A few years ago, we took a quick look at the difference in K-12 education spending between the higher- and lower-spending states, and whether that “spread” has changed since the early 1990s. We found, in short, a substantial increase in that variation, one which really started in the long wake of the 2007-09 recession.
Let’s update that simple descriptive analysis with a few additional years of data, and discuss why it’s potentially troubling.
In the graph below, each teal circle is an individual state, and each “column” of circles represents the spread of states in a given year; the red diamond is the unweighted national average. On the vertical axis, we have predicted per-pupil current spending in a district with a 10 percent Census child poverty rate (roughly the average rate), controlling for labor costs, population density, and enrollment. This measure comes from our SFID state dataset (note that the plot excludes Alaska and Vermont).
Throughout the 1990s, and during the first few years of the 2000s, all but a handful of states were bunched together somewhat tightly. After that, you can see a widening of the columns, creating a sideways cone shape, with greater space between the groups of states toward the top and bottom. In other words, the gap between higher- and lower-spending states is considerably larger now than it was 15-20 years ago. Obviously, there are multiple underlying causes here; these trends are complicated. But the 2007-09 recession, and the response to it by state lawmakers, was a big player.
The recession hit states hard and for a prolonged period of time. You can see this reflected in the dip of the mass of states starting in 2009. Once their economies began recovering, however, some states, such as Connecticut and Massachusetts, reinvested in their public schools, resuming their pre-recession spending growth trajectories. Other states, such as Arizona and New Mexico, did not, and they stagnated. By the time we get to the mid- to late-2010s, there is a clear group of about a dozen states that had broken away from the pack, in some cases by large margins.
This divergence has continued to grow over the past few years, and unfortunately there is little reason to believe it will not continue to do so. It is in no small part a result of policy choices by state lawmakers. In several states toward the bottom of the columns, tax and spending cuts are threatening public services, including the schools to which large shares of state and local revenue are devoted. In addition, any cuts to federal education aid will be most devastating for the majority of lower-spending states, pushing them further down relative to the pack. That includes federal pandemic aid, the cessation of which is not yet reflected in our data.
To be clear, there have always been differences between (and within) states in how much they invest in their schools. Spending will always be determined to some degree by how much taxpayers are willing to shell out. In addition, school funding depends in part on capacity. Higher-spending states, such as Connecticut and New Jersey, tend to have large economies from which to draw revenue. In contrast, several lower-spending states, such as Arkansas and Mississippi, actually devote a comparatively large share of their economies to their schools, but their economies are smaller, constraining their ability to raise revenue. It also bears mentioning that investment is arguably the most important factor shaping school performance, but it is certainly not the only one. Higher-spending states have no shortage of problems with the provision of public schooling (including, by the way, enormous funding inequity among their districts).
That said, the ongoing divergence is troubling. It is boosting the between-state component of unequal educational opportunity. It’s very difficult, at least for me, to see how this ends well. There’s a valid conversation to be had about the “correct” amount of spending, but we are well along the way to a situation in which tiers of states are separated by alarming gaps in educational investment, which may in turn exacerbate interstate gaps in performance and productivity.
View the original article and our Inspiration here