Funding Disparities

This report analyzes the disparity in funding and resources in K-12 education for children of color and low-income families. It found that millions of students–largely low-income students and students of color–continue to attend segregated and economically isolated schools. State and district school finance systems perpetuate and compound these inequities by providing less money to students with the greatest need.

Robert Hanna, Max Marchitello, Catherine Brown (2015). Comparable but Unequal- School Funding Disparities. Center for American Progress.

California School District Revenue and Student Poverty: Moving Toward a Weighted Pupil Funding Formula

Governor Brown has proposed a new funding system–known as a weighted pupil formula–that would direct more revenue to California school districts serving many economically disadvantaged students. This report examines the relationship between funding and student disadvantage and addresses questions about converting the current school finance system to a weighted pupil formula.

Rose, H., & Weston, M. (2013). California School District Revenue and Student Poverty Moving Toward a Weighted Pupil Funding Formula.

Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending on Students of Color

This paper examines the issue of education equity by analyzing per-pupil state and local education spending. Using U.S. Department of Education school-level expenditure data that includes real teacher salaries, the paper concludes: (1) Students of color are being shortchanged across the country when compared to their white peers. (2) The traditional explanation–that variation in schools’ per-pupil spending stems almost entirely from different property-tax bases between school districts–is inaccurate as approximately 40 percent of variation in per-pupil spending occurs within school districts. (3) Changing a particular provision of federal education law–closing the so-called comparability loophole–would result in districts making more equitable expenditures on students of color.

Spatig-Amerikaner, A. (2012). Unequal Education: Federal Loophole Enables Lower Spending on Students of Color. Center for American Progress.

How does class size reduction measure up to other common educational interventions in a cost-benefit analysis?

This analysis examined the cost effectiveness of research from Stuart Yeh on common sturctural interventions in education. Additionally, The Wing Institute analyzes class-size reduction using Yeh's methods.

States, J. (2009). How does class size reduction measure up to other common educational interventions in a cost-benefit analysis? Retrieved from how-does-class-size.

A comprehensive model for estimating the impact of teacher turnover.

The purpose of this study was to develop a model that may be used to estimate the financial costs of teacher turnover in urban school districts. 

Synar, E., & Maiden, J. (2012). A comprehensive model for estimating the financial impact of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 130-144.

Fund the Child: Tackling Inequity & Antiquity in School Finance

This report analyzes the inequities of the current school finance models and proposes adoption of a model called Weighted Student Funding. It is a system of school funding based on five principles: (1) Funding should follow the child, on a per-student basis, to the public school that he/she attends; (2) Per-student funding should vary according to the child's need and other relevant circumstances; (3) It should arrive at the school as real dollars (4) These principles for allocating money to schools should apply to all levels; and (5) Funding systems should be simplified and made transparent.

Thomas, B. (2009). Fordham Institute. 2006. Fund the child: Tackling inequity and antiquity in school finance.

Improving Value Measurement in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The study design was a declarative exposition of potential fallacies in the theoretical underpinnings of Cost-Effective Analysis (CFA).

Ubel, P. A., Nord, E., Gold, M., Menzel, P., Prades, J. L. P., & Richardson, J. (2000). Improving value measurement in cost-effectiveness analysis. Medical Care38(9), 892-901.

Better Uses for Federal Aid to Low-Income Students Studied in New Report

This report highlight suggestions from Nora Gordon report  "Increasing Targeting, Flexibility, and Transparency in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to Help Disadvantaged Students.". The paper argues that effective local decisions about spending Title I funds have the biggest "bang for the buck", but that Washington and the states can do better to help locals make better decisions without running afoul of the grants program's requirements. 

Ujifusa, A. (2016). Better Uses for Federal Aid to Low-Income Students Studied in New Report. Education Week. Retrieved from https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2016/03/title_i_changes_to_help_low_income_students.html

Are we making the differences that matter in education.

This paper argues that ineffective practices in schools carry a high price for consumers and suggests that school systems consider the measurable yield in terms of gains in student achievement for their schooling effort.

