This study examines the impact of repealing adequacy-based funding on student test scores in poorer school districts. Contrary to expectations, scores improved for 2 years post-repeal. The article explored local spending as a possible reason. Despite funding changes, poorer districts increased spending on student support services like counseling, psychological, or health services. This shift toward student well-being may have mitigated the negative effects of losing adequacy-based funding, resulting in unexpected test score gains. These findings highlight the importance of local discretion in resource allocation, showing that tailored spending can enhance educational outcomes even amid financial challenges.
BakerB. D.Di CarloM.WeberM. (2022). The adequacy and fairness of state school finace systems (5th ed.). Altert Shanker Institute.
2.
BaumC. F.SchafferM. E.StillmanS. (2007). Enhanced routine for instrumental variables/GMM estimation and testing. The STATA Journal, 7(4), 465–506.
3.
BonillaS.DeeT. (2017). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky. National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
CallawayB.Sant’AnnaP. H. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230.
5.
CandelariaC. A.ShoresK. A. (2019). Court-ordered finance reforms in the adequacy era: Heterogeneous causal effects and sensitivity. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 31–60.
6.
ChattopadhyayA.HaseC. H.ZubizarretaJ. R. (2020). Balancing versus modeling approaches to weighting in practice. Statistics in Medicine, 39(24), 3227–3457.
7.
CombsA. E. (2023). High school student achievement and college enrollment in the absence of school improvement interventions: Evidence from Kentucky. Public Finance and Management, 22(1), 90–111.
8.
CorcoranS. P.EvansW. N. (2015). Equity, adequacy, and the evolving state role in education finance. In LaddH. F.GoertzM. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 353–371). Routledge.
9.
CullenJ. B.LoebS. (2004). Equity, adequacy, and the evolving state role in education finance. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind (pp. 215–249). The MIT Press.
10.
de los Angeles ResaM.ZubizarretaJ. R. (2020). Direct and stable weight adjustment in non-experimental studies with multivalued treatments: Analysis of the effect of an earthquake on post-traumatic stress. Journal of the Royal Statistical Association: Statistics in Society, Series A, 183(4), 1387–1410.
11.
De WitteK.López-TorresL. (2017). Efficiency in education: A review of literature and a way forward. The Journal of the Operational Society, 68(4), 339–363.
12.
DownsT. (2004). School finance reform and school quality: Lessons from Vermont. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping children left behind (pp. 283–313). The MIT Press.
13.
EgaliteA. J.FusarelliL. D.FusarelliB. C. (2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The every student succeeds act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 757–781.
14.
EvansW. N.MurrayS. E.SchwabR. M. (1997). Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses after serrano. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 10–31.
15.
HainmuellerJ. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariabe reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46.
16.
HainmuellerJ.XuY. (2013). Ebalance: A stata package for entropy balancing. Journal of Statistical Software, 54(7), 1–18.
17.
HandelD. V.HanushekE. A. (2023). U. S. school finance: Resources and outcomes. National Bureau of Economic Research.
18.
HoxbyC. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1189–1231.
19.
HusbandT.HuntC. (2015). A review of the empirical literature on no child left behind from 2001 to 2010. Planning and Changing, 46(1/1), 212–254.
20.
HymanJ. (2017). Does money matter in the long run? Effects of school spending on educational attainment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 9(4), 256–280.
21.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012). Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis, 20(1), 1–24.
22.
JacksonK. C. (2018). Does school spending matter? The new literature on an old question. National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
JacksonK. C.MackeviciusC. (2024). The distribution of school spending impacts. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 16(1), 412–446.
24.
JacksonK. C.PersicoC. (2023a). Point column on school spending: Money matters. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 42(4), 1118–1124.
25.
JacksonK. C.PersicoC. (2023b). Counterpoint—Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 42(3), 1133–1135.
26.
JacksonK. C.JohnsonR. C.PersicoC. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218.
27.
JohnsonJ. L.VeselyR. S. (2017). Equity and adequacy in Ohio school funding. Leadership and Research in Education, 4(1), 90–105.
28.
KeaneM.NealT. (2024). A practical guide to weak instruments. Annual Review of Economics, 16, 185–212.
29.
