School Funding: Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share

Urban Institute looks at school funding differences across income levels and finds education funding is largely progressive:

“…Specifically, for each state, we calculate a weighted average of each district’s per-student funding, where the weights are the number of poor kids in each district. We then calculate the same figure weighted by the number of nonpoor kids. Our progressivity measure for each state is the difference between the average funding for poor and nonpoor kids.For example, an estimate of $100 would imply that, on average, poor students attend districts that receive $100 more in per-student funding that the districts attended by nonpoor students. Of course, both poor and nonpoor students are enrolled in every district—our measure estimates whether poor students tend to be enrolled in districts with higher (or lower) funding levels than nonpoor students…”

Matthew Chingos and Kristin Blagg, “Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share Of School Funding?” Urban Institute, May 2017, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/90586/school_funding_brief_1.pdf

Data from (attached):

Matthew Chingos and Kristin Blagg, “School Funding: Do Poor Kids Get Their Fair Share,” Urban Institute, May 2017, https://apps.urban.org/features/school-funding-do-poor-kids-get-fair-share/

Chart via

Results:

“…. We find that poor students in most states attend school districts that are about as well funded as the districts nonpoor students attend in their state. This is good news for those concerned about regressive funding, but troubling news for those who advocate for additional funding for schools serving low-income students. With a few notable exceptions, such as New Jersey and Ohio, districts serving poor students do not receive significantly more resources than districts that serve nonpoor students. Many states have adopted funding systems aimed at providing more resources to schools serving disadvantaged students. Our analysis indicates that funding progressivity has not changed much since 1995, perhaps because local funding has responded in ways that tend to preserve the relative funding of more versus less economically advantaged districts. The ways in which state and local funding interact is an important subject for future research. Regardless of their overall effect on progressivity in the medium to long run, the funding reforms of the 1990s and 2000s appear to have benefited disadvantaged students…But policy design clearly matters, as shown by the continued general lack of progressivity in many states documented here and by previous research on state funding policies….For example, a 1994 Michigan funding reform disproportionately benefited more advantaged students, likely because districts directed new dollars to schools serving lesspoor student populations….”