Thirty-Seven and Counting: How Has AEFP Evolved from Its Origins?

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

In the spring of 2008 the authors surveyed members of the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) to gain insight into their views on education policy issues. The results summarize opinions of this broad group of education researchers and practitioners, providing AEFA members and education leaders with access to views that may be helpful as they consider policies to analyze or pursue. This article reports the results in six areas of current policy interest. How should education aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing? Does school finance reform work? What has accountability wrought? Can school policies close the black-white achievement gap? And how should teachers be compensated? Our findings identify areas of substantial agreement as well as areas where there is disagreement. For example, there is considerable agreement that state and federal governments should provide additional funding for disadvantaged students but disagreement on how to measure school finance adequacy.

Kieran.killeen@uvm.edu As research on education policy has evolved, the most cutting edge research has become less and less accessible to policy makers. Inaccessibility stems from many causes, including the proliferation of policy topics, the diversity of disciplinary interests in education policy, and the existence of technical or methodological hurdles. Academic journals, however, rarely consider accessibility when deciding which manuscripts to publish, but the accessibility of the research may play a very important role in determining whether it actually affects policy. This journal (EFP) is relatively unusual in that it includes among its objectives “[t]o aid in the deliberations” of “[o]ngoing public policy developments affecting educational institutions and systems” and to promote “understanding of the means by which global resources can be justly and productively engaged to enhance human learning at all levels.” In our role as editors of EFP, we consider the accessibility of research articles when deciding what to publish. Nevertheless, there remains a difficult balancing act between showing the technical merits of new research and making sure that research is accessible. Given this, many of the research articles published in EFP are still likely to be difficult for policy makers to understand. With this in mind, at the founding of the journal an effort was made to make policy briefs a critical component of EFP’s regular content. The intent was for these briefs to provide an explicit avenue through which the lessons from current research are distilled for policy makers. As such, policy briefs were

The past decade has seen a steady flow of important and innovative papers documenting the short- and long-term effects of finance reforms and the heterogeneity of the effects of reforms, exemplified by papers like Jackson, Johnson, & Persico (2016), Lafortune, Rothstein, & Schanzenbach (2018), Hyman (2017), and Candelaria and Shores (2019). Those papers have reinvigorated research on the effects of finance reforms, while raising important questions about how to best design a finance system and generate necessary revenues. The papers mentioned above, along with other papers too numerous to mention, have taken advantage of better data and better methods to address long-standing questions and generate provocative new answers. Since the landscape has changed quickly, policy makers and prospective researchers require a summary of the current state of the research on the effects of school finance reforms. Answers are also needed to such questions as: To what extent are lessons from the Great Recession applicable to the Covid-19 induced crisis. For example, how will states allocate cuts in grants and will those cuts undo state progress in equalizing educational access? Are there strategies for allocating resources that best preserve student learning? How do financing systems need to be modified to accommodate greater use of online education? How should school finance systems be designed to provide equal access (or, at a minimum, adequate access) to students with special needs? Why is there significant heterogeneity in the results of different finance reforms? What have been the effects of recent state efforts to reduce the role of the property tax in financing K-12 education? How should finance systems be designed to more effectively close persistent achievement gaps? How, if at all, should states integrate the financing of preschool education with the financing of elementary and secondary education? To help prepare the next generation of researchers and policy makers in the realm of school finance, this volume includes papers that summarize the current state of research on the questions above, as well as other pressing questions in education finance and policy. The book aims to bridge a space between comprehensive textbooks and journal articles in the field of education finance and policy. There are two main target audiences. The book is meant to serve professionals like school district administrators and education policy practitioners that desire a contemporary update to their previous study of education finance and policy issues. These audiences often have limited access to peer reviewed journals and knowledge of pertinent government and related policy reports in the field. The book is also meant to serve students and faculty from programs in public administration, public policy, community development and applied economics, education administration, educational leadership and policy studies that are studying content related to education policy, the economics of education, state and local public finance, and taxation. Some upper-level undergraduate students may also benefit from this resource.

