The disparities in achievement among income and racial-ethnic groups of students have long been a major concern of educational policies. Among several identified factors that help explain the student performance gap, this paper focuses on inequity in funding for education among school districts, which resulted from heavy reliance of school districts’ revenue on local wealth. In 2004, the State of Maryland witnessed a significant change in financing methods for educational services by providing more resources for school districts with larger share of disadvantaged students. This is the first study to examine the effects of Maryland education finance reform on school spending and student performance. The findings show that reform has improved spending equity by providing more aid to school districts with larger share of disadvantaged students, but found little evidence that reform closed the student performance gap. This study holds policy implications for the current debate on reducing gaps of spending and student performance across school districts by using education finance reforms.
AngristJ. D.LavyV. (1999). Using maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 533-575.
2.
BakerB. D. (2001). Balancing equity for students and taxpayers: Evaluating school finance reform in Vermont. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 437-462.
3.
BakerB. D.ImberM. (1999). Rational educational explanation or politics as usual? Evaluating the outcome of school finance litigation in Kansas. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 121-139.
4.
BakerB. D.WelnerK. (2011). School finance and courts: Does reform matter, and how can we tell?Teacher College Record, 113, 2374-2414.
5.
BenabouR. (1996). Equity and efficiency in human capital investment: The local connection. The Review of Economic Studies, 63, 237-264.
6.
CardD.KruegerA. B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the characteristics of public schools in the United States. The Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1-40.
7.
CardD.PayneA. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 49-82.
8.
ChungI. H. (2012). Education finance reform, school choice, and residential sorting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Syracuse University, NY.
9.
ClarkM. A. (2003). Education reform, redistributions, and student achievement: Evidence from the Kentucky Education Reform Act. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
10.
Cohen-VogelL. A.Cohen-VogelD. R. (2001). School finance reform in Tennessee: Inching toward adequacy. Journal of Education Finance, 26, 297-318.
11.
CourantP. N.LoebS. (1997). Centralization of school finance in Michigan. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 114-136.
12.
CullenJ. B.LoebS. (2004). School finance reform in Michigan: Evaluating Proposal A. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 215-250). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13.
DeeT. S.LevineJ. (2004). The fate of new funding: Evidence from Massachusetts’ education finance reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 199-215.
14.
DekeJ. (2003). A study of the impact of public school spending on postsecondary educational attainment using statewide school district refinancing in Kansas. Economics of Education Review, 22, 275-284.
15.
DownesT. A. (1992). Evaluating the impact of school finance reform on the provision of public education: The California case. National Tax Journal, 45, 405-419.
16.
DownesT. (2004). School finance reform and school quality: Lessons from Vermont. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 283-313). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
17.
DownesT. A.FiglioD. N. (1997). School finance reforms, tax limits and student performance: Do reforms level up or dumb down (Discussion Paper no. 1142-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.
18.
DownesT. A.ShahM. P. (2006). The effect of school finance reforms on the level and growth of per-pupil expenditures. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(3), 1-38.
19.
DuncombeW.YingerJ. (1997). Why is it so hard to help central city schools?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 85-113.
20.
DuncombeW.YingerJ. (1998). School finance reform: Aid formulas and equity objectives. National Tax Journal, 51, 239-262.
21.
DuncombeW. D.JohnstonJ. (1998). Balancing conflicting policy objectives: The case of school finance reform. Public Administration Review, 58, 145-158.
22.
DuncombeW. D.JohnstonJ. (2004). The impacts of school finance reform in Kansas: Equity is in the eye of the beholder. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp.147-187). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
23.
EvansW. N.MurrayS. E.SchwabR. M. (1997). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses after Serrano. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 10-31.
24.
EvansW. N.MurrayS. E.SchwabR. M. (1999). The impact of court-mandated school finance reform. In LaddH. F.ChalkR.HansenJ. S. (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 72-98). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
25.
FiglioD. N. (2004). Funding and accountability: Some conceptual and technical issues in state aid reform. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 87-110). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
FlanaganA.MurrayS. (2004). A decade of reform: The impact of school reform in Kentucky. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 59-85). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
27.
GoertzM. E.EdwardsM. (1999). In search of excellence for all: The courts and New Jersey school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance, 25, 5-32.
28.
HanushekE. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24, 1141-1177.
29.
HanushekE. A. (1996). A more complete picture of school resource policies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 397-409.
30.
HoxbyC. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 1189-1231.
31.
HuangY. (2004). A guide to state operating aid programs for elementary and secondary education. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 331-352). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
32.
ImazekiJ.ReschovskyA. (2004). School finance reform in Texas: A never ending story? In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 251-281). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
33.
KruegerA. B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 497-532.
34.
Maryland Department of Legislative Services. (2002). The bridge to excellence in Public Schools Act of 2002: Its origin, components, and future. Annapolis, MD: Author.
35.
MurrayS. E.EvansW. N.SchwabR. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources. American Economic Review, 88, 789-812.
36.
NeymotinF. (2010). The relationship between school funding and student achievement in Kansas public schools. Journal of Education Finance, 36, 88-108.
37.
PapkeL. E. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates: Evidence from Michigan. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 821-839.
38.
PapkeL. E. (2008). The effects of changes in Michigan’s school finance system. Public Finance Review, 36, 456-474.
39.
RoyJ. (2011). Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization and academic performance: Evidence from Michigan. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 137-167.
40.
SaundersT. (2004). Settling without “settling”: School finance litigation and governance reform in Maryland. Yale Law & Policy Review, 22, 571-614.
41.
SchmidtS. J.ScottK. (2006). Reforming reforms: Changing incentives in education finance in Vermont. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 441-464.
42.
YingerJ. (2004). Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
