Fair Partitioning of Public Resources: Redrawing District Boundary to Minimize Spatial Inequality in School Funding

reschovsky@lafollette.wisc.edu The property tax is the mainstay of local K–12 education revenue. Public schools derive over 80 percent of their local own-source revenue from the property tax (Reschovsky 2014). At the same time, nearly half of total property tax dollars collected in the United States is used to finance public elementary and secondary education (U.S. Census Bureau 2013, 2014). This close link between property taxation and school finance is one motivation for this special issue. Another motivation is the state and local fiscal aftermath of the Great Recession. Over the past few years the financing of public elementary and secondary education has become particularly challenging. In real per pupil terms, total revenues devoted to public education fell by 6.2 percent between the 2008–09 and 2011–12 school years.2 Although comprehensive revenue data are not yet available for the most recent years, existing evidence points to a continued decline in financial support for public education. Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Summary of State and Local Tax Revenue indicate that per capita real local government property tax revenues (for school and non-school purposes) declined by 3 percent between fiscal years 2011 and 2013 (Collins and Langley 2014). And a survey conducted by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that in 33 states, real

It has been a busy time for the Association of Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). Over the past few years the association has acquired a new name, a new journal, and many new members. The 2012 annual conference, convened in Boston last March, proved to be the largest conference in the association’s thirty-seven-year history, with 556 members in attendance. The theme, selected by incoming president Deborah Cunningham, was “Education Finance, Policy, and Practice: The Role of Evidence in a Dynamic World,” which underscores the contemporary challenge to the association: how to apply an increasing abundance of information and sophisticated analytical tools to produce the evidence needed to guide decision making by educational policy makers and practitioners. The Boston meeting was notable not only for the number in attendance. The unique qualities and strengths of the association were in clear display: papers of unusual methodological rigor; an interdisciplinary mix of academics from the social sciences, public policy schools, and colleges of education; educational finance professionals, policy analysts, and practitioners, a mix rarely found in the same place; and sessions addressing today’s hot topics as well as issues that have endured over the years. Having said this, all indications are that AEFP is what it has always been: a small, diverse group of people tackling some really big problems. Of particular note was a trend that has been growing for years but has clearly come into full flower: the large

