The Role of States in Funding Education to Achieve Social Justice.

This study analyzed the degree to which state education funding systems supported social justice for the 1998-99 school year, where social justice was operationalized using the theory of vertical equity and research-based factors that placed students at risk of academic failure. The results of the study combined content analysis and statistical analysis to paint a complex picture of how and to what extent states provided additional resources for at-risk students. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to estimate the impact of the incidence of at-risk students on total state education funding, and although their presence in general had a statistically significant impact, not all risk factors were statistically significant. A startling finding was that as the incidence of some risk factors increased, states reduced rather than increased their funding efforts. More than 50 years after the historic Brown v. Board of Education1 decision demanding equality of educational opportunity for all students, the role of state education funding systems as a tool to promote social justice remains understudied and underutilized. In the discipline of education finance, vertical equity, defined as the unequal treatment of unequals, best captures the notion that some groups of children may need additional resources to be academically successful. In the broader education research literature, these students are often referred to as "at risk," a cat1. Brown v. Board of Education ofTopeka, 347 U.S. 483, 74 Sup. Ct. 686 (1954). Randall S. Vesely is an assistant professor with the Department of Professional Studies at Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne. Faith E. Crampton is an associate professor with the Department of Administrative Leadership at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Festus E. Obiakor is a professor with the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Marty Sapp is a professor with the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. 56 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE | 34:1 SUMMER 2OO8 56-74 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.137 on Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:44:51 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms State Funding and Social Justice 5 7 egory that encompasses children from low-income families, those with disabilities, ethnic minority students, English language learners,2 children in urban schools, and students from families with low parental education attainment. Under state and federal law, every child is entitled to an education appropriate to his or her needs. However, constitutionally, states bear the responsibility for the funding of public education. As such, the extent to which states provide adequate financial resources for educating at-risk children is a critical policy issue deserving of further study.3 To that end, this study, national in scope, analyzed the level and extent to which states provided funding for these groups of students through state funding formula mechanisms for the 1998-99 school year.4 The article is divided into four major sections. The first describes how vertical equity was operationalized for the purposes of this study, augments Land and Legters's research on risk factors,5 and presents research to support additional funding. In the second section, research methods and data sources are described. The third presents the results of the analysis, and the fourth section closes with conclusions and policy recommendations. OPERATIONALIZING VERTICAL EQUITY In this study, the theoretical concept of vertical equity, defined as the "appropriately unequal treatment of unequals,"6 was operationalized through a comprehensive, research-based framework of risk factors developed by Land and Legters7 where "risk" was defined as academic failure or the failure to graduate high school.8 Their review of education research yielded six categories of risk: 2. Also referred to as students with limited English proficiency. 3. Since 2000, addressing existing achievement gaps has taken on even greater urgency at the state and federal policy levels. For example, by 2000, 48 states had statewide, standards-based accountability systems in place along with high-stakes testing. See M. E. Goertz and M. C. Duffy with K. Carlson Le Floch, "Assessment and Accountability in the 50 States: 1999-2000," CPRE Research Report Series, RR-046 (Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 2001). At the federal level, the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has placed greater pressure on states and school districts to ensure that all students make adequate yearly academic progress. See No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110. 4. This is the most recent, comprehensive 50-state source of state funding mechanisms for at-risk students available to test the hypothesis of this study. For a discussion of limitations of the study, please see the Methods section. 5. See D. Land and N. Legters, The Extent and Consequences of Risk in U.S. Education, in Educating At-Risk Children, ed. S. Stringfield and D. Land (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002): 1-28. 6. R. Berne and L. Stiefel, Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present, in Equity and Adequacy in Education Finance: Issues and Perspectives, ed. H. F. Ladd, R. Chalk, and J. S. Hansen (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1999): 20. 7. Land and Legters, "The Extent and Consequences of Risk in U.S. Education." 8. Stringfield and Land, Educating At-Risk Children, vii. For further discussion of the conceptualization and operationalization of "risk" in education finance research literature, see R. S. Vesely and E E. Crampton, "An Assessment of Vertical Equity in Four States: Addressing Risk Factors in Education Funding Formulas," Journal of Education Finance 30 (Fall 2004): 111-122. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.137 on Fri, 22 Apr 2016 05:44:51 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 58 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FINANCE poverty, disability, racial minority status, limited English proficiency, attendance at an urban school, and presence of a parent with less than a high school education.9 They also noted the compound nature of risk whereby academic success is further compromised for students with two or more risk factors. This section explores additional research related to these risk factors and the compound nature of risk and ends with a review of research establishing the need for additional resources for these children.