CALL IT the bill people loved to hate. Some people, that is, like state legislators, governors, school administrators, conservative groups, and the National Education Association. This odd bunch shares a common dislike of the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). On the other hand, much less powerful interest groups, primarily advocates for poor children, found themselves on the winning side. In addition, the American Federation of Teachers swallowed its objection to the portion of the statute that demotes paraprofessionals in classrooms and went for the bill's emphasis on higher standards and testing. The most important power behind the revised ESEA was a Bush White House, which remains convinced that the miracle can be a revelation for the rest of the country. And the Administration was joined by Democratic leaders disgusted with the opposition of interest groups to accountability measures in public education. So we have an ESEA that accomplishes what a Democratic White House could never have done: create a much larger federal presence in education policy and funding and set the foundation for a national testing system. However, the legislation comes wrapped in several layers of exaggeration. All students are to be proficient in reading and math by 2013 - a statement that calls to mind the braggadocio of the first Education Summit's declaration in 1989 that U.S. students would be first in the world in math and science by 2000. The new ESEA promise of alternatives for students attending consistently failing schools rings hollow as well. The new ESEA will improve the education of students, its shapers declared, because of the mandate to test all students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 - the Texas model. In Texas, success is based primarily on student scores on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), and, as scores have risen, so have the plaudits for the public education system. There are serious flaws with the TAAS approach, however. A new version is in the works, but some comparisons of TAAS items with those in other assessments, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, have indicated that TAAS is a low-level test. For example, a study of middle-grade students in one urban district - declared a recognized district because it met all the objectives of the state's Academic Excellence Indicator System - found that one-third of the eighth- graders were below basic in reading skills and 44% were below basic in math skills when tested on NAEP items. Because the students were weak on higher-order skills, the researchers concluded (as have others as well) that Texas teachers were spending an inordinate amount of time on low-level skills and test preparation. States with much better-designed assessment systems have chosen other strategies, such as sampling student performance (Maryland) or testing in all core subjects but at different grade levels (Kentucky). Moreover, states with low-stakes tests tend to do better on NAEP assessments. Yet the new legislation requires all states to spend their funds and energy conforming to one set way of using assessments. Administration officials praise the reauthorization as a breakthrough in education policy. Actually, the 1994 reauthorization, which meshed ESEA with Goals 2000 and with the standards of the School-to-Work Act (as well as creating an Occupational Skills Standards Board), was a more sweeping change. …

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

An Invitation to Discomfort in Pursuit of Diversity, Inclusion, and Excellence

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)

and Charles O. Ryan (eds.), Prospective Changes in Society by 1980 (New York: Citation Press, 1967), p. 103. 7. Keith Goldhammer, Local Provisions for Education, Edgar L. Morphet and David L. Jesser (eds.), Emerging Designs for Education (Denver: Designing Education for the Future, 1968), p. 78. 8. R. L. Johns, Financing of Education, Edgar Fuller and Jim B. Pearson (eds.), Education in the States: Nationwide Developments Since 1900 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1969), p. 180. 9. A recent summary of experience and status is provided by C. O. Fitzwater, State School System Development: Patterns and Trends (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1968), pp. 731.

ACCORDING to Mike Griffith, who specializes in school finance at the Education Commission of the States (ECS), during the first nine months of this year our national economy began to experience a slowdown in growth. This economic downturn was made far worse by the terrorist attacks of September 11. Many individuals are now asking how the economic situation will affect state spending for K-12 education. Says Griffith, education spending has already been negatively affected, and the only questions are how big the impact will be and how long it will last. Griffith asserts that over the past five years state policy makers were in the enviable position of being able to increase education spending and cut taxes at the same time. Those times appear to be over - at least in the short term. From 1996 to 2001 per-student expenditures for K-12 education increased by more than 30.6% - more than 13.6% above inflation. Such a large increase would have been difficult to maintain even in good economic times, and in fact a slowdown in state budgets in general and in education spending in particular was evident prior to September 11. A report issued by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) last March stated that 19 states either had made cuts in their 2001 budgets or were on the verge of doing so. Of those states making cuts, only one - Alabama - was forced to make actual cuts in education spending. Most states were just lowering the rate of increase in education spending for fiscal year 2002. A New Economic Outlook Griffith believes that the states that felt the economic impact of the terrorist attacks first were those that rely heavily on travel and tourism or on energy production. The drop in tourism since the attacks has had an immediate impact on such states as Florida, Hawaii, and Nevada, he says. Meanwhile, the decrease in oil prices has hit such states as Alaska, Louisiana, and Texas. Although some states may have been hit earlier than others, it appears that all states will eventually feel the impact. The nationwide effect on state budgets can be seen in a survey conducted by Stateline.org - a web-based publication that reports on state policy issues. Stateline surveyed all 50 states and found that 40 had determined to freeze spending or make cuts in their current budgets prior to the attack. While most of the states surveyed had not made adjustments to their budgets since September 11, 15 states said they would need to make further budget cuts as a result of the attacks. What Does the Future Hold? Some states, according to Griffith, will be able to avoid budget cuts in the short term because they were able to put excess funds into their accounts. In a study released in August, the NCSL estimated that by the end of fiscal year 2002 the states would have a combined $19.2 billion in their rainy day accounts. These funds are equivalent to only about 10% of yearly state revenue, so this funding will not be sufficient to carry the states through a protracted economic downturn. A few states have already been forced to make some difficult decisions about education spending. For example, Iowa has been forced to delay its teacher Pay for Performance program, which was seen as a possible model for other states. Some states may be forced to follow North Carolina, which chose to increase its sales and income taxes by $1 billion after September 11, in order to accommodate a previously planned pay raise for teachers. Less than a month after this tax increase, it was announced that state departments in North Carolina would have to reduce their budgets by 4%. If the economy does not turn around soon, state policy makers will be in the unenviable position of being forced to decrease education spending, increase taxes, or both. According to Griffith, it's hard to tell if the party is over or if the band is just taking a break. Either way, no one's going to be dancing any time soon. …