Political constitutions are essential components of political-economic regimes. If one accepts the postulate that society needs to move towards a post-capitalist political-economic system, a key question that immediately follows is whether and in what ways existing political constitutions will need to change.The concept of property-owning democracy has been extensively explored in recent scholarship.1 In a nutshell, property-owning democracy consists of a system combining political democracy with a market economy, but with explicit measures in place to broaden the distribution of capital and property as widely as possible and prevent domination of the economy (and state) by a small elite. Many recent articulations of the idea also call for establishing in effect a right to a meaningful share of property (be it cash, housing, and/or productive capital) for individuals or households. A property-owning democracy is intended to realize effective political equality, fair equality of opportunity, and an economy that lifts the position of the least well off group over time to a much greater degree than do even the best forms of welfare state capitalism. Property-owning democracy shares many of the same features and intellectual sources as the “Pluralist Commonwealth” model articulated by Gar Alperovitz,2 and most if not all of the argumentation below would in my view apply with equal force to the Pluralist Commonwealth. Indeed, the Pluralist Commonwealth model can be viewed as a specific version of property-owning democracy, tailored especially to American conditions.There is good reason to doubt that property-owning democracy (or a Pluralist Commonwealth) can be achieved under the existing Constitution (especially as presently interpreted by the Supreme Court majority). I have in mind here not, primarily, the obvious defects of the U.S. Constitution with respect to political equality—such as the extraordinary overrepresentation of rural, often more conservative states in the U.S. Senate, at the expense of larger, more diverse and urban states—defects which have been catalogued by Robert Dahl and other political scientists.3 These defects in the mechanics of the American system are serious, and in general tend to harm the practical possibility of achieving a politics of property-owning democracy (or other conceptions of social justice), but I leave them aside here. Instead, I focus on the question of what social and economic rights would need to be constitutionally guaranteed if a fully realized property-owning democracy were to be established in the United States.Elsewhere, I have sketched accounts of property-owning democracy, and also promoted an “egalitarian interpretation” of the idea that involves an explicit long-term scheme to distribute productive wealth directly to all adult citizens, with the long-term aim of assuring that practically all households control at least $100,000 in net assets. Clearly, it would not be necessary or wise to hardwire such a scheme in any detail into an actual constitution.4Here I am concerned with property-owning democracy in a more general form: a regime that seeks to secure (in Rawlsian terminology) the fair value of the political liberties, fair equality of opportunity, and either the difference principle or some other reasonable limit on inequality by distributing human and productive capital as widely as feasible. The intended contrast is with regimes in which control of productive capital is dominated by a tiny minority of citizens (i.e. the top 1%, who now control nearly two-fifths of all wealth in the United States), in which human capital (and also, often, effective political agency) is also distributed in a lopsided fashion, and that rely primarily on redistributive taxation to achieve a measure of social justice.5In the American context, realizing property-owning democracy in a stable form will require five constitutional guarantees: 1.A right to an equal public education.2.A right to a minimum income and/or the means for supporting one's self at a minimal level of social acceptability.3.Explicit limitations on corporate political activity and provision of a public system of campaign financing.4.An individual right to a share of society's productive capital and/or wealth.5.A community right to sufficient productive capital to sustain a viable local democratic community. Below, I discuss the justification for each of these constitutional guarantees.Before proceeding, however, it is important to clarify why addressing constitutional issues is a useful exercise. It is not my claim that implementation of all, or indeed any, of these amendments is required to continue to advance important experimentation consistent with a Pluralist Commonwealth vision (such as the Cleveland Model), or to build public support and strong political movements in favor of such a vision. Nor do I claim that these proposed amendments ought to be imposed over the objections of the majority (or a strong minority) of Americans so as to foreclose democracy in the name of justice. Instead, my claim is that if we take either property-owning democracy in general or the Pluralist Commonwealth in particular as models of alternative regimes that are to work on fundamentally different principles than the existing system, then political movements must at some point confront the question of how to permanently alter the architecture of the U.S. political system in ways that would facilitate the full development of an alternative regime (i.e. political-economic system). The five proposed amendments are designed to either remove serious impediments to the realization of a meaningful Pluralist Commonwealth in the U.S. or to enshrine key institutional elements of the alternative regime. It is assumed that adoption of each of these amendments could take place only after a long period of public debate and building understanding of the logic of a Pluralist Commonwealth model, in which a firm democratic majority came to recognize these proposed amendments as desirable and essential. Such democratic majorities, of course, do not exist at present. But concrete constitutional proposals can at least stimulate the public discussion that is needed if such majorities are ever to emerge.Why should a discussion of broadening property distribution begin with a discussion of education? Here I accept the conventional view that “human capital” is itself an extremely important form of property. The skills and abilities that one carries in one's person, including in particular the capacity to continually learn new skills, have lifelong impacts on the ability of individuals to flourish in modern economies. To be sure, in existing capitalist economies there is a tiny class of people who can convert access to large material wealth into a comfortable and lavish (though not necessarily respected) life, without having to actually do anything substantial by their own efforts. But for the vast majority of the population, what one can do is at least as important as what one has in shaping lifetime economic prospects, and this would continue to be true in a property-owning democracy. Large inequalities in human capital—a situation in which some people have had ample opportunity to develop their capacities and skills in many directions, while others have had a minimal, stripped-down education, and in which some young people have access to enormous development resources (i.e. college) and others do not—are a recipe for long-term inequality at least as consequential as differences in assets or incomes.In addition, there are strong reasons of justice to begin with education. Provision of a quality education to all so as to counter-act the advantages of class is a primary requirement of what Rawls termed “justice as fairness.”6 Sociologically, the very existence of distinct social classes and the differences in the care and training imparted to children of different socio-economic backgrounds by their parents makes assuring literally fair life chances impossible. But the public is obliged minimally (a) to devote equal public resources (in quality and quantity) toward the education of all children as a matter of right and (b) to devote additional resources to those known to be severely disadvantaged as a consequence of (for instance) high poverty, the experience of childhood trauma, or the existence of a disability. In short, a just society both shows equal moral concern for all children and makes whatever investments are necessary to assure that the especially disadvantaged have an effective opportunity to develop their own talents and abilities. The sum result of this process is unlikely to eliminate the intergenerational transmission of class status altogether, but properly executed it can play a crucial role in reducing it. It can also play a crucial role in assuring that the bulk of the population develops sufficient education and civic skills to act as effective political agents.The American system of public education falls criminally short of these normative standards. Epoch-making federal cases in the early 1970s (e.g., San Antonio v. Rodriguez) established that: (a) gross disparities in the funding of schools within the same state are not violations of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so long as states have some plausible rationale (such as the desire to maintain “local control” over public schools); and (b) that states are not obliged to end racial segregation in schools within metropolitan areas that results from the clustering of white students in suburban school districts that are separate entities from the urban school districts with minority (specifically, African-American) children (see Milliken v. Bradley; also, Bradley v. Richmond School Board). These cases codified the Court's view that Brown v. Board of Education had not in fact established a national right to an equal education (even within states). As Justice Thurgood Marshall remarked at the time in a bitter dissent, the Supreme Court's decision in the Milliken (Detroit) case consigned generations of children in many metropolitan areas to public schools that are effectively segregated by race and class, and divided up American city-regions into areas that have “good” schools and those that have “bad” schools that middle-class families will refuse to attend.7School inequity in the United States thus has three dimensions. The first is inequality of educational provisions between the different states. The second is inequality of funding between school districts in the same state. In recent years, 44 percent of local school budgets have been funded by locally generated sources—namely, local property taxes. Fourty-seven percent of local budgets are funded by the individual states, and just 9 percent by the federal government. In a well-understood dynamic, this method of funding makes it much easier for richer, more affluent communities with higher property values to generously fund the local schools, at a tax rate that does not deter residents from moving to the community.8 The third and most profound source of inequality, however, are demographic differences in the composition of schools resulting from (a) residential segregation by race and class, and (b) allowing each locality/county to maintain a separate school system.From the standpoint of justice as fairness, this is an unholy mess that has essentially zero hope of being rectified within the current structure of public education. Recent “reform” efforts such as No Child Left Behind have arguably exacerbated many of the problems by promoting the adoption of testing-based teaching regimes, to the detriment of the development of critical thinking and civic skills.9 Many U.S. urban public schools resemble mini-authoritarian regimes in which students who cannot comply with disciplinary rules are sequestered in quasi-prison “correctional schools” or expelled altogether. Seizing on the visible failures of urban public education, neoliberal reformers have energetically promoted charter school and privatization strategies, gaining control of some entire school systems such as New Orleans and Detroit. Other reformers have attempted to