Kevin Carey, The Education Trust
October 2003
The crux of this report, as in previous Funding Gap reports by the Education Trust (see http://www.edexcellence.net/gadfly/issue.cfm?issue=46#688), is straightforward: when it comes to funding K-12 education, schools that serve poor and minority students get substantially less state and local money per student than districts with the fewest low-income and minority students. Determining how wide the gaps are between a state's wealthiest districts and its poorest depends on the "cost adjustment" used. This report uses the traditional 20 percent standard: if wealthy districts spend $10,000 per student, then "equality" (which is actually a form of intentional inequality) would call for poor districts to spend $12,000. By that method, the funding gap comes to just more than $1,100 per student - down from 1997. This seemingly small figure can translate into big numbers over schools and districts: "In Arizona, for example, the cost-adjusted funding gap translates into a [gap] of $36,225 in a typical high-poverty classroom, and more than half a million dollars in a high-poverty school." There is, however, some good news: The long-term trend remains positive, and most states have reduced the size of their funding gaps over the last four years or eliminated them entirely. Still, the report leaves the reader unsatisfied, since there's no discussion of whether funding gaps necessarily lead to achievement gaps. Is focusing on the funding gap a legitimate reform tool - or do changes in personnel, curriculum, training, and administration count for more? And doesn't it matter at least a little how well the money is spent? To see this report, surf to http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/EE004C0A-D7B8-40A6-8A03-1F26B8228502/0/funding2003.pdf.
