New peer-reviewed article concludes that solution lies with states, not districts

Contact: Bruce Baker; bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu; (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232

TEMPE, Ariz. and BOULDER, Colo. (February 18, 2009) -- The past several years have seen insistent calls for a system of portable school funding in which money would follow students directly to their schools, largely bypassing school districts. The policy goes by the name "weighted student funding" because advocates argue it can help provide more funding to the neediest students. But a new peer-reviewed article from an expert in school finance finds that the reform is not the only, or even necessarily a preferable, way to provide funding within districts more predictably and equitably.

The article also concludes that states must continue to concern themselves with resolving disparities in funding between districts and avoid the temptation to push blame for remaining inequities onto individual districts. This is especially true of large urban districts serving high-need populations.

The article, published in Education Policy Analysis Archives, is written by Professor Bruce Baker of Rutgers University. He evaluated the patterns of resource distribution within large city school districts in Ohio and Texas, using multi-year data sets. Each state includes one widely praised "weighted student funding" district -- Houston in Texas and Cincinnati in Ohio.

The study used statistical modeling methods to determine the extent to which school-level resources within large urban districts were distributed according to important student-need factors, such at-risk populations and special education populations. In theory, a district with a weighted-student funding would more equitably distribute those resources.

But the study found that these widely reported success stories for weighted student funding (Houston and Cincinnati) fund their schools in a way that is no more strongly associated with student need than other large urban districts in the same states. That is, the funding within these districts is not more equitable.

Perhaps most importantly, the study found ongoing and persistent disparities in funding at the school district level. That is, the problem appears to lie at the feet of states, which do not consistently provide urban core districts with sufficient resources. Baker found that funding differences between urban core districts and neighboring districts may make it difficult for urban core districts to effectively and equitably reallocate resources across their schools.

Find Bruce Baker's article, Within-district resource allocation and the marginal costs of providing equal educational opportunity: Evidence from Texas and Ohio, on the Education Policy Analysis Archives website, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n3/.

CONTACT:
Bruce Baker
(732) 932-7496 ext. 8232
bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu

**********

###

The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder partners with the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University to produce policy briefs and think tank reviews. These centers provide a variety of audiences, both academic and public, with information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policies.

Visit their website at http://educationanalysis.org

###

**********