States diverge widely when it comes to education funding choices, leading to substantial differences in how much states spend on schooling, the role of local versus state revenue sources, and relative differences among districts in funding levels. Prior studies have documented that Democratic party control of state governments appears to be associated with higher levels of spending on K-12 education, but beyond that we know little about how political ideology is related to patterns of education funding allocation by states. This study examines this question using a nationwide dataset of school district expenditures from 1999 to 2015. The results indicate that states that are more politically liberal tend to provide more funds (per pupil) to local districts. More liberal states also provide relatively more favorable distributions to districts that are more urban and have larger Black student populations, in addition to perhaps rewarding districts with higher local property tax rates.
AlemánEJr. (2006). Is robin hood the “prince of thieves” 1 or a pathway to equity? Applying critical race theory to school finance political discourse. Educational Policy, 20(1), 113–142.
2.
AllbrightT. N.MarshJ. A.HallM.TobbenL.PicusL. O.LavadenzM. (2019). Conceptualizing equity in the implementation of California education finance reform. American Journal of Education, 125(2), 173–200.
3.
AndrewsM.DuncombeW.YingerJ. (2002). Revisiting economies of size in American education: Are we any closer to a consensus?Economics of Education Review, 21(3), 245–262.
4.
BaickerK.GordonN. (2006). The effect of state education finance reform on total local resources. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1519–1535.
BelandL.-P.OloomiS. (2017). Party affiliation and public spending: Evidence from U.S. governors. Economic Inquiry, 55(2), 982–995.
8.
BerryW. D.FordingR. C.RingquistE. J.HansonR. L.KlarnerC. E. (2010). Measuring citizen and government ideology in the us states: A re-appraisal. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10(2), 117–135.
9.
BoydW. L. (1978). The changing politics of curriculum policy-making for American schools. Review of educational research, 48(4), 577–628.
10.
BruceM. D.ErmasovaN.MattoxL. (2019). The fiscal disparity and achievement gap between extremely wealthy and poor school districts in Illinois. Public Organization Review, 19(4), 541–565.
11.
CamachoK. A.KrezmienM. P. (2020). A statewide analysis of school discipline policies and suspension practices. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 55–66.
12.
CenterE. R. (2021). Quality counts 2021. Education Week.
13.
ChinM. J.ShiL. (2021). The impact of political party control on state education finance and outcomes. EdWorkingPaper No. 20-280.
14.
ChingosM. M.BlaggK. (2017). Making sense of state school funding policy. Urban Institute Research Report.
15.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE.HobsonC.McPartlandJ.MoodA.WeinfeldF.YorkR. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). The color line in American education: Race, resources, and student achievement. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 1(2), 213–246.
17.
de BreyC.SnyderT. D.ZhangA.DillowS. A. (2021). Digest of education statistics 2019. Nces 2021-009. National Center for Education Statistics.
18.
DeBrayE.ScottJ.LubienskiC.JabbarH. (2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from new Orleans. Educational Policy, 28(2), 175–206.
19.
DharP.RossS. L. (2012). School district quality and property values: Examining differences along school district boundaries. Journal of Urban Economics, 71(1), 18–25.
20.
DoughertyK. J.NienhusserH. K.VegaB. E. (2010). Undocumented immigrants and state higher education policy: The politics of in-state tuition eligibility in Texas and Arizona. The Review of Higher Education, 34(1), 123–173.
21.
EinsteinK. L.GlickD. M. (2018). Mayors, partisanship, and redistribution: Evidence directly from us mayors. Urban Affairs Review, 54(1), 74–106.
22.
FarmerT. A. (2009). Unique rural district politics. The Rural Educator, 30(2), 29–33.
23.
FarrieD.SciarraD. G. (2022). Making the Grade 2021: How Fair Is School Funding in Your State?Education Law Center.
24.
GittellM.McKennaL. (1999). Redefining education regimes and reform: The political role of governors. Urban Education, 34(3), 268–291.
HillA. J.JonesD. B. (2017). Does partisan affiliation impact the distribution of spending? evidence from state governments’ expenditures on education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 143, 58–77.
27.