July 01 2007 Tales from the Other Side of Education Finance: Other Districts' Schools, Other Pathways into Teaching, and Other People's Preferences Randall Reback Randall Reback Department of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027-6598, rr2165@columbia.edu Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Scholar Author and Article Information Randall Reback Department of Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027-6598, rr2165@columbia.edu This policy brief is part of a series invited by this journal, in which authors discuss the results and policy implications of dissertations receiving the Jean Flanigan Outstanding Dissertation Award from the American Education Finance Association (AEFA). Online Issn: 1557-3079 Print Issn: 1557-3060 © 2007 American Education Finance Association2007 Education Finance and Policy (2007) 2 (3): 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2007.2.3.301 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Randall Reback; Tales from the Other Side of Education Finance: Other Districts' Schools, Other Pathways into Teaching, and Other People's Preferences. Education Finance and Policy 2007; 2 (3): 301–317. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2007.2.3.301 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsEducation Finance and Policy Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 2007 American Education Finance Association2007 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

“Consumer financial education as a novel edu-regulatory technique” maps out academic literature on sociology of indicators, social studies of finance and legal scholarship on financial literacy education. Borrowing insights and observations from this literature, the chapter introduces two novel, conceptual frameworks that are used throughout the book to examine the financial education project. The concept of “edu-regulation” is developed to analyse and consider a distinct, legal regime designed in the UK to govern consumer behaviour and consumer markets through the use of information, education and advice. The concept of edu-regulation emerged as a result of careful and detailed scrutiny of different financial education programmes rolled out in the UK. It helps to theorise various financial education programmes adopted by the UK’s policy makers and financial regulators with an aim to police and regulate household financial decision-making. The chapter’s key argument is that these edu-regulatory policies and programmes are used to expand consumer access to financial information, financial education and financial advice. Naming this process “the democratisation of financial knowledge”, the chapter introduces another conceptual framework. The democratisation of financial knowledge as a concept is used in the book to theorise ever greater broadening, deepening, and expansion of consumer access to financial knowledge. This conclusion is of particular importance since the key aim of this concept is to shift the academic debate on and analysis of financial literacy education from access to finance to one on access to financial knowledge. This concept provides analytical space to interrogate and question the neutrality, universality and objectivity of financial knowledge. It provides a means to question the ways in which financial knowledge participates in governance of consumer financial markets.It is suggested in this chapter that the project on consumer financial education aims to democratise consumer access to highly restrictive and problematic financial knowledge. Various financial education programmes and policies do not develop and facilitate access to all kinds of financial knowledge. Instead, the financial education project builds access to financial information, financial education and financial advice largely oriented towards consumer activation and integration in financial markets.

Journal of School HealthVolume 52, Issue 6 p. 358-364 State Responsibility for the Control of Asbestos in the Schools Leonard P. Stavisky, Leonard P. Stavisky The author is immediate past Chairman of the Education Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures and a Commissioner on the Education Commission of the States. In New York State, where he chairs the Assembly Education Committee, he sponsored the “School Asbestos Safety Act.” Dr. Stavisky is (Adjunct) Professor of Public Affairs in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.Search for more papers by this author Leonard P. Stavisky, Leonard P. Stavisky The author is immediate past Chairman of the Education Committee of the National Conference of State Legislatures and a Commissioner on the Education Commission of the States. In New York State, where he chairs the Assembly Education Committee, he sponsored the “School Asbestos Safety Act.” Dr. Stavisky is (Adjunct) Professor of Public Affairs in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.Search for more papers by this author First published: August 1982 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1982.tb07135.xCitations: 2 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume52, Issue6August 1982Pages 358-364 RelatedInformation

