IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/soecon/v68y2002i3p566-583.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Legacy of Serrano: The Impact of Mandated Equal Spending on Private School Enrollment

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. Husted
  • Lawrence W. Kenny

Abstract

In Tiebout's idealized world, families would sort into homogeneous communities. Each family would get its preferred quality of public schools and there would be no demand for private schools. But limited public school options and a demand for religious instruction not permitted in public schools create a market for private schooling. Recently, many state governments have greatly limited districts' freedom to spend what they wish on education, often in response to court rulings to equalize education spending, such as Serrano in California. Funding equalization also affects the level of public school spending in the average state district; if this rises, as it has in many states, private schools become less attractive. Examining private school enrollment in 159 metropolitan areas in 1970, 1980, and 1990, we find that private school enrollments fall as average public spending rises and increase as public spending becomes more equal.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. Husted & Lawrence W. Kenny, 2002. "The Legacy of Serrano: The Impact of Mandated Equal Spending on Private School Enrollment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 68(3), pages 566-583, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:3:p:566-583
    DOI: 10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00438.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00438.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/j.2325-8012.2002.tb00438.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hamilton, Bruce W. & Macauley, Molly K., 1991. "Determinants and consequences of the private -- Public school choice," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 282-294, May.
    2. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2000. "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1209-1238, December.
    3. William N. Evans & Sheila E. Murray & Robert M. Schwab, 1997. "Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses after Serrano," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 10-31.
    4. Silva, Fabio & Sonstelie, Jon, 1995. "Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 48(2), pages 199-215, June.
    5. Couch, Jim F & Shughart, William F, II & Williams, Al L, 1993. "Private School Enrollment and Public School Performance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 301-312, August.
    6. Matthew N. Murray & Sally Wallace, 1997. "The Implications of Expanded School Choice," Public Finance Review, , vol. 25(5), pages 459-473, September.
    7. Eberts, Randall W. & Gronberg, Timothy J., 1981. "Jurisdictional homogeneity and the Tiebout hypothesis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 227-239, September.
    8. Aaronson, Daniel, 1999. "The Effect of School Finance Reform on Population Heterogeneity," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(1), pages 5-29, March.
    9. Caroline Minter Hoxby, 1994. "Do Private Schools Provide Competition for Public Schools?," NBER Working Papers 4978, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2000. "Mobility, Targeting, and Private-School Vouchers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 130-146, March.
    11. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    12. Lankford, Hamilton & Wyckoff, James, 1992. "Primary and secondary school choice among public and religious alternatives," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 317-337, December.
    13. Silva, Fabio & Sonstelie, Jon, 1995. "Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 48(2), pages 199-215, June.
    14. Kenny, Lawrence W, 1982. "A Model of Optimal Plant Size with an Application to the Demand for Cognitive Achievement and for School Size," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(2), pages 240-254, April.
    15. Robert Manwaring & Steven Sheffrin, 1997. "Litigation, School Finance Reform, and Aggregate Educational Spending," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 4(2), pages 107-127, May.
    16. West, Edwin G & Palsson, Halldor, 1988. "Parental Choice of School Characteristics: Estimation Using State-Wide Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(4), pages 725-740, October.
    17. Murray, Sheila E & Evans, William N & Schwab, Robert M, 1998. "Education-Finance Reform and the Distribution of Education Resources," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 789-812, September.
    18. Downes, Thomas A. & Schoeman, David, 1998. "School Finance Reform and Private School Enrollment: Evidence from California," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 418-443, May.
    19. Husted, Thomas A & Kenny, Lawrence W, 2000. "Evidence on the Impact of State Government on Primary and Secondary Education and the Equity-Efficiency Trade-Off," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(1), pages 285-308, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas J. Nechyba, 2003. "Centralization, Fiscal Federalism, and Private School Attendance," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 44(1), pages 179-204, February.
    2. Thomas A. Downes, 2002. "Do state governments matter?: a review of the evidence on the impact on educational outcomes of the changing role of the states in the financing of public education," Conference Series ; [Proceedings], Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, vol. 47(Jun), pages 143-180.
    3. Marlow, Michael L., 1999. "Spending, school structure, and public education quality. Evidence from California," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 89-106, February.
    4. Fernández, Raquel, 2001. "Sorting, Education and Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 3020, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Eric J. Brunner & Jon Sonstelie, 2006. "California's School Finance Reform: An Experiment in Fiscal Federalism," Working papers 2006-09, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    6. Raquel Fernandez, 2001. "Sorting, Education and Inequality," NBER Working Papers 8101, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Thomas Downes, 2003. "School Finance Reform and School Quality: Lessons from Vermont," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0309, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    8. Fernández, Raquel & Rogerson, Richard, 1999. "Education finance reform and investment in human capital: lessons from California," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 327-350, December.
    9. Raquel Fernandez & Richard Rogerson, 2003. "Equity and Resources: An Analysis of Education Finance Systems," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(4), pages 858-897, August.
    10. James Alm & Robert D. Buschman & David L. Sjoquist, 0. "Citizen "Trust" as an Explanation of State Education Funding to Local School Districts," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 41(4), pages 636-661.
    11. Cohen-Zada, Danny & Justman, Moshe, 2003. "The political economy of school choice: linking theory and evidence," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 277-308, September.
    12. Loeb, Susanna, 2001. "Estimating the effects of school finance reform: a framework for a federalist system," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 225-247, May.
    13. Aaronson, Daniel, 1999. "The Effect of School Finance Reform on Population Heterogeneity," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 52(1), pages 5-29, March.
    14. Dee, Thomas S., 1998. "Competition and the quality of public schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 419-427, October.
    15. Thomas S. Dee, 2005. "Expense Preference and Student Achievement in School Districts," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 31(1), pages 23-44, Winter.
    16. Barrow, Lisa & Rouse, Cecilia Elena, 2004. "Using market valuation to assess public school spending," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(9-10), pages 1747-1769, August.
    17. Blankenau, William & Skidmore, Mark, 2002. "The Relationship Between Education Finance Reform and Tax and Expenditure Limitations," Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, vol. 32(1), pages 1-18.
    18. Grosskopf, Shawna & Hayes, Kathy J. & Taylor, Lori L. & Weber, William L., 2001. "On the Determinants of School District Efficiency: Competition and Monitoring," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 453-478, May.
    19. Dennis N. Epple & Richard Romano, 2003. "Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 227-286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Millimet, Daniel L. & Rangaprasad, Vasudha, 2007. "Strategic competition amongst public schools," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 199-219, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:soecon:v:68:y:2002:i:3:p:566-583. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2325-8012 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.