HustedT.KennyL. (2014). The political economy of education finance: The case of Texas. Journal of Education Finance, 4(1), 1–16.
28.
HymanJ. (2017). Does money matter in the long run? Effects of school spending on educational attainment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9(4), 256–80.
29.
ImazekiJ.ReschovskyA. (2003). Financing adequate education in rural settings. Journal of Education Finance, 29(2), 137–156.
30.
JacksonC. K.JohnsonR. C.PersicoC. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218.
31.
JordanM. M.ChapmanD.WrobelS. L. (2014). Rich districts, poor districts: The property tax equity impact of Arkansas school finance equalization. Public Finance & Management, 14(4), 399–415.
32.
KellyM. G.FarrieD. (2023). Misrepresented funding gaps in data for some states. Educational Researcher, 52(4), 244–247.
33.
KirstM. W. (2007). Politics of charter schools: Competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2–3), 184–203.
34.
KirstM. W.WalkerD. F. (1971). An analysis of curriculum policy-making. Review of Educational Research, 41(5), 479–509.
35.
LafortuneJ.RothsteinJ.SchanzenbachD. W. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1–26.
36.
MalenB.DayhoffJ.EganL.CroningerR. G. (2017). The challenges of advancing fiscal equity in a resource-strained context. Educational Policy, 31(5), 615–642.
37.
MarcuseP. (2001). The liberal/conservative divide in the history of housing policy in the United States. Housing Studies, 16(6), 717–736.
38.
McGuinnP. (2005). The national schoolmarm: No child left behind and the new educational federalism. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 35(1), 41–68.
39.
McKeeS. C.ShawD. R. (2003). Suburban voting in presidential elections. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 33(1), 125–144.
40.
McMillenD. P.SingellL. DJr. (2010). A distributional difference-in-difference evaluation of the response of school expenditures to reforms and tax limits. Education Finance and Policy, 5(3), 349–377.
41.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
42.
MeierK. J.RutherfordA. (2016). The politics of African-American education: Representation, partisanship, and educational equity. Cambridge University Press.
43.
OddenA. R.PicusL. O. (2014). School finance: A policy perspective (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
44.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020). Consumer price index: Total all items for the United States [cpaltt01usa661s]. FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CPALTT01USA661S
45.
OvandoC. J. (2003). Bilingual education in the United States: Historical development and current issues. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 1–24.
46.
OwensA.ReardonS. F.JencksC. (2016). Income segregation between schools and school districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 1159–1197.
47.
PetersenM. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 1–16.
48.
PicusL. O.OddenA. R. (2011). Reinventing school finance: Falling forward. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 291–303.
49.
RossJ. M.Nguyen-HoangP. (2013). School district income taxes: New revenue or a property tax substitute?Public Budgeting & Finance, 33(2), 19–40.
50.
San MiguelG. (2004). Contested policy: The rise and fall of federal bilingual education in the United States, 1960–2001 (Vol. 1). University of North Texas Press.
51.
ScalaD. J.JohnsonK. M. (2017). Political polarization along the rural-urban continuum? the geography of the presidential vote, 2000–2016. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672(1), 162–184.
52.
TaylorB. J.CantwellB.WattsK.WoodO. (2020). Partisanship, white racial resentment, and state support for higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 1–30.
TaylorL. L.FowlerW. JJr. (2006). A comparable wage approach to geographic cost adjustment. (NCES 2006-321). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
55.
U.S. Census Bureau (2000). School district tabulation stp2. 2000 Census of Population and Housing.
VergariS. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15–39.
58.
VerstegenD. A.KnoeppelR. C. (2012). From statehouse to schoolhouse: Education finance apportionment systems in the United States. Journal of Education Finance, 38(2) 145–166.
59.
VinikD. F. (1996). The contrasting politics of remedy: The Alabama and Kentucky school equity funding suits. Journal of education finance, 22(1), 60–87.
60.
WindettJ. H.HardenJ. J.HallM. E. (2015). Estimating dynamic ideal points for state supreme courts. Political Analysis, 23(3), 461–469.
61.
WoodB. D.TheobaldN. A. (2003). Political responsiveness and equity in public education finance. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 718–738.
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.
