The Education Trust recently released a report that shows a growing funding gap between high and low poverty, as well as high and low minority, districts in North Carolina, among other states. Let’s talk about it.
The study has three weaknesses. First, it does not take federal funding into account. Much of the K-12 education money that comes from the federal government pays for special education programs that – for better or worse – often enroll a high percentage of a district’s low income and minority students. Last year, North Carolina received around $300 million for special education, rural low-income students, and English language acquisition students. In addition, $300 million in federal funds went to Title I (high poverty) schools. Thus, two-thirds of North Carolina’s federal funding targets the populations under consideration in the Education Trust report.
Second, the study compares districts, not schools. Within districts, there is usually a significant variation in the amount of funding schools receive. District averages would conceal that fact. In states that give districts flexibility in how they allocate their funding, the differences within districts are even more important.
Finally, the report provides no evidence that funding gaps, which is not necessarily a proxy for poverty, have any bearing on student performance in each state. In other words, what are the effects of funding gaps, if any? If we close the funding gaps, do high poverty districts perform better or worse? Regrettably, the report does not address these essential questions, but, instead, is content to lament the funding gaps and their (assumed) deleterious effect on students.
