# data[].attributes.body
I am a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) advocate, as well as a future instructional coach. The slides are intended for a group of educators interested in STEM and improving the educational experience of students.

The topic of this legal and ethical guide is the fiscal educational inequity in the State of Texas. The challenge is not due to ill-intent; however, the equal distribution of funds is a very broad application that does not address the key concern of putting funds where they are needed the most.

I selected this topic because of the ongoing challenge of trying to improve student academic success amongst classrooms of students that largely come from families of low socioeconomic status (SES). The change in focus on STEM to better prepare students for entering present society requires funding to the schools that need it the most, but an 'equal' distribution may not reach the schools that need the most assistance.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S. Constitution (U.S. Const. amend. XIV), Texas Constitution (Tex. Const. art. 7 § 5(c)), Texas Education Code (Tex. Educ. Code § 43.001(b)), Texas Administrative Code (Tex. Admin Code § 33.15(c)(1)), and San Angelo ISD (2019, para. 1.b) all provide laws and mechanisms to provide equity to all students. The distribution of funds is equal in the sense that schools receive funding based on the general student population enrolled at a given institution. The funding received from the State of Texas does not provide for all the needs of a district. Districts must rely on local tax revenue.

In a study performed by Rivera and Lopez (2019), the State of Texas does make a fair attempt to equally distribute funding to schools; however, the funding often falls short of the needs to maintain school facilities. The schools are forced to rely on local tax revenue to support local schools. If an area of a district has low tax revenues due to the low SES of families, the schools struggle to provide adequate facilities to conduct teaching (Rivera & Lopez, 2019, p. 4)--most facilities are considered inappropriate for learning.

Rivera, M.D., & Lopez S.R. (2019). Some pennies are more equal than others: Inequitable school facilities investment in San Antonio, Texas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(0). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4191

# data[].attributes.body
A new form of transparency is now available to parents, lawmakers, and members of the community. Knowing the average amount of funding distributed to different districts is informative; yet, it is nonspecific and does not provide insight into specific areas of funding difficulty. According to Morgan and Presume (2021), a new requirement in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) makes it possible for the public to see how much funding is provided on a per-student basis.

Morgan, I., & Presume, R. (2021, August 26). How is your school district allocating its funds? New data lets parents and advocates see for themselves. The Education Trust. https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/how-is-your-school-district-allocating-its-funds-new-data-lets-parents-and-advocates-see-for-themselves/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For school leaders to administer a high-quality education, having money to secure valuable education resources makes a difference. For students to have a quality education, they need access to strong and diverse teachers, trained school counselors and nurses, challenging instruction and assignments, internet access, safe and clean facilities, etc. But all too often, schools that serve large numbers of Black, Latino, or Native students or students from low-income backgrounds are denied these essential educational opportunities because of a lack of adequate funding. And it's just not how much money a state or school district has, but how well that money is spent.

Thanks to a new requirement in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), state education websites now include important information on per-student school spending, as opposed to districtwide averages (which were the norm but made it hard to spot funding inequities between schools within districts). As school districts spend federal relief funds and target resources to the students who are most underserved - to address unfinished learning and meet the increased social, emotional, and academic needs of students brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic - now's a good time for parents and advocates use this mandate to gain some insight into how schools and districts are allocating their funds.

This new school spending data has the potential to allow policymakers, family and community members, and education advocates to learn how much funding is being spent at every public school in the country. When clearly reported, this data can help answer stakeholders' questions about spending equity and help them advocate for more school funding, protect schools from budget cuts, and push to eliminate funding inequities. School spending data can be a powerful tool for change if reports are complete, accessible, and include additional contextual information about student need in and across schools in a district.

That's where a new Ed Trust report comes in: Going Beyond ESSA Compliance rates states on how well they are reporting school spending data and provides guidance on additional features that would improve reporting. Adopting equity-oriented practices is an important step toward achieving fiscal transparency and ensuring that parents, advocates, and district and school leaders have the information they need to advocate for funding equity.

Our 50-state scan reveals that while most states are complying with the main requirements in ESSA, the majority of states are not reporting data that is complete, accessible, and allows stakeholders to assess whether differences in spending are associated with student need, which limits its usefulness. Compliance with ESSA is a solid starting point. Yet, to ensure that all stakeholders can participate in school funding discussions, ESSA reporting requirements should be considered a baseline to build upon, not the end goal.

So, what should advocates do? The good news is that there are several opportunities for advocates to encourage state leaders to improve reporting:

1. Share the findings of our analysis with state education leaders. We've made it easy to send an email to your chief state school officer from the state-specific summary pages in our report. You can also request a meeting with state leaders to review the findings for your state.

2. Urge leaders in your state department of education to learn more about how state leaders in Illinois planned and implemented their fiscal transparency effort, with meaningful and sustained engagement of districts leaders and advocates.

3. It is well within the purview of state leaders to update their report cards without federal say-so, but advocates might urge state leaders to take a page from Delaware, which passed legislation to help ensure that the state's school spending data would be reported in a way that increased understanding among parents and community members.

4. It is the state's responsibility to publish this data - and state leaders should take that responsibility seriously. But advocates can help in the short term. That's exactly what BEST NC did in North Carolina when they created (with input from the state education agency) a user-friendly dashboard that enables a broad audience of stakeholders to examine school-level spending data and gather insights

State legislators and state staff have made efforts to publish per-student school spending data. But for this data to inform conversations and decisions about school funding and resource equity, state leaders must continuously improve their school spending reports. The influx of additional federal resources and the importance of understanding how American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds were spent and whether they were spent wisely, makes now an ideal time to invest in data reporting improvements and long-term transparency.

