Search

Presenters at the State of the States Roundtable session at the 2014 National Education Finance Conference in Louisville were invited to submit their papers for publication. These papers address the following topics: (1) State issues affecting P-12 and/or higher education funding; (2) Funding priorities/trends for P-12 and/or higher education; (3) Changes to funding formula for P-12 and/or higher education; and (4) Impact on school district or higher education budgets. States represented in this section include Alabama (Lenford C. Sutton), Arizona (Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and David Martinez), Colorado (Gabriel R. Serna and Spencer C. Weiler), Florida (Brittany Larkin, Jasmine Ulmer, and R. Craig Wood), Indiana (Marilyn A. Hirth and Edward Eiler), Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe), Michigan (Brett A. Geier), Mississippi (Luke J. Stedrak), Nebraska (Barbara Y. LaCost), Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen), New York (Osnat Zaken), North Carolina (Lisa G. Driscoll and Jim R. Watson), Ohio (Jacob T. Akin, Carlee Poston Escue, and Randall S. Vesely), Oklahoma (Stephen C. Ballard, Stephoni Case, and Jeffrey Maiden), South Carolina (Matthew R. Della Sala and Robert C. Knoeppel), Utah (Kim Campbell, Cade Charlton, John Maynes, and Richard West), Virginia (William Owings, Leslie S. Kaplan, and Richard G. Salmon), Wisconsin (Faith E. Crampton), and Washington, D.C. (Sarah Irvine Belson and Thomas Husted). (Individual state sections contain references.)

In February 2015 a large group of scholars, researchers, and practitioners interested in P-20 finance issues gathered in St. Louis, Missouri, for the National Education Finance Academy's annual conference, on February 25-27, 2015 to discuss, among multiple topics, the state of P-20 finance in all 50 states. There were 35 states represented in the round table session and representatives of 30 of those states submitted their manuscripts to the "Journal of Education Finance" for publication. This is the third year that JEF has published the State of the States manuscripts as a service to those interested in trends around P-20 finance and the 28 states represents the highest number of states included in the report to date. However, it is the intention to have all 50 states represented by 2016 and individuals interested in representing currently unrepresented states should contact Drs. Weiler and Hartman. Presenters at the 2015 National Education Finance Academy's State of the States Round table session were directed to address the following topics: (1) Funding priorities/trends for P-12 and/or higher education (2) Changes to the funding formula for P-12 and/or higher education; (3) Pressing issues affecting P-12 and/or higher education funding; (4) Exclusive to P-12: Diverting funds from public school districts; and (5) Exclusive to Higher Education: Trends in state funding for public institutions. The following information summarizes some of the more prevalent trends observed in the submissions. The following manuscripts are presented here listed alphabetically by state: (1) Alabama (Brenda Mendiola and Philip Westbrook); (2) Arizona (Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and David Martinez); (3) Arkansas (Dongfang Liu and Chao Liu); (4) California (Henry Tran); (5) Florida (Megan Lane, Jolande Morgan, and R. Craig Wood); (6) Georgia (Brittany Larkin); (7) Hawaii (Christine Kiracofe); (8) Illinois (Kelly H. Summers and Christine Kiracofe); (9) Kansas (Thomas A. DeLuca); (10) Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe); (11) Louisiana (David G. Buckman); (12) Maryland (Sarah Irvine Belson and Thomas Husted); (13) Michigan (Brett Geier and Dennis McCrumb ); (14) Minnesota (Nicola A. Alexander); (15) Montana (Lou L. Sabina); (16) Nebraska (Barbara Y. LaCost); (17) Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen); (18) New Jersey (Luke J. Stedrak and Robert Kelchen); (19) New Mexico (Joshua M. Cohen); (20) New York (Osnat Zaken); (21) North Carolina (Lisa G. Driscoll and Jim R. Watson ); (22) Ohio (Carlee Escue Simon); (23) Pennsylvania (Tim Shrom and William Hartman); (24) South Carolina (Misty B. Soles and Robert C. Knoeppel); (25) Tennessee (Betty Cox); (26) Texas (Ken Helvey); (27) Virginia (William Owings, Leslie S. Kaplan, and Richard G. Salmon); (28) Wisconsin (Faith E. Crampton); and (29) Wyoming (Kelly H. Summers). References are provided with each individual paper.