develop new models of holistic education that explicitly redress the problems associated with poverty, combining social services and resource centers for parents with traditional educational activities.10 All current U.S. reform efforts take for granted the existence of permanent race and class segregation rooted in residential stratification.There is essentially no hope for realizing property-owning democracy in any substantive sense unless this set of problems is redressed. Hence I propose that the U.S. Constitution be amended so as to provide an explicit federal guarantee of an equal public education. An “equal public education” is to be understood as one that provides equal public resources (qualitatively and quantitatively) to children not defined as “special needs,” and further additional resources to children who have one or more special needs. What are special needs? These can be defined as a disability, a diagnosed learning disorder, suffering from emotional problems related to abuse or other experiences of trauma, and/or simply as growing up in a household of poverty. Schools ought to be given additional resources proportionate with the number of special needs children in attendance. How many additional resources? This is a question that must be settled at the legislative level, but the underlying principle should be to provide sufficient resources to allow all children to achieve a high level of functioning and capability development.Provision of an equal public education must be understood as more than equalizing schooling resources. It also must encompass the inequalities that result from the mere fact of the clustering of affluent students into affluent school zones and poor children into poor school zones. Specifically, a constitutional amendment should overturn the reasoning in the Milliken v. Bradley decision and provide a legal basis for challenging systemic inequalities within metropolitan areas. One promising approach would focus on the fair distribution of high-needs children across all the schools in a given metropolitan area. For instance, in a metropolitan area with an overall poverty rate of 15 percent (currently the national average), all districts might be required to have a student poverty population between 12–18 percent, and all individual schools might be required, wherever feasible, to have a student poverty population between 10–20 percent.11Given the inevitable complexity of any serious proposal to rectify educational inequalities in the United States, a fair question is whether it is really a good idea to embed any particular rectification strategy in the constitution itself. The approach I would favor is having a constitutional amendment specifically affirm (a) a general right to a substantively equal public education guaranteed by the federal government but implemented by the states and localities, understanding the substance of that right to require (b) substantively equal funding of schools within the same state (c) compensation for the costs of educating special needs children and (d) balancing to the extent possible the distribution of high-needs (impoverished) children across school districts and individual schools. This amendment would give each child the right to an education, the right to be educated in a school that is funded at the same level as other schools in one's state (with allowances for the additional costs of educating high-needs children), a right to receive appropriate resources to address any special needs one may have as a public school student, and a right to attend a school with a moderate level of poverty (relative to local norms), if one chooses. This, probably, is enough for a constitutional amendment: strong enough to overturn the existing disparities in metropolitan education in the United States, but without permanently enshrining a one-size-fits-all institutional remedy.A property-owning democracy must seek to provide a guaranteed social minimum, for a variety of reasons. First, some people in our societies, for a variety of legitimate reasons, are unable to support themselves through market activities (paid employment). These include people literally unable to work or to keep a steady job, and also people who can work enough hours to earn a livable income only by shortchanging or violating other responsibilities (such as parenting).Second, many people who are willing and able to work are nonetheless unable to find steady work, and hence must live on the margins of the formal economy. In the United States, this category increasingly includes middle-aged people who have been downsized or laid off and whose skills are considered out-of-date, as well as many young people—including a fair few with college degrees—who are unable to find a steady first job.Third, in the context of affluent, consumerist societies, a minimal level of consumption is not just a matter of meeting permanent human needs; it's also a requisite of participating in the larger society as a social equal. We thus might judge that people should all have decent housing, access to health care, and sufficient food to sustain themselves: this minimum level of consumption is needed if people are to enjoy the full range of capabilities, including the most basic one (the top of Martha Nussbaum's list), a life of normal length.12 A person who lacks this minimum typically lacks the capacity to act as political agent on equal footing with others. Indeed, a person who is destitute and deprived is unlikely to regard themselves or be regarded by more affluent others as a social equal. This is an old point recognized as early as Adam Smith, who spoke of the importance of proper shoes in citizens' self-respect.13 But in the context of consumer society, we might say that equal social and political status requires that all have the ability not only to meet their basic needs, but to participate in consumer society at least in some modest way. A social minimum in consumerist societies probably should be understood as encompassing not just the obvious basic needs but also as providing enough money to permit at least some participation in the goods of consumer society.Fourth, the very existence of poverty is a standing violation of the principle of fair equality of shows that children who time in poverty have long-term life than children who have poverty. It is not reasonable to children growing up in households that are unable to meet the basic needs of all will develop their to their should a social minimum be As and point there are three The first is to provide basic human needs in through public care, public housing, food and public might be in and quality to meet the basic needs of even with a very small market The second possibility is to provide support to allow individuals to these on their The third possibility is to provide guaranteed to all willing to work, with government as of Here we might that there is a strong case for a right to work not just as a for providing a social minimum but also as a requirement of equal social and political the American there are strong reasons for a right to the of a constitutionally guaranteed social First, it the that if to should are it should be possible to that principle without also productive in only of market primarily on a work strategy may a sense of and social those the the work strategy more to the development of (especially for than do the alternative the work strategy has of reducing the social associated with and U.S. have strong support for the idea of government as of cannot be the only for providing the social minimum, provision or allowances will also be The between these alternative can be on To the extent that the aim is to assure that basic needs are the public provision strategy has much to to just of a concern that people might a provision on but the market often does not provide goods in (especially in the case of as households sufficient income to participate in at least a minimal in consumer society is crucial to the of a social not just meeting material needs, but social and the standpoint of a constitutional we might say that such an amendment should (a) a right to the provision of sufficient quality and of and to assure a to be either by public or a and (b) a right to at a with for all willing to work, with for both and with a right to needed support services (such as and child constitutional might of be by other legislative measures intended to of a higher minimum the A guaranteed right to properly would in fact a long towards addressing the of problems associated with long-term poverty This fact to the importance of constitutionally a right to full is an of at the federal level, but in the good of full is off other goods (such the good of A constitutional amendment would access to productive a not a matter of political or U.S. legal as having rights as individual human as are legal of the the state is to their rights and The of a constitutional amendment would be to clarify that are not to be as with respect to rights of public such an under current there is to from on the political in ways both to justice and to the public that such an amendment need not of all political rights For instance, would to public to and to to within should be as the of corporate entities might a reasonable to the but such activities the should be participation in activities or should be of public on public issues is a at a minimum and public from corporate might be obliged to public to to the of such The point of the amendment is not to all such but to doubt the constitutional of corporate political in to secure a process that the public corporate does not the of what Rawls termed the value of the political is also the of inequalities in the effective political between and households. seek to the of individual may to But this approach does not redress the between those who can to give and those who One to this is the proposal of and to give all a of that can be to any This is a system of public that would some of the of the existing American system, by those who can to the and by viable from It also would political equality, and the of money the of the of money now even in would be able to their own of but the of to public would be at is good reason to a of this into the have strong reasons not to campaign rules that political equality and now to the most of property-owning the distribution of version of property-owning democracy on for of large to distribute shares of their widely taxation in general at the same The version of property-owning democracy I and not just to up existing of wealth but to guarantee each household a meaningful share of each of three forms of capital property and shares in productive or are a number of possible for assuring each either a right to capital and/or a right to a from The state for instance, to each a share of the from on public in the each as an resources as well as other goods (such as the and from in this could a of additional income for all the possibility of the public shares of (with in proposals aim to secure public of large in the of but we might more with the of those whose existence and are directly on the such as entities that do with all of government might be required to new to percent of the This would be as a public on of all citizens, and all citizens might be given an share of the on this A related approach is the which requires to new each that are by the over time to control of how a scheme such as my own proposal to (and a to provide an capital to a for all U.S. citizens under and a for citizens between and might be I have how this if in place for would allow all citizens to at least in capital for different distinct by A concern is that a government might such a begin funding it for a few years, then political with the new government or Hence a constitutional guarantee might be important to this which is essentially a to to all American a meaningful of capital through How could this The most method would be a constitutional guarantee that: (a) into citizens' individual capital accounts to a of are to be and (b) money for these are to be taxation that assure that at least percent of the population have a net