1. If your state's dashboard is missing key features included in our analysis, we recommend implementing them in this order - which considers their importance for enabling equity-oriented comparisons and relative ease of implementation:

2. Include the elements required by ESSA: total per-pupil spending, spending by source of funds, and integration into school report card

3. Include elements that help illustrate the relationship between school spending and student need: student demographics data alongside financial data, visual comparisons of school spending by student need, student performance indicators alongside financial data, data visualization

4. Include other elements that help compare spending in one school to spending in other schools: spending by location, average district- and/or state-level spending, array of spending across districts

We urge you and your state leaders to commit to continuous improvement and make data available in a way that is accessible, complete, and coupled with information about student need. Incorporating more of these elements will ensure that this data provides the insight that parents and advocates need to have conversations about school funding and resources with district and school leaders. Illinois proves it can be done. Visit Going Beyond ESSA Compliance to learn more about how your state can make its school-spending data reports more useful and equity-oriented.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Is Your School District Allocating Its Funds? New Data Lets Parents and Advocates See for Themselves. - The Education Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For school leaders to administer a high-quality education, having money to secure valuable education resources makes a difference. For students to have a quality education, they need access to strong and diverse teachers, trained school counselors and nurses, challenging instruction and assignments, internet access, safe and clean facilities, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article by O'Neal Schiess (2021), the distribution of school funding was analyzed to determine factors affecting fund distribution. The article points out that local revenue is an important driving factor that impacts school equity. Two key points were identified in the analysis of funding and its equity (O'Neal Schiess, 2021, para. 3):

Differences in funding depended on a district's access to local revenues.

Districts with higher taxes or higher property values were better prepared to support per student operations.

O'Neal Schiess, J. (2021, March 10). On a path to parity: Equity and impact of Texas school funding policy for school districts and charter schools. Bellwether Education Partners. https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/path-parity-equity-and-impact-texas-school-funding-policy-school-districts-and-charter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In alignment with national trends, Texas charter schools serve an increasing share of public school students, and currently enroll approximately 6 percent of public school students in the state. Also in alignment with national trends, public discourse about the role of charters in Texas's public school system can be contentious - and one primary point of contention has been around differences in public funding for Texas school districts versus charter schools.

With recent changes to school finance policy in Texas, particularly under House Bill 3, 2019 (86th Legislature) effective for the 2019-20 school year, the overall equity of Texas's school funding among districts and between districts and charter schools has improved, particularly funding for school operations. However, differences remain, and while statewide averages across districts and the charter sector show near parity between sectors, comparisons of funding available to local district schools and the charters that serve students within those districts can tell another story entirely.

This analysis aims to do three things:

1. Build or clarify understanding of how Texas's funding formula works, in the context of recent policy changes.

2. Illustrate how the funding formula plays out for districts and for charter schools at the local level, across several representative Texas locations.

3. Highlight key takeaways and emerging policy considerations for how to minimize funding disparities among districts and charters in Texas.

Through case study analyses of eight comparisons of local school district funding with that of a charter school serving students within that district, we found variation in whether the district or the charter receives more revenue per student. After adjusting for differences between student populations and other factors between the comparison school systems that Texas funding policy "weights" more heavily to account for associated increased instructional costs, we found that most differences in operations funding were driven by the districts' access to local revenues, a function of their property tax rates and local property values. Higher taxing districts and/or those with higher property values were able to access more revenue per student for operations than the charter schools. On the flip side, charter schools operating in lower taxing districts and those with lower property values were generally able to generate more revenue per student than their district counterparts.

Facilities funding remains a significant area of inequity between districts and charters, despite the recent introduction of the Charter Facilities Allotment. While there may be good reasons not to fund charter facilities at similar levels or through similar mechanisms as district schools, facilities funding for charters likely does not come close to covering costs, requiring charter schools to use operations funding to secure and maintain instructional space.

Key takeaways from the analysis include:

1. Texas has made strides to ensure equity in operations funding across the state, generally and specifically between school districts and charter schools. In particular, the portion of the formula providing over 90% of school operations funding ("Tier 1") delivers funding very equitably between districts and charters, and also between districts with more or less access to local revenues.

Inequity remains in other parts of the formula, namely the discretionary "Tier 2."

The bottom line is that after adjusting for differences in student needs among districts and among districts and charter schools,inequities in school operations funding in Texas are primarily a function of local district property wealth and taxing decisions.

2. Facilities funding remains a big opportunity to improve equity between school districts and charter schools and warrants further study to clearly understand differences in needs across the two sectors.

The analysis offers three considerations for policymakers seeking to further level the funding playing field between districts and charters, including:

Considering tying charter school funding more closely to the decisions and characteristics of the local school districts in which they operate.

Retaining or revising (but not eliminating) specific recent policy changes that have closed equity gaps across sectors.

Reconsidering charter facilities funding structures to improve fiscal and structural equity.

Download the full deck here or read it in the viewer below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
On a Path to Parity: Equity and Impact of Texas School Funding Policy for School Districts and Charter Schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In alignment with national trends, public discourse about the role of charters in Texas's public school system can be contentious - and one primary point of contention has been around differences in public funding for Texas school districts versus charter schools.

# data[].attributes.body
The article by Martin et. al (2018) talks about the issues of equity that go beyond the law and money. The authors pay particular attention to the fact that money is often focused on too much in litigation, while the quality of facilities, resources, and teachers requires more attention. The authors also mention the case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) where the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the funding scheme used by Texas was not unconstitutional. Key points of the article include, but are not limited to:

School funding at the local, state, and federal level requires reform.

Local property taxes in areas of low SES struggle more than neighboring districts with higher SES.

Inequities in federal funding exist across state lines, making it more challenging for districts with many low SES families to receive the funding they need.

