Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Impact of School Finance Reform on Resource Equalization and Academic Performance: Evidence from Michigan

Contents:

Author Info

  • Joydeep Roy

Abstract

The state of Michigan radically altered its school finance system in 1994. This was a legislature-led reform that took place somewhat unexpectedly and without the intervention of any courts. The new plan, called Proposal A, significantly increased the state share of K-12 spending and entailed large sums of money to the lowest spending districts. These districts were also allowed to increase their future spending at a much faster rate than others. Concurrently, Proposal A ended local discretion over school spending. Using panel data on K-12 districts from 1990 to 2001 I investigate the impact of Proposal A on distribution of resources and educational outcomes in Michigan. In the process this paper offers a first detailed look at the effectiveness of a legislature-led school finance reform, something which has been debated recently in the literature. I first look at the effect on equalization of school spending. The program was quite successful on this count - by the end of the decade the lowest spending districts had witnessed large increases in spending. The gap between the highest and lowest spending districts had considerably narrowed down. The magnitudes look particularly impressive when compared to the corresponding estimates from court-mandated reforms, even large comprehensive ones like Kentucky (1989). The results are similar for other important indicators – e.g. while at the time of the program there was a large positive relationship between median income in a school district and its K-12 expenditures, this has been significantly weakened post-reform. Next I look at the trends in academic performance. I employ various strategies, including using the changes in state aid formula as instruments for actual spending, to estimate whether the lowest spending districts, the chief beneficiaries, witnessed any additional improvements. The results based on tests administered by the state show significant test score gains by these districts. These gains are robust to alternative control groups, and hold good when I look at the experience of two neighboring states, Indiana and Ohio. However, there is not much evidence of any improved performance by these lowest spending districts in college preparation test (ACT). There is also not much relative improvement, particularly at the lower half of the distribution, in nationally-conducted NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) tests. These findings have significant policy implications. First, these show that state legislatures can initiate and implement a comprehensive school finance reform, even one which is largely redistributive in nature. Second, it is interesting to note the significant academic progress registered by the lowest spending districts in the post-reform period. While not ruling out substantial inefficiencies in the utilization of additional funds, it seems that a lack of resources was partially responsible in holding down achievement in some districts. However, and third, the gains in student achievement look relatively modest, particularly when compared to the large increases in spending. It seems that even complete equalization of school resources across districts will not be enough to ensure complete equality in school outcome measures. One may have to look beyond school financing to issues of school effort and favorable peer group quality.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://repec.org/esNASM04/up.29436.1075499849.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Econometric Society in its series Econometric Society 2004 North American Summer Meetings with number 425.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 11 Aug 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:425

Contact details of provider:
Phone: 1 212 998 3820
Fax: 1 212 995 4487
Email:
Web page: http://www.econometricsociety.org/pastmeetings.asp
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: K-12 Education; School Finance; Inequality and Redistribution; Academic Performance;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Brian A. Jacob & Steven D. Levitt, 2003. "Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating," NBER Working Papers 9413, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Caroline Minter Hoxby, 1996. "Are Efficiency and Equity in School Finance Substitutes or Complements?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 51-72, Fall.
  3. Benabou, Roland, 1996. "Heterogeneity, Stratification, and Growth: Macroeconomic Implications of Community Structure and School Finance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 584-609, June.
  4. Paul N. Courant & Susanna Loeb, 1997. "Centralization of school finance in Michigan," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 114-136.
  5. Card, David & Payne, A. Abigail, 2002. "School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 49-82, January.
  6. Courant, Paul N & Gramlich, Edward M & Loeb, Susanna, 1995. "Michigan's Recent School Finance Reforms: A Preliminary Report," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(2), pages 372-77, May.
  7. Alan Krueger, 1997. "Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions," Working Papers 758, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
  8. Bettinger, Eric P., 2005. "The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 133-147, April.
  9. Jonathan Guryan, 2001. "Does Money Matter? Regression-Discontinuity Estimates from Education Finance Reform in Massachusetts," NBER Working Papers 8269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Fernandez, Raquel & Rogerson, Richard, 1996. "Income Distribution, Communities, and the Quality of Public Education," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 111(1), pages 135-64, February.
  11. Caroline M. Hoxby, 1998. "All School Finance Equalizations Are Not Created Equal," NBER Working Papers 6792, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. David N. Figlio & Lawrence S. Getzler, 2002. "Accountability , Ability and Disability: Gaming the System," NBER Working Papers 9307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. 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.
  16. Feldstein, Martin S, 1975. "Wealth Neutrality and Local Choice in Public Education," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(1), pages 75-89, March.
  17. James M. Poterba, 1997. "Demographic structure and the political economy of public education," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(1), pages 48-66.
  18. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2002. "School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?)," NBER Working Papers 8873, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  19. Downes, Thomas A., 1992. "Evaluating the Impact of School Finance Reform on the Provision of Public Education: The California Case," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 45(4), pages 405-19, December.
  20. Cecilia Elena Rouse, 1998. "Private School Vouchers And Student Achievement: An Evaluation Of The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(2), pages 553-602, May.
  21. Harris, Amy Rehder & Evans, William N. & Schwab, Robert M., 2001. "Education spending in an aging America," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 449-472, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Helena Holmlund & Sandra McNally & Martina Viarengo, 2009. "Does Money Matter for Schools?," CEE Discussion Papers 0105, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
  2. Joydeep Roy, 2004. "Effect of a School Finance Reform on Housing Stock and Residential Segregation: Evidence from Proposal A in Michigan," Public Economics 0412004, EconWPA.
  3. Torbjørn Hægeland & Oddbjørn Raaum & Kjell G. Salvanes, 2007. "Pennies from heaven. Using exogenous tax variation to identify effects of school resources on pupil achievement," Discussion Papers 508, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
  4. Maria Marta Ferreyra, 2009. "An Empirical Framework for Large-Scale Policy Analysis, with an Application to School Finance Reform in Michigan," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 1(1), pages 147-80, February.
  5. Maria Marta Ferreyra, 2008. "An Empirical Framework for Large-Scale Policy Analysis, with an Application to School Finance Reform in Michigan," 2008 Meeting Papers 609, Society for Economic Dynamics.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecm:nasm04:425. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Christopher F. Baum).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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