Ten Thousand Democracies: Politics and Public Opinion in America's School Districts – By Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer School's in: Federalism and the National Education Agenda – By Paul Manna

1. IntroductionIn an effort to create greater equity among school districts, a number of states have shifted the responsibility for school funding from local school districts to the state. Although many researchers have found that centralizing funding for public schools has been successful in creating greater equity (Murray, Evans, and Schwab 1998; Moser and Rubenstein 2002), other researchers have pointed out that centralizing funding can lead to unintended consequences. For example, Fischel (1989, 1992) suggests that families in wealthier districts, which have a stronger demand for education, are no longer able to match their preference for education under a system of equalized funding. In some cases, this may drive parents to seek private school alternatives (Downes and Schoeman 1998).1 In other cases, families meet their preferences by making private contributions to public schools (Sonstelie and Brunner 1997). Furthermore, Theobald and Picus (1991) argue that centralizing funding forces education, as a state service, to compete with other state services for funds, and as a result, the growth rate of spending per pupil decreases over time.2 These articles illustrate that policies designed to centralize control of public school funding can produce unintended consequences.In this article, we introduce into the literature an additional consequence caused by centralizing control of school funding. We argue that centralized control of public school funding with the objective to equalize operating expenditures (i.e., salaries, supplies, and other ongoing expenses) across school districts while leaving capital acquisitions (i.e., purchases of school buildings and other facilities) under local control results in resource-rich school districts becoming more reliant on debt financing.3 We find empirical support for this theory using data in the state of Michigan during its transition to a centralized school financing system in 1994.In the next section, we present an overview of Michigan's move to a centralized funding policy. In the third section, we present the regression model used to test the theory, followed by the description of the data and the estimated results. The final section of the study summarizes our findings.2. Overview of Michigan's Educational SystemIn 1993, a legislative anomaly lead to an abrupt change in the method of financing public education in Michigan. Prior to 1993, Michigan had one of the most locally controlled school systems in the United States. Over 65% of school operating expenditures came from local revenues, whereas the remaining 35% were derived from state and federal sources (Courant, Gramlich, and Loeb 1995). Property owners argued that local reliance on property taxes created an excessive burden and voiced their complaints to state representatives. Attempts to lower these taxes were defeated annually until Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat senator and candidate for governor, frustrated with the tax debate, proposed an absurdity to eliminate all property taxes without suggesting an alternative funding mechanism (Courant and Loeb 1997). Astonishingly, the legislature passed her bill, leaving the public school system with no means of funding. Seizing an opportunity to create greater equity among school districts, Michigan officials quickly devised a centralized system of financing public school operations, known as Proposal A, that reduces districts' reliance on local property taxes by increasing the state's sales tax. Integrated into Proposal A is a distribution formula that reduces the disparity in operating expenditures across high- and low-spending school districts, in part, by constraining the allocation of operating funds for high-spending districts.However, Proposal A does not affect local control of funding for capital projects (Watkins 2002). Michigan's state operating budget typically provides less than 5% of the total revenue needed to service school debt and no revenue for capital expenditures. …