Martin, C., Boser, U., Benner, M., and Baffour, P. (2018, November 13). A quality approach to school funding. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/11/13/460397/quality-approach-school-funding/

San Angelo Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). https://www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1332

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Middle school students use microscopes to conduct a scientific experiment. (Getty/Hero Images)

Introduction and summary

In 1968, a sheet metal worker named Demetrio Rodriguez decided to file a lawsuit against the Edgewood Independent School District, a high-poverty district located just outside of San Antonio, Texas, serving a predominately Mexican American population. Rodriguez, the father of four children enrolled in the Edgewood district, was frustrated that the schools were dramatically underfunded and marred by dilapidated facilities and weak instruction.

As part of his suit, Rodriguez joined 15 other parents who sued the state for an inequitable system of financing public schools. The case was filed under Rodriguez's name because he had been a longtime, leading voice in the community for equal rights. The suit, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, eventually landed in the Supreme Court.

The court's decision, however, did not live up to the dream of equal educational opportunity for which Rodriguez and the other parents had hoped. The court struck down the case, arguing that education was not a guaranteed, fundamental right under the U.S. constitution and that Texas' school finance system did not violate any protected rights.

Dollars must be at the start of every conversation around equity. Funding is a central component to providing a high-quality education and often leads to improved outcomes. A 2016 study found that, between 1990 and 2011, states that reformed school finance policies in order to allocate more funding to high-poverty school districts narrowed the achievement gap by an average of one-fifth.

But allocating equal funding for every student does not guarantee that all students will have a rigorous educational experience. School finance reform must focus on the quality of every school, from the excellence of the instruction to the rigor of the classes.

This idea is at the heart of this report. The authors argue that the efforts to resolve inequities through the courts or with legislation need to move beyond funding. Furthermore, reforms must focus on both funding levels and equal access to resources shown to be fundamental to a quality education. True educational equity will require two central reforms. First, there needs to be additional resources-not the same resources-in order to meet the needs of at-risk students. Second, there should be accountability frameworks to ensure that the key ingredients to student success-access to early childhood programs, effective teachers, and rigorous curriculum-are available to students irrespective of their race, zip code, or economic status.

The authors came to these conclusions after examining the remedies implemented at the state level in response to a court order or as a result of political pressure created by state litigation. Past cases, which have focused on the equity or adequacy of school funding, have increased resources for low-income students but have not consistently ensured that all students have access to a high-quality education. Moreover, in some instances, remedies implemented under these frameworks have led to unintended consequences, including the leveling out of education funding in cases that focus on equity of dollars alone.

Overview of the findings

Based on an analysis of school finance litigation and research on school funding, the authors found the following:

Money matters for student achievement. A growing body of evidence shows that increased spending on education leads to better student outcomes. When states invest in their public schools and create more equitable school finance systems, student achievement levels rise, and the positive effects are even greater among low-income students. States, districts, and schools must spend their money wisely, targeting their funds toward evidence-based interventions, such as high-quality early childhood programs. Overall, efforts to cut funding for education or services that support children are short-sighted and defy current research.

Students in high-poverty communities continue to have less access to core academic services that increase student outcomes. Core services that have a significant influence on instructional quality and student performance are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools. These critical services include early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to rigorous curriculum.

Districts, states, and the federal government play crucial roles in equity. States will have the greatest opportunity to guarantee that all students under their purview have access to a high-quality education, but local, state, and federal governments all play important roles in minimizing inequities in education funding.

Historically, the federal government has focused its investment in supporting education and related services on the most at-risk children, and it can uniquely address inequities in per-pupil spending across states. While students within the same school district can receive starkly different levels of funding, the widest variation in per-pupil spending exists across state boundaries. The differences in average state per-pupil spending ranges from around $5,700 to $17,000.

While state legal cases have been powerful in closing spending gaps, litigation is inadequate. School funding advocates have won a slew of court cases over the past four decades. Many fiscal equity lawsuits were important and led to additional resources for students; however, some cases had unintended consequences on overall levels of spending, for example, in California. In many cases, a state's political climate and fiscal capacity proved to be just as important-if not more important-than court rulings in deciding fiscal reform.

Evaluating school finance policies based on equity or adequacy is insufficient. The most common frameworks used in state school finance cases-evaluating school funding policies based on their "equity" or "adequacy"-do not acknowledge that students in poverty need more from their schools than their more affluent peers. Moreover, neither framework requires courts and policymakers to consider the quality of education, including teachers, curriculum, programs, and social supports.

Next steps

The school funding debate is as important today as it was in 1968 when Rodriguez demanded a better education for his children. Given these findings, the authors recommend principles to guide a new framework for school finance reform: a high-quality finance system. While the past few decades of state litigation focusing on equity or adequacy have increased awareness of the importance of fiscal equity, policymakers must refine the debate in order to achieve a high-quality education for all students.

The authors propose that the following key principles should guide school finance reform at the federal and state levels:

School funding systems should ensure equal access to core educational services. School equity debates must go beyond funding, and states and local actors must support access to robust services. The Supreme Court of New Jersey described this issue well: The focus should shift from "financing [to the issue of] education itself." In other words, advocates should be focused on the quality of educational opportunities as the driving goal of an equitable education financing system. Using this as a model, advocates should prioritize increased access to high-quality educational opportunities that raise student achievement as part of an equitable education financing system.

School funding should provide significant additional resources for low-income students. It costs more to educate low-income students and provide them with a robust education. To overcome issues of poverty, low-income students need significant additional funds. Research shows that increases in school spending result in greater educational and economic outcomes for all students, but these were "more pronounced for children from low-income families." Additional funding should help to attract highly qualified teachers, improve curriculum, and fund additional programs such as early childhood education. Weighted student funding-which differentiates school budgeting based on the demographics that each school serves-can fund quality programs that will have the greatest impact on the student population.