On February 24, 2017, all of the authors of the state-of-the-state manuscripts published in the "Journal of Education Finance" met in Cincinnati, Ohio, to participate in a roundtable discussion focused on recent legislative actions in 38 states. A majority of those papers were revised to reflect a final report on legislative actions impacting the funding of P-12 and higher education. Overall, adequate funding for education continues to be an issue many states are struggling with. There is reason to be hopeful, as several states have seen increases in per pupil funding and teacher salaries. When facing funding shortfalls, some states have begun considering alternate sources of funding for public education. In complicated fiscal times like these, it is anticipated that an increasing number of states will look to novel forms of raising revenue for public schools. The following contents are included: (1) The Good, the Bad, and the Alarming: Commentary on the 2017 State of the States Submissions (Brittany Larkin, Christine Kiracofe, and Spencer Weiler); (2) Alabama (Philip Westbrook and Brenda Mendiola); (3) Alaska (Amy Dagley); (4) Arizona (David G. Martinez and Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos); (5) Arkansas (Steve Bounds); (6) California (Henry Tran); (7) Colorado (Gabriel R. Serna and Spencer C. Weiler); (8) Connecticut (Lesley A. DeNardis); (9) Florida (Megan Lane, Jolande Morgan, and R. Craig Wood); (10) Georgia (David G. Buckman and Tommy Jackson); (11) Illinois (Christine Kiracofe); (12) Indiana (Scott Rodger Sweetland); (13) Kansas (Thomas A. DeLuca); (14) Kentucky (Tyrone Bynoe); (15) Louisiana (Arvin Johnson, Venice M. Adams, and David G. Buckman); (16) Massachusetts (Tyrone Bynoe); (17) Michigan (Brett A. Geier); (18) Minnesota (Nicola A. Alexander); (19) Mississippi (Spencer D. Stone and Joshua A. Money); (20) Nebraska (Barbara La Cost); (21) Nevada (Deborah A. Verstegen, Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, and David Martinez); (22) New Hampshire (F. Frank Ayata and Jeremy M. Anderson); (23) New Jersey (Luke J. Stedrak); (24) New Mexico (David G. Martinez and Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos); (25) New York (Osnat Zaken); (26) North Carolina (Walter Hart, Jim R. Watson, and Lisa G. Driscoll); (27) Ohio (Barbara M. De Luca, Krystel H. Chenault, and Randall S. Vesely); (28) Oklahoma (Jeffrey Maiden and Channa Byerly); (29) Oregon (Michael C. Petko); (30) Pennsylvania (Jeremy Anderson and F. Frank Ayata); (31) Tennessee (Lisa G. Driscoll and Betty Cox); (32) Texas (Ken Helvey); (33) Virginia (William Owings and Leslie S. Kaplan); (34) West Virginia (Drew Milligan); (35) Wisconsin (Michael C. Petko); and (36) Wyoming (Joshua M. Cohen). [For the previous year, see EJ1170086.]

Like other states, Michigan has implemented a number of policies to change governance and administrative arrangements in local school districts deemed to be in financial emergency. This paper examines two questions: (1) Which districts get into financial trouble and why? and (2) Among fiscally distressed districts, are there significant differences in the characteristics of districts in which the state does and does not intervene? We analyze factors influencing district fund balances utilizing fixed effect models on a statewide panel dataset of Michigan school districts from 1995 to 2012. We evaluate the impact of state school finance and choice policies, over which local districts have limited control, and local district resource allocation decisions (e.g., average class size, teacher salaries, and spending devoted to administration, employee health insurance, and contracted services). Our results indicate that 80% of the explained variation in district fiscal stress is due to changes in districts' state funding, to enrollment changes including those associated with school choice policies, and to the enrollment of high-cost, special education students. We also find that the districts in which the state has intervened have significantly higher shares of African-American and low-income students than other financially troubled Michigan districts, and they are in worse financial shape by some measures.

This paper is a quantitative assessment of the argument that enrollment declines have contributed to increases in per pupil expenditures in public education. It analyzes changes in resource levels per pupil in Michigan from 1970 to 1980 and the extent to which they are related to changes in enrollment. (TE)

Regarding shortcomings in guaranteed tax base (GTB) school aid formulas, especially difficulties in measuring district fiscal capacity, the authors cite Michigan data to argue that inequities resulting from measurements using property wealth can be mitigated by property tax relief, intrastate cost differentials, and a unique aspect of Michigan's GTB formula. (RW)