VanDerHeyden, A. (2013). Are we making the differences that matter in education. In R. Detrich, R. Keyworth, & J. States (Eds.),Advances in evidence-based education: Vol 3(pp. 119–138). Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. Retrieved from http://www.winginstitute.org/uploads/docs/Vol3Ch4.pdf

1 in 5 Public School Students in the Class of 2016 Passed an AP Exam

The number of students taking Advanced Placement (AP) tests has grown to more than 2.5 million students annually. Overall test scores have remained relatively constant despite a 60% increase in the number of students taking AP exams since 2006. In school year 2015–16, 20% of students taking an AP test passed and were eligible for college credit. The College Board also reports a continuing trend in the significant increase in the number of low-income students participating in the program. Unfortunately, this trend may be negatively impacted by changes in funding. The federal grant program subsidizing AP tests for low-income students has been replaced by block grants in the Every Student Succeeds Act. These funds may still be applied to subsidize low-income populations but are not mandated for this purpose as in the past.

Zubrzycki, J. (2017). 1 in 5 Public School Students in the Class of 2016 Passed an AP Exam. Education Week.

 

Return on Educational Investment: 2014 A District-by-District Evaluation of U.S. Educational Productivity
In 2011, the Center of American Progress released the first-ever attempt to evaluate the productivity of almost every major school district in the country. That project developed a set of relatively simple productivity metrics in order to measure the achievement that a school district produces relative to its spending, while controlling for factors outside a district’s control, such the cost of living and students living in poverty. This report uses these same metrics to once again examine the productivity of the nation’s school districts.
Boser, U. (2014). Return on Educational Investment: 2014. Center for American Progress. http://www. americanprogress. org.
Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2009-10.
This First Look report presents state-level data on revenues by source and expenditures by function for public elementary and secondary education for school year 2009-10. Part of the Common Core of Data (CCD), this report presents data submitted annually to NCES by state education agencies in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Cornman, S., Young, J., Herrell, K. (2012). Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 2009-10. NCES 2013-305. National Center for Education Statistics.
End Games: The Challenge of Sustainability
This study investigates how funders are viewing sustainability and what foundations can do to ensure pilot projects survive.
Culter, I. (2002). End games: The challenge of sustainability.
Federal School Finance Reform- Moving Toward Title I Funding Following the Child?
This brief describes the types of grants the federal government distributes under Title I, explains how those grants are dispersed to local education agencies (LEAs) and schools, and outlines the safeguards that were introduced to protect against misuse of Title I funds. A brief review follows of the shortcomings of Title I, leading to recommendations on how to make Title I more effective. Finally, this brief provides an overview of current reform proposals and draws some conclusions about which reforms offer the best chance for successful use of Title I funds.
Furtick, K., & Snell, L. (2014). Federal School Finance Reform- Moving Toward Title I Funding Following the Child? The Reason Foundation
Comparability of State and Local Expenditures Among Schools Within Districts: A Report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures
This report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures presents findings on how state and local education expenditures at the school level vary within school districts.
Heuer, R., & Stullich, S. (2011). Comparability of State and Local Expenditures among Schools within Districts: A Report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.
The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms
This study examined the effect of these school-finance-reform-induced changes in school spending on long-run adult outcomes. Event-study and instrumental variable models reveal that a 10 percent increase in per-pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school leads to 0.27 more completed years of education, 7.25 percent higher wages, and a 3.67 percentage-point reduction in the annual incidence of adult poverty; effects are much more pronounced for children from low-income families. Exogenous spending increases were associated with sizable improvements in measured school quality, including reductions in student-to-teacher ratios, increases in teacher salaries, and longer school years.
Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2015). The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms (No. w20847). National Bureau of Economic Research.
For School Equality, Try Mobility
This is an Op Ed piece from the New York times discussing the issue of school financing reform.
Paige, R. (2006). New York Times
The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues
This report provides background information on the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), including historical trends and participant characteristics. It also addresses steps being taken to meet challenges facing administrators of the program, including tradeoffs between nutritional quality of foods served, costs, and participation, as well as between program access and program integrity.
Ralston, K., Newman, C., Clauson, A., Guthrie, J., & Buzby, J. (2008). The National School Lunch Program: Background, Trends, and Issues. Economic Research Report Number 61. US Department of Agriculture.
The cost-effectiveness of raising teacher quality.
This study examines the econometric impact of educational practices on student achievement.
Yeh, S. S. (2009). The cost-effectiveness of raising teacher quality. Educational Research Review, 4(3), 220-232.
Back to Top