Education Spending

The data I chose to look at referenced differences in K-12 education spending, an enormous $611 billion (2015) industry at the state and local level. It has been the largest sector dedicated to direct spending by such governments ever since 1977. There are also looming questions about not just the funding, but how the funding is being used, and its progressivity and “fairness.”

To start, it helps to see the patterns of spending. In 1977, the state and local governments spent less than half of today’s spending. Even still, it’s lessened as an overall cost from 26% of direct expenditures to 22% in 2015, due to the excess of spending in other sectors outweighing any sense of growth. Today, about 40% of local funds are dedicated to education spending, and more interestingly- 99% of state and local K-12 spending comes out at the local level- only 5 states have state governments also provide for some of their total education spending. The federal government is also involved, but relatively removed- it provides 9% of the financing for funds.

This context shows that the local focus is strong, and it’s where we can look at the patterns of progressivity. A Brookings study has shown that poor students are generally as well funded as others, if not better- but the beneficial gap is narrowing over time as general inequality increases. Additionally, another positive- the higher per-pupil rate- at first looks promising, as it shows a 2.5% increase in what is spent in the districts of poor students. However, it is noted that poor students may have a harder time recruiting teachers, and also may need more services, or retain more disabilities. Additionally, a lack of progress in progressive funding is also disheartening.

More data would be needed to really discern what is happening within the district, and how funding should specifically be allocated. Information about state variance- which more than quadruples looking at DC to Utah, for instance- has too many variables regarding local affordability, labor rates, etc, to look at that data for reference when regarding equity. But some things are easier to discern: while funds over time are growing, other needs- such as healthcare- are eclipsing any growth in the education sector. Keeping education fair and robust is not always the first priority. It is also clear that local funds are stretched – most of their direct funding already goes to education support- but there are more opportunities at higher levels to become involved. The federal government could play a vital role in the funding availability that could help turn the tide for many communities. Unfortunately, this current political climate seems to be unreliable on that front, and balancing equity will continue to be a more regional struggle.

Source: Link Link2