RELEASE: School Finance Systems in New York Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending
Contact: Katie Peters
Washington, D.C. — Today a new report from the Center for American Progress tackles the serious issue of public school funding inequity by identifying often-overlooked features of school funding systems that exacerbate inequities in per-pupil spending rather than reduce them.
“Inequitable funding of U.S. public schools contributes significantly to the under achievement of our low-income and minority students. It’s something we have to fix if we are to progress as a society,” said Cynthia G. Brown, Vice President of Education Policy at the Center for American Progress.
The report, “The Stealth Inequities of School Funding,” focuses on six states—Illinois, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and North Carolina—where combined state and local revenues and school resources are significantly lower in higher-poverty districts than they are in lower-poverty districts.
Key findings from the report about student spending in New York include:
- The state of New York has one of the largest spending gaps between low-poverty and high- poverty districts in the country—a difference of more than $2,000 per pupil, after factoring in differences in costs.
- New York has a regressive distribution of state funding, with a significant amount of general foundation aid provided to the state’s lowest-need districts, while failing to bring the highest need districts up to the level of low-poverty districts. For example, New York’s property tax relief program is significantly regressive, allocating systematically more state-financed property tax relief on a per-pupil basis to districts with lower student needs and, on average, higher local fiscal capacity. In fact, in 2010, the wealthiest districts received on average $500 more per pupil than the poorest districts.
- All in all, the foundation-sharing adjustments and the School Tax Relief program aid effectively more than double the funding gap between the lowest- and highest-poverty districts—raising the per-pupil difference between these districts more than $1,200 dollars on average by providing a cumulative amount of, on average, more than $2,000 per pupil in state resources to the wealthiest districts.
- Property taxes account for 91.8 percent of inequality in local revenue between districts—leading to a difference on average of almost $16,000 dollars per pupil between money raised from property taxes in the highest wealth and lowest wealth districts.
The report’s first chapter, written by Rutgers University professor Bruce Baker, explores how state aid formulas—often designed to promote equity and adequacy—can work against their own stated objectives. What makes these patterns more offensive is that these states are taking billions of statewide taxpayer dollars and channeling them back to lower-poverty districts, which are much less in need of state funding support. For example, in 2010-11, Missouri’s Classroom Trust Fund provided more than $400 per pupil to every district in the state, regardless of the district’s wealth. Baker points out that each of these states could achieve far more equitable distribution of resources and far more adequate educational opportunities in high-poverty settings if these resources were allocated based on student need.
In the second chapter, New York University associate professor Sean Corcoran takes a closer look at the role local revenues play in resource disparities across low- and high-poverty school districts. Corcoran begins by identifying how local education revenues are raised in the United States, specifically the significant role that property taxes, more so than other types of taxes or fees, play in creating inequalities in funding. He then explores the state rules, parameters, and institutions governing how localities raise education dollars in order to identify factors beyond the ability to pay that influence variation in local revenues across school districts. For example, newly legislated restrictions on the growth of local property taxes are likely to constrain poorer districts more than wealthier ones if they are less able to obtain the political support needed to obtain an override.
Read the report: “The Stealth Inequities of School Funding” by Bruce D. Baker and Sean P. Corcoran
To speak with a CAP expert on this topic, please contact Katie Peters at KPeters@americanprogress.org
To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:
Print: Liz Bartolomeo (poverty, health care)
202.481.8151 or email@example.com
Print: Tom Caiazza (foreign policy, energy and environment, LGBT issues, gun-violence prevention)
202.481.7141 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Allison Preiss (economy, education)
202.478.6331 or email@example.com
Print: Tanya Arditi (immigration, Progress 2050, race issues, demographics, criminal justice)
202.741.6258 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Chelsea Kiene (women's issues, Talk Poverty, faith)
202.478.5328 or email@example.com
Print: Elise Shulman (oceans)
202.796.9705 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Print: Katie Murphy (Legal Progress)
202.495.3682 or email@example.com
Spanish-language and ethnic media: Jennifer Molina
202.796.9706 or firstname.lastname@example.org
TV: Rachel Rosen
202.483.2675 or email@example.com
Radio: Chelsea Kiene
202.478.5328 or firstname.lastname@example.org