KleibergenF.PaapR. (2006). Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. Journal of Econometrics, 133, 97–126.
30.
LafortuneJ.SchönholzerD. (2022). The impact of school facility investment on student and homeowners: Evidence from Los Angeles. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 14(3), 254–289.
31.
LafortuneJ.RothsteinJ.SchanzenbachD. W. (2018). School finance reform and the distribution of student achievement. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(2), 1–26.
32.
LeeD. S.McCraryJ.MoreiraM. J. (2022). Valid t-ratio inference for IV. American Economic Review, 112(10), 3260–3290.
33.
LiuL.WangY.YiqingXu. (2024). A practical guide to counterfactual estimation for causal inference with tiem-series cross-sectional data. American Journal of Political Science, 68(1), 160–176.
34.
McGeeJ. B. (2023). Yes, money matters, but the details can make all the difference. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 42(4), 1125–1132.
35.
MurrayS. E.EvansW. N.SchwabR. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources. American Economics Review, 88(4), 789–708.
36.
ObhofL. J. (2005). DeRolph v. State and Ohio’s long road to an adequate education. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2005(1), 83–149.
37.
OddenA. R.GoetzM. E.PicusL. O. (2007). Paying for school finance adequacy with the national average expenditure per pupil. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington.
38.
OddenA. R.PicusL. O.GoetzM. E. (2010). A 50-state strategy to achieve school finance adequacy. Educational Policy, 24(4), 628–654.
39.
OddenA.PicusL. O. (2018). An evidence-based approach to school finance adequacy in Michigan: Determining the cost for funding educational achievement for all Michigan students. Picus Odden and Associates.
40.
Ohio Education Department. (2010a). Ohio’s School Foundation Payment System: PAthway to Student Success (PASS) form—An evidence-based model. Ohio Department of Education.
41.
Ohio Education Department. (2010b). Ohio’s School Foundation Payment System: PAthway to Student Succee (PASS) Worksheet. Ohio Department of Education.
42.
Ohio Education Department. (2013). School Finance Payment Report (SFPR): Line-by-line explanation for fiscal year 2014. Ohio Education Department.
43.
Ohio Legislative Service Commission. (2011). School funding complete resource. Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
44.
ParrettW. H.BudgeK. M. (2020). Turning high-poverty schools into high-performing schools (2nd ed.). ASCD.
45.
PicusL. O.GoertzM. E.OddenA. R. (2015). Intergovernmental aid formulas and case studies. In LaddH. F.GoetzM. E. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 279–296). Routledge.
46.
PicusL. O.OddenA.GlennW.GriffithM.WolkoffM. (2012). An evaluation of Vermont’s Education Finance System. Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, LLC.
47.
PicusL. O.OddenA.GoetzM.AportelaA.GriffithM. (2013b). An independent review of Maine’s essential programs and services funding Act: Part 2. Picus Odden and Associates.
48.
PicusL. O.OddenA.GoetzM.GriffithM.GlennW.HirshbergD.AportelaA. (2013a). An independent review of Maine’s essential programs and services funding act: Part 1. Picus Odden and Associates.
49.
RothJ.Sant’AnnaP. H.BilinskiA.PoeJ. (2023). What’s trending in difference-in-differences? A synthesis of the recent econometrics literature. Journal of Econometrics, 235(2), 2218–2244.
50.
SimonC. E. (2015). Why can’t Ohio equitably fund public education?The Journal of the Ohio Council of Professors of Educational Administration, 2(1), 1–11.
51.
StaigerD.StockJ. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments . Econometrica, 65(3), 557–586.
52.
SweetlandS. R. (2015). An assessment of the adequacy of Ohio school funding: New performance standards and alternative measurements of adequacy. Journal of Education Finance, 41(2), 124–144.
53.
van der KlaauwW. (2008). Breading the link between poverty and low student achievement. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 731–756.
54.
YazbackS. (2007). School financing in Ohio yesterday, today and tomorrow: Searching for a “thorough and efficient” system of public schools. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 57(3), 671–716.
55.
ZengS.LiF.WangR.LiF. (2021). Propensity score weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine, 40(4), 842–858.
56.
ZubizarretaJ. R. (2015). Stable weights that balance covariates for estimation with incomplete outcome data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(511), 910–922.