This dissertation consists of two independent essays on banking, corporate capital structure, and the real economy, with evidence from China and the United States.
\n
\nThe first essay examines how relationship bank health affects a firm’s debt choices. After identifying firms’ own relationship banks, we apply logistic regression on rated firms in the US between 1998 and 2013. We find that, when the leverage of a firm’s relationship bank decreases, the firm will be more likely to issue public bonds. The leverage of the whole banking sector has a similar impact, which is 1.35 times that of a firm’s relationship bank’s leverage. As for contract design changes, average loan size slightly decreased, while average bond size significantly increased; the maturity of both loans and bonds significantly shortened; the cost of loans and bonds rocketed to a very high level during the crisis period. Overall, this essay provides evidence of the supply-side effect of corporate debt structure and shows that bank health and leverage have an effect on firms’ choices between bank loans and public bonds. This essay adds to the literature by putting forward a new credit supply-side effect, to understand how firms’ debt structure varies, a matter which has been much explored with regard to demand-side effect. Apart from that, we use a more general and direct measure to capture bank health and its lending behaviour through the effect of leverage.
\n
\nThe second essay examines the cyclicality of equity and liabilities financing of listed firms in China. First we find that simple correlation does not give us robust cyclicality results. We argue that this is largely due to small observations in calculating simple correlations. Next, we perform panel regressions controlling firm characteristics and year and firm fixed effects. We find that equity financing is pro-cyclical for all firm groups, while liabilities financing is pro-cyclical for only mid-large firm groups. To finance asset increment during economic recovery, small firms rely more on equity financing, while large firms rely more on liabilities financing. Lastly, we examine the cyclicality of corporate leverage using the same framework. We find that only some large firms’ leverages move counter-cyclically with the real economy. The similar cyclicality of equity finance and liabilities finance cancels each other such that the cyclicality of corporate leverage is affected and differs across different firms. Overall, this essay shows that economic conditions affect equity and liabilities financing of Chinese listed firms. Most firms have similar pro-cyclicality of equity and debt financing. Compared with firms in the US, firms in China rely more on equity markets but less on liabilities markets during economic upturn, especially for small firms. This essay adds to the literature by applying standard methodologies to listed firms in China, to make comparisons with US firms. More importantly, this essay shows that the discrepancy in the results of corporate leverage cyclicality in Chinese literature is understandable and is partly due to the similar cyclicality pattern of equity and liabilities finance.

