Ongoing federal efforts support equalizing access to experienced educators for low-income students and students of color, thereby narrowing the “teacher experience gap.” I show that while high-poverty and high-minority schools have larger class sizes and receive less funding nationally, school districts allocate resource equitably, on average, across schools. However, the least experienced teachers are still concentrated in high-poverty and high-minority schools, both across and within districts. I then show that additional state and local funding is associated with more equitable district resource allocation. The study offers recommendations for state and federal education policy related to the Every Student Succeeds Act.
AnziaS. F.MoeT. M. (2014). Focusing on fundamentals: A reply to Koski and Horng. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 120-123.
2.
BakerB. D. (2014). Evaluating the recession’s impact on state school finance systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(91). doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n91.2014
3.
BakerB. D.CorcoranS. P. (2012). The stealth inequality of school funding: How state and local school finance systems perpeturate inequitable student spending. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
4.
BakerB. D.FarrieD.JohnsonM.LuhmT.SciarraD. G. (2017). Is school funding fair? A national report card, sixth edition. Newark, NJ: Education Law Center.
5.
BakerB. D.GreenP. (2015). Conceptions of equity and adequacy in school finance. In LaddH. F.GoertzM. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and governance (pp. 311-332). New York, NY: Routledge.
6.
BakerB. D.WeberM. (2016). State school finance inequities and the limits of pursuing teacher equity through departmental regulation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24(47). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v24.2230
7.
BoydD.GrossmanP.IngM.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 303-333. doi:10.3102/0002831210380788
8.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 113-132.
9.
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.
10.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377-392.
11.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L.DiazR. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251-271.
12.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L.WheelerJ. (2006). High- poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345-1379.
13.
Cohen-VogelL.FengL.Osborne-LampkinL. T. (2013). Seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements and the “Teacher Quality Gap”. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 324-343.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000.
15.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106, 1936-1966.
16.
DuncombeW. D.YingerJ. (2005). How much more does a disadvantaged student cost?Economics of Education Review, 24(5), 513-532.
17.
DynarskiM.KainzK. (2016). Requiring school districts to spend comparable amounts on Title I schools is pushing on a string (Evidence Speaks Reports [Vol 1, #21]). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18.
EllerW.DoerflerC.MeierK. (2000). Teacher turnover in Texas: Problems and prospects: A report of the Texas Educational Excellence Project. College Station: Texas Educational Excellence Project.
19.
FrankenbergE.KotokS. (2013). Demography and educational politics in the suburban marketplace. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 112-126.
20.
GlazermanS.MaxJ. (2011). Do low-income students have equal access to the highest-performing teachers? (No. 6955). Mathematica Policy Research.
21.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293-307.
22.
GoldhaberD.QuinceV.TheobaldR. (2016). Has it always been this way? Tracing the evolution of teacher quality gaps in U.S. public schools (CALDER Working Paper No. 171). Washington, DC:CALDER.
23.
GordonN. (2016, March). Increasing targeting, flexibility, and transparency in Title I of the ESEA. Washington,DC:The Hamilton Project.
24.
GordonN.ReberS. (2015). The quest for a targeted and effective Title I ESEA: Challenges in designing and implementing fiscal compliance rules. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1, 129-147.
25.
Government Accountability Office. (2011, January). Elementary and Secondary Education Act potential effects of changing comparability requirements. Washington, DC: Author.
26.
GritzR. M.TheobaldN. D. (1996). The effects of school district spending priorities on length of stay in teaching. Journal of Human Resources, 31(3), 477-512.
27.
GrubbW. N. (2009). The money myth: School resources, outcomes, and equity. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.
30.
HaxtonC.de los ReyesI. B.ChambersJ.LevinJ.CruzL. (2012). A case study of Title I Comparability in three California school districts. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
31.
HeuerR.StullichS. (2011). Comparability of state and local expenditures among schools within districts: A Report from the Study of School-Level Expenditures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service.
32.
ImazekiJ. (2005). Teacher salaries and teacher attrition. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 431-449.