Outcomes-based accountability should serve as a check on school funding systems. Student achievement and outcomes matter. Any approach to supporting school finance reform should ensure that the money supports the resources, programs, and services that all students need to be prepared to fully participate in the workforce and their community. Policymakers must simultaneously refine education standards so they are aligned to the changing society and implement rigorous accountability systems to assess if schools are meeting these goals. States should use these outcomes, rather than dollars or other inputs, to evaluate if schools are providing all students with a high-quality education.

Education and child welfare programs should be fully funded. Research shows that money matters, especially for students in poverty. States should restore, and exceed, funding to pre-Great Recession levels to allocate sufficient funding. In addition, the federal government should maintain or increase funding for necessary programs to support children and working families. Federal funding accounts for 38 percent of states' education budget-and 8.5 percent of overall spending for public education-so significant cuts to federal programs have severe and lasting effects on the services and opportunities that states can offer to all students.

The argument for a new framework for school finance reform

A high-quality education is fundamental to our modern economy and democracy

The goals of public education must evolve with the changing world, and today, schools must prepare students for college, career, and civic engagement.

A just K-12 public schooling system should meaningfully prepare all students, including the most disadvantaged, for their roles in public service or democratic governance. This is key to ensuring America's next generation of leaders serve, defend, and represent the various interests of society. Not surprisingly, the nation's military also depends on well-educated students. Without a robust education system, the armed forces would lack qualified recruits.

The strength of the economy is also closely tied to education. Recent studies show that gross domestic product (GDP) has a strong relationship with educational outcomes. Moreover, education's importance to the economy continues to grow. In the 1970s, the majority of jobs were available to individuals with a high school diploma or less. Today, virtually all well-paying jobs require some college. By 2020, only 36 percent of all jobs will require a high school diploma or less. During the recent economic recovery, 95 percent of the jobs created went to workers with postsecondary education or training.

Persistent inequities in education funding: The local, state, and federal role

After 50 years of state school finance litigation and school finance reform, some states have minimized inequities in per-pupil education across districts within state lines. However, significant inequities remain. Local, state, and federal governments all contribute to overall education funding and perpetuate some of these inequities. As a result, local, state, and federal actors must all work to revamp school funding systems with a focus on quality. States, specifically, will have a central role. The right to an education rests with the state, as articulated in state constitutions, and local and state governments provide the vast majority of school funding. Meanwhile, the federal government must continue to focus its funding and support on high-poverty schools and address inequities that exist across state lines.

Funding inequities with local and state contributions

New analyses disaggregate the allocations of local, state, and federal governments. Data compiled by the Urban Institute show that local education funding across the country is still highly regressive-although it has become slightly more progressive between 1995 and 2015. Students in poverty continue to receive less funding than their more affluent peers. High-poverty school districts in only four states-Minnesota, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont-receive more local funds per pupil than more affluent districts.

The federal role: Addressing inequities across state lines

Times have changed dramatically since the Rodriguez decision, and there is deepening consensus that federal government has an important role in supporting the education of students with the greatest needs.

The rise of a new equity divide

While some states have made progress in addressing disparities within states, unequal access still exists within states. At the same time, inequities are greatest across states lines, as per-pupil spending across states varies dramatically.

Although school finance advocates and policymakers often compare spending between the poorest and wealthiest districts within a state, the differences in district-level spending across states are far starker. On average, school districts in the United States spend about $11,885 per pupil-the cost of living adjusted for the 2012-13 school year. However, some districts spend twice as much as districts in other states. For instance, the per-pupil spending among the 100 largest districts ranged from $6,798 in Texas' Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District to $20,331 in New York City Public Schools. These disparities persist even when taking into account districts with similar enrollment sizes and demographics.

The research: Money does matter

These extreme spending inequities have an impact, and a large body of research suggests that money does matter in education. When school districts spend money wisely, they have better outcomes, including higher test scores, increased graduation rates, and other improved indicators of student achievement. More money also helps ensure that students have schools with better facilities and more curriculum options. This has clear implications for the public school system, as students who do not get their fair share of dollars do not get an equal chance to compete with their more advantaged peers.

Another recent NBER study confirmed this idea that fiscal reforms in adequacy cases have led to more progressive funding systems and increased student outcomes. In this study, researchers found that over the past 25 years, fiscal reforms-either as a result of a court order or a legislative effort-improved states' education spending priorities and reduced funding disparities between high- and low-poverty districts. These reforms also contributed to student gains in reading and mathematics, with the largest increases among low-income students.

There are dramatic gaps in access to core educational services

Inequities go beyond money. Core services, which make a huge difference in instructional quality and student performance, are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools. Put simply, school funding debates must go beyond the raw numbers and evaluate whether students have equitable access to the resources needed for success, including early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to challenging curriculum.

Higher-poverty schools also have fewer experienced teachers and greater teacher turnover. In school year 2012-2013, there was 22 percent teacher turnover in the highest-quartile-poverty schools, whereas there was only 13 percent turnover in schools with less than 34 percent of students in poverty. Teacher experience most significantly increases effectiveness in the first five years in the classroom, but teachers with 20 years or more of experience achieve larger student gains, on average, than teachers with five years or less of experience. Moreover, high teacher turnover creates instability and negatively affects student achievement within schools.

In some states, such as New York, the issue is particularly pressing. According to a 2018 study from The New York Equity Coalition, "White students had 230 percent more opportunities to earn college credit than their Latino and Black peers, despite representing only 8 percent more high school enrollees."

Studies by the federal government demonstrate that the unequal access to rigorous courses is a national problem. Data from the 2015-16 school year show that high schools with higher percentages of black and Latino students offer math and science courses at a lower rate relative to all high schools. The difference is greatest in terms of access to advanced mathematics, calculus, and physics.

