IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/edecon/v17y2009i4p421-444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of school finance litigation on resource distribution: a comparison of court-mandated equity and adequacy reforms

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew Springer
  • Keke Liu
  • James Guthrie

Abstract

While there is a wealth of research on school finance equity and adequacy, and school finance theory clearly documents differences between the two concepts, no study has examined whether the reforms engendered by each approach actually differ in terms of resource distribution. The present study examines the issues using district-level data on expenditure by function from two, large national data-sets: the US Census of Governments School System Finance File F-33 (1972-2002) and the National Center for Education Statistics' Longitudinal School District Fiscal-Nonfiscal File (1990-2000). A difference-in-differences estimator with state and year fixed effects indicates that both court-mandated equity and adequacy reforms decrease resource inequities. However, estimates based on data from the F-33 file show negligible differences between equity and adequacy reforms, while estimates based on data from the Fiscal-Nonfiscal File indicate adequacy reform does not decrease horizontal inequities as much as court-mandated equity reform. To explore these contradictory findings, we implement a two-stage regression approach that examines whether court-mandated adequacy reform is associated with a state funding mechanism accounting for certain educational needs of students. Court-mandated adequacy reform does not result in the allocation of additional resources to low-income districts when compared with states under court-mandated equity reform. We conclude that, contrary to school finance theory, resource distribution patterns following court-mandated equity and adequacy reforms are not statistically different.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew Springer & Keke Liu & James Guthrie, 2009. "The impact of school finance litigation on resource distribution: a comparison of court-mandated equity and adequacy reforms," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 421-444.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:edecon:v:17:y:2009:i:4:p:421-444
    DOI: 10.1080/09645290802069269
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/09645290802069269
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roy Roy, 2004. "Impact of School Finance Reform on Resource Equalization and Academic Performance: Evidence from Michigan," Working Papers 8, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Education Research Section..
    2. Joydeep Roy, 2011. "Impact of School Finance Reform on Resource Equalization and Academic Performance: Evidence from Michigan," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 6(2), pages 137-167, April.
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:7221 is not listed on IDEAS
    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


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Conlin & Paul N. Thompson, 2014. "Michigan and Ohio K–12 Educational Financing Systems: Equality and Efficiency," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 417-445, October.
    2. Tom Downes & Kieran M. Killeen, 2014. "So Slow to Change: The Limited Growth of Nontax Revenues in Public Education Finance, 1991–2010," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 9(4), pages 567-599, October.

    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:taf:edecon:v:17:y:2009:i:4:p:421-444. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEDE20 .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.