Federal funding for K-12 schools in low income communities improves educational outcomes
For[edit | edit source]
- Two 2016 studies of "exogenous" court-ordered finance reforms found relative improvements after courts required a state to spend more on education. According to the Brookings Institution, a study by Jackson et al. shows that "these students had more years of completed schooling and higher earnings as adults." A study by LaFortune et al. finds that "NAEP test scores increase after spending increases. Increases are not large for any one year, but they note that effects will cumulate for students who attend K-12 after a reform is enacted, a 13-year span".
- One regression discontinuity design study of School Improvement Grants (SIG) in California found that "there were significant improvements in the test-based performance of schools".
Against[edit | edit source]
- According to the Brookings Institution, a "regression discontinuity design" study of School Improvement Grants (SIG), which were funded for $7 billion as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, found that what "schools were doing to improve was not altered by SIG funding" and there was a "lack of improvements in scores". Brookings notes that this funding occurred over a relatively short period (3 years).
- Although a 2016 study of finance reform by LaFortune et al. estimates that after 10 years "a student in a lower-income district closed the score gap with students in the median-income district by 3.5 NAEP points", the improvement is relatively small. In 2015, "the gap between math scores for white and black eight-graders was 32 points".
See Also[edit | edit source]
- School Improvement Grants (SIGs) have had mixed efficacy at improving educational outcomes at low income schools in different U.S. states
- Students perform better after courts order states to spend more on low-income schools