Furthermore, an analysis of the cost of different interventions found that transitioning to higher-quality curriculum provides a higher return on investment than many other reforms-for example, almost 40 times the return of class-size reduction. Adopting rigorous curriculum, however, requires thoughtful selection of instructional materials and additional intensive academic services to students so they can meaningfully access more challenging coursework.

School finance litigation: Powerful yet inadequate

Litigation has heightened awareness of the importance of fiscal equity in education and spurred necessary change in states across the country. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez by arguing that education was not a guaranteed federal right. Some litigants continue to attempt to overturn Rodriguez in order to establish a federal right to education, but until then, many advocates turn to the states. Numerous state courts have reinforced meaningful provisions in state constitutions and required legislative action to improve educational opportunities for all students. Advocates in various states have taken different approaches to advance equity-some with success and some with unintended outcomes.

The following section describes the decision in Rodriguez and examines examples of the different approaches that advocates have used to advance school finance reform within states. The authors highlight some of the unintended outcomes, as well as the most positive aspects of the remedies, in order to inform a new framework for a potential federal right moving forward.

Where it all began: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

In Rodriguez, the plaintiffs argued that education was a fundamental interest under the U.S. Constitution because of its vital importance to both the right to vote and freedom of expression. In other words, the plaintiffs contended that education was a constitutional right because a certain level of education is necessary for the proper exercise of these rights.

The debate over equity: First generation of school funding reform

Two of the earliest and best-known instances of state equity cases occurred during the mid-1970s. Both cases resulted in victories: one in California ( Serrano v. Priest) and the other in New Jersey ( Robinson v. Cahill). In both cases, the respective courts used state constitutional provisions requiring equal protection to strike down local property tax-based systems and to order states to build new funding systems that did not heavily rely on a district's property wealth.

Following these successes, equity cases were brought in virtually every state. Many states have modified, although not completely eradicated, their property tax-based systems by increasing the state's share in total education spending. As a result, resource differences among districts in some states have declined.

However, in other states, equity cases have had a negative impact on total spending due to the narrow focus on ensuring parity among districts within a state. In California, the Serrano cases provide the most notorious example. The frame of equalized funding pitted high- and low-wealth districts against each other. Therefore, rather than lifting up the system as a whole, it drove toward the lowest common denominator.

In 1976, the California court's ruling in Serrano declared that the state's school finance system violated the Equal Protection Clause and was unconstitutional. Following Serrano, California prioritized a property tax-based solution that would close spending gaps between poor and wealthy districts. The court ordered the state to equalize property tax rates and revenues between districts so that, by 1980, disparities in per-pupil spending levels would be no more than $100.

In 1978, Proposition 13, a resolution that placed a cap on property tax rates and restricted annual increases on property value, limited the opportunity to use tax cases as a means to equalize school funding. Instead, local districts could only rely on state revenue for funding parity, making it nearly impossible for any district to pay for new policies and initiatives.

California's primary concern was equity of per-pupil funding levels, not the adequacy of funding levels. By 1986, more than 90 percent of California students resided in school districts with a per-pupil funding disparity of less than $100 between them. But the victory was shortsighted. The state and districts lowered their overall expenditures, and California no longer led the nation in education spending. In fact, in 1965, before the Serrano ruling, California ranked fifth in the nation in per-pupil spending, but by 1995, the state fell to 42nd. As a result, student achievement also began to drop. In 2017, California ranked 44th based on NAEP scores, graduation rate, college readiness, and access to preschool. In 2013, California implemented a new policy to tackle school funding and created the Local Control Funding Formula-a formula that is not based on property taxes and provides additional resources for students in need of additional supports, including those from low-income families, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

Similarly, in Texas, the Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby case, which was filed after the Rodriguez decision, turned the issue of school finance into a zero-sum game. In 1989, the court ruled the state finance system unconstitutional on grounds of equity. In response, the Texas Legislature attempted to reduce differences in local tax revenues by recapturing a wealthy district's excess revenues and redistributing them to poorer districts-in what some label a "Robin Hood" approach-or by placing a cap on districts' property taxes.

The state legislature also attempted to place a cap on a district's property tax rates as a way to restrict wealthier districts from raising too much in revenue. However, in Neeley v. West Orange, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that this was essentially a statewide property tax, which is prohibited in the state constitution.

Little is likely to change. In 2016, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the state met its minimal constitutional duty and that the court should not "usurp legislative authority" in deciding how Texas allocates funds to education.

In the end, equity cases spurred policy change to minimize funding inequities. Yet in some states, the focus on equal dollars, rather than the quality of services provided to students, led to a leveling out of public investment in education. In later cases, litigants and courts moved beyond the concept of equal funding levels, instead adopting "adequacy" as the framework.

Issues of adequacy: Second generation of school funding reform

Over the past few decades, an increasing number of state fiscal cases have focused on issues of adequacy, or a minimum amount of per-pupil funds. These cases rely on states to articulate clear educational goals for all students, identify programs or resources to meet those expectations, and allocate the funds to support necessary inputs. In some cases, this frame has created a context for weak policy, as courts have interpreted "adequate" to mean a bare minimum defined by the state. However, in several cases, this frame has driven efforts to articulate what level of funding and what types of resources are necessary to ensure equal educational opportunity. Cases in New Jersey and Massachusetts provide examples of the latter.

Abbott v. Burke: Raising the bar for school funding in New Jersey

Abbott v. Burke is often cited as a success story under an adequacy framework. Although the road to advocacy was a long one, which involved a series of compliance suits following the original court decision, the ultimate remedies implemented were substantial.

Abbott focused on New Jersey's poorest urban districts-28 districts at first, later expanded to 31. The plaintiffs argued that the state was failing to provide high-poverty districts with the funds necessary for a "thorough and efficient education," which was required by the state constitution. While Abbott was decided on adequacy grounds, the court orders called for reforms that both equalized funding across districts and provided funds for specific programs-above and beyond equalization.

