Kevin Carey, The Education Trust
Fall 2004
The Education Trust's Kevin Carey is the author of this 17-pager contending that, despite any number of "equity" and "adequacy" lawsuits and ceaseless increases in education spending, many states still spend less per student in high-poverty districts than in more prosperous communities. These data are from 2001-2 and use state and district revenues only. Various adjustments are involved. EdTrust's bottom line: half the states spend less per pupil in high-poverty districts and 31 states spend less in high-minority districts. On the other hand, the remaining states, for the most part, spend more in such districts. For example, while Illinois and New York spend less, Massachusetts, and New Jersey spend more in poor/minority districts. EdTrust goes on to say that it actually costs 40 percent more to educate a poor kid (basing that figure on a formula found in an obscure section of NCLB) and that, when state funding is calculated accordingly, 36 states under-fund their high poverty, high minority districts. As for recent changes, according to Carey's calculations, 27 states "shrunk their gaps" between 1997 and 2002 while gaps widened in 22. Not surprisingly, he urges states to take various steps to eradicate those gaps and provide adequate resources to schools with needy kids. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I note that a lot of high-poverty places that are also high spending (e.g. the District of Columbia, Newark) are providing kids with a miserable education. Spending is not irrelevant, but how the money is spent matters more. You can find the report online here.