This article estimates scale economies for Arkansas school districts. Large economies of scale exist in teacher salary and supply costs, as well as total costs. The results suggest that districts, especially rural districts, would experience measurable cost savings from consolidation. The authors simulate a hypothetical rural school district consolidation to obtain cost‐saving estimates from consolidation. Simulations indicate that districts could save an average of 34% in average variable costs. At the state level, consolidation of rural districts in Arkansas could annually save $40 million. However, consolidation of school districts may increase various implicit costs to students and local communities. (JEL I22, I28)

Coronavirus disease and local government

Public School Open Enrollment and Housing Capitalization

<p>The United States has exhibited a strong commitment to public education throughout its history. The local control of education long associated with the United States’ federal system, however, has led to extreme inequalities in education finance within states. This reality, held constitutionally permissible by the Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodri- guez, is a product of heavy reliance on local property taxation as a means to fund schools. Although levying property taxes is a permissible state action to promote local control of education, its unaltered use is archaic and ultimately detrimental due to the United States’ growing income gap and corresponding wealth segregation in the housing markets. Because federal and state court litigation has produced an intractable and inequitable split in education policy that remains unsolved by current federal- and state-led initiatives, this Note argues that a conditional congressional grant of funds would serve as a new, more politically feasible solution to this problem. By making federal funding under the next reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act contingent on states’ adoption of new school finance systems, particularly the Guaranteed Tax Base, Congress can encourage states to give all communities an equal opportunity to finance a high-quality education for their students, regardless of the value of their taxable property.</p>

abstract: In Texas, significant disparities in school funding have led to several court cases and revisions to school funding formulas. The current paper finds that the funding that districts in the High Plains Region of the Texas Panhandle receive has a statistically significant relationship with districts’ size and student population characteristics. School districts with larger populations of students of color, economically disadvantaged students, and English Language Learners (ELLs) are likely to receive less funding per student compared to less diverse districts. This disparity in school funding proves especially striking considering many economically and linguistically diverse districts receive additional funds from the state and/or federal government. Specifically, districts receive additional state funding for each ELL student participating in a bilingual or ESL program. Districts with high percentages of low-income students likewise garner additional federal funding through the Title I program. As such, the present study demonstrates that significant inequities in school funding continue to exist in Texas, especially in the Texas Panhandle.