In the initial rulings, the court explicitly called for "parity," or equality, in funding. Following the first major Abbott ruling in 1990, the New Jersey Legislature responded with the Quality Education Act (QEA). While the QEA did not give the Abbott districts full equity, it substantially improved funding for the districts. In 1996, the state legislature made another attempt to equalize funding with the Comprehensive Education Improvement and Financing Act, but the court found this effort insufficient. The court also continued to order parity in foundation funding, and by the 1997-98 school year, state aid increased by $246 million.

In later rulings, the court began mandating funding for specific programs that could improve student outcomes and close achievement gaps. In the 1998 Abbott V decision, the court mandated full-day kindergarten, half-day preschool, whole-school reform for elementary schools, college-transition programs for secondary schools, and other supplemental programs in Abbott districts. The court also granted districts the right to seek additional funding for on-site social services and other supplemental programs as needed.

In 2000, the court clarified its requirements on the implementation of "high-quality preschool" in the Abbott districts, including clear standards, a qualified teaching staff, and smaller class sizes. A series of later Abbott rulings also focused on the provision of state funding to schools for renovations and constructions. In 2008, the legislature earmarked almost $3 billion to help build schools in the state's cities.

The Abbott decisions have been critical in improving both fiscal equity and school quality in the state. New Jersey's approach was aggressive and expansive, and the court was actively involved in enforcing parity and providing increased resources to under-resourced districts. The court even asserted its new focus on quality, stating, "The comprehensive whole-school reform and supplemental programs approved by the Court amount to a marked shift in emphasis from financing as such to education itself."

New Jersey consistently ranks high in education performance and quality, as well as progress in narrowing the achievement gap. Many observers believe that the fiscal remedies established by Abbott have helped to increase student outcomes in the state.

McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education: Equitable school funding in Massachusetts

One hallmark of the bill was its introduction of a foundation formula, which aimed to bring all Massachusetts school districts to an adequate level of per-pupil funding by 2020 or over a seven-year phase-in period. By 2000, all districts were at or above their targeted foundation level. By 2002, the total funding doubled to nearly $3 billion. In 2005, the court ruled in Hancock v. Commissioner of Education that the state had established a system that sufficiently addressed inequities and met the constitutional standard.

To be sure, adequacy has its limitations as a policy. When defined narrowly, the reforms can serve as a barrier to progress. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court discussed adequacy in Rodriguez but held that "the State's contribution ... was designed to provide an adequate minimum educational offering in every school in the State." Similarly, in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state allocated sufficient funding for minimally adequate facilitations, materials, curricula, and teachers, ultimately determining that decisions about the types of services a district provides were "quintessentially legislative in nature."

Recommendations

The nation needs a third way to understand school funding. Drawing from this analysis, the authors recommend that school finance reform emphasize a high-quality education program for all students. To reach this aim, students with greater needs must receive additional funding, and that funding needs to be targeted at the reforms that matter. Finally, accountability systems and academic standards are necessary to measure quality and shine a light on inequities.

Putting forth a federal high-quality finance system: The third wave of school finance

The following principles should guide school finance reform based on quality at the federal, state, and local levels, but states must drive reform to school funding systems, as local and state dollars account for the vast majority of overall education funding.

School funding systems should ensure equal access to core educational services. School equity debates must go beyond funding, and states must support equal access to robust services. The New Jersey Supreme Court described this issue well in the Abbott ruling: The focus should shift from "financing [to the issue of] education itself." The New Jersey court minimized educational disparities by requiring the legislature to implement high-quality policies and programs that are linked to improved student outcomes.

Specifically, policymakers should fund critical programs to increase the quality of all teachers. Policymakers and school funding advocates should protect and increase funding for teacher compensation and professional development, targeting low-income schools. Programs designed to reduce the cost of teacher preparation-such as the federal Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) loan forgiveness program-should be enhanced for those willing to teach in high-poverty schools.

Access to rigorous standards, curricula, and courses is also a key ingredient to a high-quality education. At a minimum, states should ensure that all students have access to algebra in eighth grade and to Advanced Placement (AP) or similar rigorous courses in high schools.

Finally, policymakers and school funding advocates must ensure equitable access to early childhood programs and other programs that offer child care. This would require federal and state governments to increase their investment in early childhood in order to ensure that all families, regardless of income, are able to access high-quality early childhood programs. Moreover, to improve the quality of all early childhood programs, public investment should incentivize programs to adopt rigorous standards and offers teachers in early childhood programs a suitable wage.

School funding should provide extra money for low-income students and end across-state inequities. In order to overcome issues of poverty, low-income students need additional funds. Some research shows that students in poverty require twice the funding as students from affluent backgrounds. These dollars should attract effective teachers, improve curriculum, and fund programs such as early childhood education.

Weighted student funding can help navigate the balance between higher-quality and better supports. Under this program, districts give low-income students, students with disabilities, and other at-risk populations extra "weights" so that additional funding is provided above the base per-pupil level. Funding is allocated to schools based on the number and demographics of students they serve. Weighted student funding models provide principals with discretion over the use of schools' budgets. Principals can build their school budget, staff, and program options to best serve their students.

Several states, including California and Rhode Island, have rolled out comprehensive school funding reforms that include weighted student funding. The impact of these programs is yet to be determined, but early results show at least some promise. California's new policy, it seems, has had a positive impact on high school graduate rates. Specifically, the graduation rate of high-need students who received an additional $1,000 in per-pupil spending from the state increased by an average of 5 percent.

Weighted student formulas should be tied to accountability frameworks that look at outcomes as well as equal access to core services, including early childhood education, effective teachers, and rigorous college- and career-ready curriculum.