33.
IsenbergE.MaxJ.GleasonP.PotamitesL.SantillanoR.HockH.HansenM. (2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
34.
JohnsonS. M.KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-39.
35.
KnightD. S. (2017). Are high-need school districts disproportionately impacted by state funding cuts? School finance equity following the Great Recession. Journal of Education Finance, 43, 169-194.
36.
KnightD. S.StrunkK. O. (2016). Who bears the cost of district funding cuts? Equity implications of teacher layoffs. Educational Researcher, 45, 395-406.
37.
KriegJ. M.TheobaldR.GoldhaberD. (2016). A foot in the door: Exploring the role of student teaching assignments in teachers’ initial job placements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 364-388.
38.
LaddH. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 235-261.
39.
LaddH. F. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31, 203-227.
40.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teaching sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
41.
LoebS.Darling-HammondL.LuczakJ. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal Education, 80(3), 44-70.
42.
LoebS.StrunkS. (2007). Accountability and local control: Response to incentives with and without authority over resource generation and allocation. Education Finance and Policy, 2, 10-39.
43.
McClureP. (2008). The history of educational comparability in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In PodestaJ.BrownC. (Eds.), Ensuring equal opportunity in public education: How local school district funding practices hurt disadvantaged students and what federal policy can do about it (pp. 3-31). Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
44.
MickelsonR. A.NkomoM. (2012). Integrated schooling, life-course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36, 197-238.
45.
MillerL. J.LeeJ. S. (2014). Policy barriers to school improvement: What’s real and what’s imagined?Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
46.
MurnaneR. J.OlsenR. J. (1989). The effect of salaries and opportunity costs on duration in teaching: Evidence from Michigan. Review of Economics and Statistics, 71(2), 347-352.
NyeB.HedgesL. V.KonstantopoulosS. (2002). Do low-achieving students benefit more from small classes? Evidence from the Tennessee class size experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 201-217.
49.
OddenA. R.PicusL. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
50.
Office of Civil Rights. (2016, June). 2013-14 civil rights data collection: A first look. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights.
51.
OsterE. (2016). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. Journal of Business Economic Statistics. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/07350015.2016.1227711
52.
PeskeH. G.HaycockK. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
53.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In DuncanG. J.MurnaneR. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity (pp. 91-116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
ReardonS. F.KalogridesD.ShoresK. (2016). The geography of racial/ethnic test score gaps (CEPA Working Paper No. 16-10). Retrieved from http://cepa.stanford.edu/wp16-10
56.
ReschovskyA.ImazekiJ. (2001). Achieving educational adequacy through school finance reform. Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 373-396.
57.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4-36.
58.
RozaM. (2005). Strengthening Title I to help high-poverty schools: How Title I funds fit into district allocation patterns. Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
59.
RozaM. (2008). What if we closed the comparability loophole?Seattle: Center on Reinventing Public Education, University of Washington.
60.
RozaM.HillP. (2004). How within-district spending inequities help some schools to fail. Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 201-227.
61.
SassT. R.HannawayJ.XuZ.FiglioD. N.FengL. (2010). Value added of teachers in high-poverty schools and lower poverty schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 72, 104-122.
62.
ScafidiB.SjoquistD. L.StinebricknerT. R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), 145-159.
63.
Spatig-AmerikanerA. (2012). Unequal education: Federal loophole enables lower spending on students of color. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
64.
TaylorL. L.FowlerW. J.Jr. (2006). A comparable wage approach to geographic cost adjustment (Research and Development Report. NCES-2006-321). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
65.
UjifusaA.KleinA. (2016, March). ESSA rulemaking: A guide to negotiations. Education Week, 35(24), 14-15.
WrabelS. L.SaultzA.PolikoffM. S.McEachinA.DuqueM. (2018). The politics of elementary and secondary education act waivers. Educational Policy, 32, 117-140. doi:10.1177/0895904816633048
69.
WinklerA. M.ZeehandelaarD. (2012). How strong are US teacher unions? A state-by-state comparison. Washington, DC:Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