The Congruence of American School Districts with Other Local Government Boundaries: A Google-Earth Exploration

The H-shape design planned for New York City’s new Public School 109, as described by The New York Times, allowed for large courtyards shielded from neighbors’ noise for play and recreation, windows that open onto the courtyards to provide light and air, and thoroughly ventilated wardrobes to dry clothing and maintain circulation. That was a few years ago—in 1901, to be exact. But those long-ago improvements—attention to indoor air quality, ventilation, lighting, and acoustics—now distinguish “high-performance” schools, which are specifically designed to promote better attendance, achievement, and behavior. Throw in energy and water conservation features—which are traditional “green” elements—along with a recycling program, an environmentally preferable purchasing program, nontoxic cleaning products, integrated pest management, a school garden to augment other healthful cafeteria food, and a sustainably developed site, and you have the new ideal for today’s healthy schools and child care centers. But many children attend schools that bear no resemblance to this picture. Numerous studies have demonstrated that schools can be places where kids too often are exposed to toxic chemicals, mold, lead, asbestos, and other harmful agents. Moreover, some schools are located in areas where the outdoor air is so polluted that teachers wouldn’t want to open the windows even if they could. With children spending about one-third of their day at school, healthy school facilities could, if given the support, provide children with the most pollution-free part of their day, experts say.

Financial equity among school districts across the country has been studied for many years. Research has given mixed reviews that increased funding will equate to higher student achievement. As educators and legislators debate the adequacy and equity of funding for all schools across states and the country, having a strong foundation of research in which to base the discussion is crucial. School funding models must be studied to ensure that all students have an opportunity for an equitable and adequate educational experience. The purpose of this study was to take a look at the Iowa school funding model and the relationship within the model that pertains to the instructional support program and student achievement. Information was gathered from the 20062007 school year for student achievement and school finance for all 365 school districts in Iowa. From this information several factors were analyzed based on student achievement, in which test scores for 4 th grade students on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) was used as the measure for student achievement. Several variables were used on the school finance side to gain insight into both property wealth and socioeconomic status (SES) of students within each district. The instructional support program was the primary focus when addressing the participation levels and tax rates surrounding the program. Several statistical models were set up to examine the relationship between student achievement and school funding in Iowa. Findings revealed no statistically significant relationship between the instructional support program and student achievement. In addition to these findings, previous research was reinforced indicating that school districts with a larger population of low SES students tended to have statistically lower student achievement. Last, as school district enrollment increased the

BackgroundConsiderations of equity in funding and conduct of medical research are receiving greater attention. However, perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups on this topic are poorly characterized. Our study aimed to further understand broad stakeholder perspectives and priorities regarding inequities in medical research and funding, including implications for international collaborations with low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsParticipants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology embedded in an interpretive grounded theory framework. This approach involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with researchers, funders, patients, and members of the public. Participants were asked to discuss their perspectives on the current state of equity in medical research and funding. Collected data were analyzed using constant comparison, open-coding, and theme identification to generate a substantive theory.ResultsWe conducted 41 interviews involving 11 researchers, 10 funders, 10 patients, and 10 members of the public. Participants perceived several inequities within research participation, funding opportunities, topic prioritization, and lack of international collaborations inclusive of LMICs. Potential strategies to address these inequities were also identified. Through participants’ perspectives, we developed a central theory that addressing inequities in medical research and funding can promote collaborative spaces and produce greater research impact for society, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, and geographical residence. While we gained diverse perspectives from four distinct stakeholder groups, our primary limitation was that participants in our study were predominantly from Canada and the United States.ConclusionsParticipants perceived various inequities in the funding and conduct of medical research. Our findings were primarily captured from participants living in Canada and the United States. However, we were able to gain insights of challenges and potential solutions through their diverse perspectives, and we are optimistic that sustaining efforts to mitigate medical research and funding inequities will help accelerate and broaden the societal impact of medical research within and across countries, including in LMICs.