Outcomes-based accountability should serve as a check on school funding systems. Fiscal reform must include efforts to increase the rigor of academic standards and strengthen accountability provisions. Such reforms make more data available to evaluate the quality of every public school and ensure that students are held to the same high levels of performance-irrespective of their race, income, or ZIP code.

Indeed, research has shown that states that adopt rigorous academic standards are more successful in increasing outcomes of low-income students. For example, a 2016 analysis found that states that fully embrace standards-based reform are more successful at improving the academic outcomes of low-income students, while states that are more resistant to adopting rigorous assessments post poorer results.

In other words, school funding reform is not a replacement for accountability systems. ESSA requires all states to adopt rigorous standards and hold schools accountable for student performance. It also maintains a requirement that every school must disaggregate student performance by student population-such as students from low-income families, English language learners, homeless and foster youth, and more.

Relatedly, weighted student funding also works best in conjunction with other reforms that emphasize quality and outcomes. In the last decade, many districts have implemented weighted student funding, including Houston, Baltimore, and New York City. The districts that have also included thoughtful indicators on student performance and maximized principal budget autonomy appear to be most successful in narrowing achievement gaps.

Given the level of flexibility afforded to local actors in most weighted student formula frameworks, accountability for outcomes is essential to ensuring that the additional resources reach the students most in need. In addition, there must be a check to ensure that weighted formulas increase access to fundamental core services such as early childhood education.

Accountability systems should also require districts to report transparent school-level outcome data. School report cards should specify students' outcomes as well as the availability and quality of core services that research shows are essential to provide a high-quality education. Such reporting must also be married with efforts to turn around low-performing schools and ensure support for schools that need the most help.

Education and child welfare programs should be fully funded. Both research and successful school finance reform show that money matters. Federal, state, and local policymakers should maintain or increase investments in education and child welfare programs. This is particularly important following the economic downturn in 2008, which negatively affected education funding as most states cut funding for education. As of 2015, 29 states had yet to restore funding to pre-2008 per-pupil funding levels.

When considering creating equitable services and opportunities for all students, federal, state, and district actors must preserve funding for education and other funding streams that meet children's needs.

Conclusion

Since Rodriguez, state litigation and legislative action have increased awareness of the importance of fiscal equity in education. Much can be learned from these efforts, and it is clear that neither equity nor adequacy alone is enough. Looking forward, federal, state, and local governments should learn from certain states' successes in order to develop funding systems that focus on quality and outcomes. School finance systems should be progressive and student-centered. States must set clear expectations, align funding and programming with these standards, and recognize the extra support that disadvantaged students need in terms of effective programs.

Justice Marshall once argued, "Sometimes history takes things into its own hands," and no doubt, he was right. Yet at the same time, policymakers-especially those at the state level-must take school finance into their own hands and do right by students.

About the authors

Carmel Martin is a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Ulrich Boser is a senior fellow at the Center.

Meg Benner is a senior consultant at the Center.

Perpetual Baffour is a former research associate at the Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Introduction and summary In 1968, a sheet metal worker named Demetrio Rodriguez decided to file a lawsuit against the Edgewood Independent School District, a high-poverty district located just outside of San Antonio, Texas, serving a predominately Mexican American population.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 6: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 6: U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

# data[].attributes.body
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the foundation of all U.S. laws that protection educational equity. The 14th Amendment states (U.S. Const. amend. XIV):

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The framework of the 14th Amendment ensures that students will have equal rights and equal access to education.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 7: Texas Constitution, Article 7 § 5(c)

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 7: Texas Constitution, Article 7 § 5(c)

# data[].attributes.body
The State of Texas has a specific article that makes education at public schools free. To accomplish this task, tax revenues are used to fund public schools. The Texas Constitution states, “The available school fund shall be distributed to the several counties according to their scholastic population and applied in the manner provided by law” (Tex. Const. art. 7 § 5(c)). Scholastic population represents the average number of students enrolled at a school on a daily basis.

Tex. Const. art. 7 § 5(c). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/CN/pdf/CN.7/CN.7.5.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 8: Texas Education Code § 43.001(b)

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 8: Texas Education Code § 43.001(b)

# data[].attributes.body
The Tex. Educ. Code § 43.001(b) (2021) provides a more detailed explanation of where public school funding is derived. The code, in accordance with Tex. Const. art. 7 § 5(c), states that the distribution of funds is based on the scholastic population of a school.

Composition of Permanent School Fund and Available School Fund, Tex. Educ. Code § 43.001(b) (2021). https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/pdf/ED.43.pdf

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 9: Texas Administrative Code § 33.15(c)(1)

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 9: Texas Administrative Code § 33.15(c)(1)

# data[].attributes.body
Tex. Admin. Code § 33.15(c)(1) provides more specific information on how Texas will approach distributing funds to schools. The code states (Tex. Admin Code § 33.15(c)(1)):

Because the education needs of the future generations of Texas school children are long-term in nature, the return objective of the PSF shall also be long-term and focused on fairly balancing the benefits between the current generation and future generations while preserving the real per capita value of the PSF.

Of key note is the part of the code that uses the phrase, “focused on fairly balancing the benefits” (Tex. Admin Code § 33.15(c)(1)). There is no definition provided for what the term “fairly” means in the context of the law.

Objectives, Tex. Admin Code § 33.15(c)(1) (2021). https://texreg.sos.state.tx.us/public/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tloc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=19&pt=2&ch=33&rl=15

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 10: San Angelo Independent School District, State and Federal Revenue Sources, CBA(LEGAL)-P

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 10: San Angelo Independent School District, State and Federal Revenue Sources, CBA(LEGAL)-P

# data[].attributes.body
The San Angelo Independent School District (ISD) provides additional information on how funds are obtained from the State of Texas and local tax revenue referred to as ad valorem tax. According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (n.d.), property taxes are the same as ad valorem taxes. San Angelo ISD states that the program for handling funds for schools should provide for, “Substantially equal access to funds to provide an enriched program…” (2019, para. 1.b). There is no definition provided for what the term “Substantially” means in the context of the policy.

