A recent study from the Education Trust called Funding Gaps 2015 illuminates the per-student funding disparities between affluent and poor districts. Findings show that, on average, more state and local tax dollars find their way to wealthier districts. For many, this overall trend is hardly surprising, but perhaps more interesting is where the trend is actually being reversed.
Authors Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams examined the Census Bureau’s finance data, specifically focusing on each state’s state and local funding (excluding federal dollars). Nationally, the report concluded that districts with the highest poverty receive about 10 percent less in state and local funding (or about $1,200 less per student) than the wealthiest districts. Seventeen states, however, defied the national trend: Their highest-poverty districts receive at least 5 percent more than the lowest-poverty districts. According to the Education Trust’s analysis, Ohio was the national leader, boasting 22 percent more funding for its highest-poverty districts.
But when the authors accounted for the estimated 40 percent more funding needed to educate students in the highest-poverty districts—an estimate pulled from the Title I formula—the gap widens. When this is accounted for, the highest-poverty districts receive about $2,200 (or 18 percent) less per student than low-poverty districts; only four states, including Ohio, provide at least 5 percent more funding to the highest-poverty districts.
The report also dissects the source of revenue, whether state or local. This distinction is important to remember, since local funding is primarily derived from property taxes, and that tax base can vary widely from district to district. (For instance, a 1 percent property tax will yield different amounts of revenue depending on the value of a district’s taxable property.) But conceived well, state funding policies can be an equalizer by appropriating more state dollars toward districts that need it most. Some states, as the report notes, direct more aid to high-poverty districts.
That being said, some states are providing substantially more funding to their highest-poverty districts than others. For example, New Jersey provides 431 percent more state funding to its highest-poverty schools. Nine states in all, including Ohio, provide at least 100 percent more in state funding to the highest-poverty districts. Conversely, five states—Montana, North Dakota, Utah, South Carolina, and New Mexico—provide relatively equal amounts of state funding.
Of course, funding can be sliced and analyzed many different ways. What’s most important is that funds, no matter their source, get to the students who need it the most. Many states are getting closer by driving more state aid to high-need districts, but additional improvements to funding systems must still be made. Equitable funding does not guarantee equitable results, but it is one concrete way to begin leveling the playing field.
SOURCE: Natasha Ushomirsky and David Williams, “Funding Gaps 2015: Too many states still spend less on educating students who need the most,” The Education Trust (March 2015)
