Spending on K-12 education across the United States and across local school districts has long been characterized by great disparitiesâ€"disparities that reflect differences in property wealth and tax rates. For more than a quarter-century, reformers have attempted to reduce these differences through court challenges and legislative action. As part of a broad study of education finance, the committee commissioned eight papers examining the history and consequences of school finance reform undertaken in the name of equity and adequacy. This thought-provoking, timely collection of papers explores such topics as: What do the terms "equity" and "adequacy" in school finance really mean? How are these terms relevant to the politics and litigation of school finance reform? What is the impact of court-ordered school finance reform on spending disparities? How do school districts use money from finance reform? What policy options are available to states facing new challenges from court decisions mandating adequacy in school finance? When measuring adequacy, how do you consider differences in student needs and regional costs?

Spending on K-12 education across the United States and across local school districts has long been characterized by great disparitiesâ€"disparities that reflect differences in property wealth and tax rates. For more than a quarter-century, reformers have attempted to reduce these differences through court challenges and legislative action. As part of a broad study of education finance, the committee commissioned eight papers examining the history and consequences of school finance reform undertaken in the name of equity and adequacy. This thought-provoking, timely collection of papers explores such topics as: What do the terms "equity" and "adequacy" in school finance really mean? How are these terms relevant to the politics and litigation of school finance reform? What is the impact of court-ordered school finance reform on spending disparities? How do school districts use money from finance reform? What policy options are available to states facing new challenges from court decisions mandating adequacy in school finance? When measuring adequacy, how do you consider differences in student needs and regional costs?

The United States annually spends over $300 billion on public elementary and secondary education. As the nation enters the 21st century, it faces a major challenge: how best to tie this financial investment to the goal of high levels of achievement for all students. In addition, policymakers want assurance that education dollars are being raised and used in the most efficient and effective possible ways. The book covers such topics as: Legal and legislative efforts to reduce spending and achievement gaps. The shift from "equity" to "adequacy" as a new standard for determining fairness in education spending. The debate and the evidence over the productivity of American schools. Strategies for using school finance in support of broader reforms aimed at raising student achievement. This book contains a comprehensive review of the theory and practice of financing public schools by federal, state, and local governments in the United States. It distills the best available knowledge about the fairness and productivity of expenditures on education and assesses options for changing the finance system.

In the mid 1990s, the U.S. Congress requested a major study of the U.S. system of elementary and secondary education finance by the National Research Council (NRC). This volume of background papers was prepared in conjunction with one part of the study. It includes eight papers commissioned by the NCR's committee to inform its discussions about equity and adequacy in education finance, two of the issues it was specifically charged to address. The papers are: (1) "Concepts of School Finance Equity: 1970 to the Present" (Robert Berne and Leanna Stiefel); (2) "School Finance Litigation in the Name of Educational Equity: Its Evolution, Impact, and Future" (Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman); (3) "The Impact of Court-Mandated School Finance Reform" (William N. Evans, Sheila E. Murray, and Robert M. Schwab); (4) "Court-Mandated School Finance Reform: What Do the New Dollars Buy?" (Margaret E. Goertz and Gary Natriello); (5) "The Politics of School Finance in the 1990s" (Melissa C. Carr and Susan H. Fuhrman); (6) "Educational Adequacy and the Courts: The Promise and Problems of Moving to a New Paradigm" (Paul A. Minorini and Stephen D. Sugarman); (7) "Enabling 'Adequacy' To Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements" (James W. Guthrie and Richard Rothstein); and (8) "Performance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Can't Have One without the Other" (William D. Duncombe and John M. Yinger). Each paper contains references. (Contains 29 tables and 4 boxes.) (SLD).

This inspiring account of bipartisan political success delivers an expert breakdown of how and why Kansas—a politically conservative state—was able to craft a stable, balanced, and equitable system of funding for its public schools. Beyond a chronicle of one state’s achievements, School Finance and Education Equity provides invaluable policy guidance and lays out a blueprint that other states can use to strengthen their own public education systems. Readers are given an insider’s tour of the Kansas story by Bruce D. Baker, an academic researcher and expert witness in school finance litigation. With more than two decades of involvement with the state, Baker combines historical background, legal analysis, and political and economic contextual data—along with a gleaming wit—to present a thorough, enlightening narrative of Kansas’s K–12 funding journey. As Baker points out, other states can find much to learn here. He shows that, when it comes to school finance, Kansas serves as an exemplar in aligning resources to meet the promises of its constitution. State leaders rejected the pervasive notion that money doesn’t matter in education, and they gathered the data to prove that it does. Baker emphasizes that this kind of slow and steady success hinges on the ability of stakeholders to remain involved over time. Continuity is vitally important. Baker’s account highlights how persistence can overcome opposition, continuity can aid reform, and incremental gains can lead to big change. In an era of national ideological polarization and political and economic volatility, the lessons from Kansas are especially illuminating.