School finance analysts need to identify the cost of education programs that work and the costs and structures of teacher salary systems that can find and keep high-quality teachers. Next, says Mr. Odden, they must incorporate these cost findings into school finance structures that provide each district and school with an adequate level of fiscal resources. Schools then need to use the resources for those effective programs. SCHOOL FINANCE is changing fundamentally. Long focused on fiscal equity, school finance is shifting toward fiscal adequacy in the context of standards-based education reform. The new school finance encompasses not only inputs but also educational processes and results, including teacher compensation. For the past five years, a large portion of the finance-related research of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) has been organized around the new school finance issues involved in this shift. The first section of this article describes the two primary factors that require a rethinking of school finance. The second section summarizes five sets of research findings related to these new directions in school finance. Two Major Factors The shift in school finance from equity to adequacy is caused by many factors, but two dominate: the goals and demands of standards-based education reform and the focus of current school finance litigation. Standards-based education reform seeks to educate students to high performance standards. The benchmark of the new school finance is whether it provides adequate per-pupil revenues for districts and schools to employ educational strategies that are successful in educating students to those standards. Determining adequate revenue levels entails first identifying the costs of effective programs and strategies and then translating those costs into appropriate school finance structures. Implementing this approach should also produce gains in fiscal equity because in most states it requires a leveling up of low-spending districts. This new focus for school finance was recommended by the recent report of the National Research Council's Committee on Education Finance Equity, Adequacy, and Productivity.1 These shifts in school finance have already changed the core of school finance litigation from equity to adequacy.2 The legal test for adequacy is whether a state's school finance system provides sufficient revenues for the average school to teach the average student to state- determined performance standards and whether sufficient additional revenues are provided to help special-needs students also achieve at those performance levels. The legal problem is not really whether district A has less than district B but whether both districts - indeed all districts in the state - have revenues that are adequate to pay for the programs and strategies they need in order to educate students to high achievement levels. CPRE Finance Research Findings For the past several years, the CPRE agenda for research on education finance has addressed many of the issues raised by standards-based education reform and the legal shift to adequacy. This next section describes key aspects of the new school finance, and the five sections that follow discuss research findings on those aspects: determining the adequate spending level, formula funding of schools, resource reallocation, teacher compensation, and how to tie new approaches to teacher compensation into the funding structure. Shape of the New School Finance Drawing both from the definition of adequacy in school finance litigation3 and from the implications for finance of standards-based education,4 CPRE has been working to identify the shape of the new school finance. Allowing districts to select their own spending levels is no longer sufficient, because all districts and schools must spend at least at an adequate level to meet the new performance standards. …

Faced with the problem of how to measure the magnitude of economic disadvantage in the populations served by schools or districts, researchers addressing school finance topics have invariably turned to the fraction of students eligible for free- or reduced-lunches (FRPL). But the facile dependence on FRPL may be problematic. A large and growing literature in learning sciences and in the field of education itself has pivoted towards studies that explore the relationship between social/emotional health and the learning of children. The growing body of research on social/emotional health and learning (e.g. Gershoff, Aber, Raver, and Lennon, 2007) suggests that more refined measures of wealth, income and hardship more fully account for the effects of economic disadvantage than does FRPL. Historically, research in school finance has not utilized these refined measures but instead has depended on FRPL.The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP), a recent change in how student eligibility for free lunch is determined, may have the unintended, and yet fortuitous, consequence that it will force school finance researchers to use more sophisticated measures of student hardship. The CEP makes it possible for schools serving low-income populations to classify all students as eligible for free- or reduced-price lunch. Koedel and Parsons (2021) argue that, while FRPL might have been a workable measure of student disadvantage prior to CEP, post-CEP the extent of a school’s or a district’s population that is disadvantaged is no longer measured accurately by FRPL. The CEP made accurate FRPL counts less critical for many schools and districts; post-pandemic legislation (Vock, 2023) in a number of states to make school meals free for all students in those states has increased the number of districts for which accurate counts are unimportant. Fazlul, Koedel, and Parsons (2023) go on to argue that, even prior to CEP, FRPL failed to provide an accurate measure of a school or district’s poverty. This new policy environment makes it imperative to explore alternatives to FRPL and the implications for school finance.The book aims to provide a timely collection of new research on a measurement issue that is central to much research on K-12 education finance. The book is meant to serve scholars in education finance and policy who need a refined perspective on the context of schooling. The book is also meant to serve students and faculty from programs in public administration, public policy, community development and applied economics, education administration, educational leadership and policy studies who are studying content related to education policy, the economics of education, state and local public finance, and taxation. Some upper-level undergraduate students may also benefit from this resource.