San Angelo Independent School District. (2019, November 6). State and Federal Revenue Sources (San Angelo ISD Publication No. CBA(LEGAL)-P). https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/1139?filename=CBA(LEGAL).pdf

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about property tax. https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/ptax-faqs.php

# data[].attributes.body
San Angelo ISD (2018), as part of its educational philosophy, makes a commitment to three areas that affect educational equity. The language of the three areas is direct, but does not expand on how equity (or its gaps) will be addressed. For example, if two schools in the district have significantly different property values (resulting in different tax revenue), how will the district distribute funds to ensure the school with the lowest tax revenues has an equal chance to improve academic achievement? The three areas state (San Angelo ISD, pp. 1-2):

"We will engage high-yield and research-based instructional strategies, provide viable aligned curriculum, and eliminate achievement gaps in order for all students to reach their highest potential and learn regardless of ethnicity, socioeconomic background, gender, native language, special needs, or area of residence."

"We believe equitable allocation of resources ensures each student will have the opportunity to become a capable, productive, and contributing citizen."

"We will be responsible stewards of local, state, and federal resources. To ensure a positive climate of academic achievement and student success, we shall create and implement programs and processes that address the needs of students and staff."

San Angelo Independent School District. (2018, August 8). Educational Philosophy (San Angelo ISD Publication No. AE(LOCAL)-X). https://pol.tasb.org/Policy/Download/1139?filename=AE(LOCAL).pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The article published by the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA) (2020) provides a means to become more familiar with educational equity. The six goals of educational equity serve as a jumping off point for educators and the community to develop an idea of what changes are needed to improve equity in a school or district.

Intercultural Development Research Association (2020, April 29). Six goals of educational equity. https://www.idra.org/equity-assistance-center/six-goals-of-education-equity/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every child in each school district, of any background, should have the chance to excel. Schools must ensure that all students are on track to graduate, prepared for college.Public schools can do what they choose to educate their students within certain limits and parameters, but they are accountable for educating all learners to high academic standards and outcomes regardless of differing characteristics of those learners. To help schools and communities look together at these goals and create a plan of action, the IDRA has outlined Six Goals of Educational Equity that school personnel and communities can use as a yardstick to measure their progress and as a lightning rod to galvanize change.

See the goals below and related resources.

Six Goals of Educational Equity

Goal 1: Comparably high academic achievement and other student outcomes

As data on academic achievement and other student outcomes are disaggregated and analyzed, one sees high comparable performance for all identifiable groups of learners, and achievement and performance gaps are virtually non-existent.

Goal 2: Equitable access and inclusion

The unobstructed entrance into, involvement of and full participation of learners in schools, programs and activities within those schools.

Goal 3: Equitable treatment

Patterns of interaction between individuals and within an environment characterized by acceptance, valuing, respect, support, safety and security such that students feel challenged to become invested in the pursuits of learning and excellence without fear of threat, humiliation, danger or disregard.

Goal 4: Equitable opportunity to learn

At minimum, the creation of learning opportunities so that every child, regardless of characteristics and identified needs, is presented with the challenge to reach high standards and are given the requisite pedagogical, social, emotional and psychological supports to achieve the high standards of excellence that are established.

Goal 5: Equitable resources

Funding, staffing and other resources for equity-based excellence that are manifested in the existence of equitably assigned qualified staff, appropriate facilities, other environmental learning spaces, instructional hardware and software, instructional materials and equipment, and all other instructional supports, are distributed in an equitable and fair manner such that the notion that all diverse learners must achieve high academic standards and other school outcomes become possible.

Goal 6: Accountability

The assurance that all education stakeholders accept responsibility and hold themselves and each other responsible for every learner having full access to quality education, qualified teachers, challenging curriculum, full opportunity to learn, and appropriate, sufficient support for learning so they can achieve at excellent levels in academic and other student outcomes.

Tools and Resources
IDRA's tool: Six Goals of Educational Equity and School Reform - The Equity Ranking Scale Questions for Reflection, Discussion and Action IDRA Quality Schools Action Framework Six Goals of Educational Equity - Podcast Episode 29 Article: "Who's Responsible, Who's to Blame?," by Bradley Scott, Ph.D., IDRA Newsletter Article: "Coming of Age," by Bradley Scott, Ph.D., IDRA Newsletter More IDRA Newsletter Articles on the Six Goals of Educational Equity One-page flier with the goals in English and Spanish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every child in each school district, of any background, should have the chance to excel. Schools must ensure that all students are on track to graduate, prepared for college.Public schools can do what they choose to educate their students within certain limits and parameters, but they are accountable for educating all learners to high academic standards and outcomes regardless of differing characteristics of those learners.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide 13: Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide 13: Recommendations / Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
The following six items are ways to begin the process of improving equity within a school or district:

1. Examine current financial practices of the school or district to identify areas of improvement.

2. Compare the per-student fund distribution of a school or district to another to identify differences in fund distribution.

3. After comparing per-student distribution of funds, examine policies and ask questions to choose best practices to implement locally.

4. Propose reforms that use weighted values to provide more funding to schools with a higher need compared to schools with ample resources/revenue and a lower need.

5. Engage with community leadership in both the public and private sector to encourage more investment in schools in areas of lower SES.

6. Conduct public forums (in person or online) to find out from communities of lower SES what their financial challenges are. Feedback can be used to engage with city and school district leadership to make them aware of what laws or policies need to change to improve equity.