According to a new study from the Brookings Institution, high-poverty, predominantly non-White school districts in the United States spend more money per pupil than lower-poverty districts. However, urban, predominantly non-White school districts often have higher labor costs, which explains much of the discrepancy.
The authors examined recent school district data spanning 1976 to 2021 to determine districts’ spending patterns over time as policy preferences evolved and states reformed their school finance systems. Between 1976 and the 1990s, average spending increased, but the distribution of spending trended away from serving disadvantaged students. After 1995, spending within states was increasingly targeted toward high-poverty, non-White districts. However, during the Great Recession, low-poverty and predominately White districts were more more protected from spending cuts, while more disadvantaged districts were the least protected.
Over the study period, the poorest and wealthiest districts spent the most per pupil compared to districts in middle-class areas. Since the early 2000s, the poorest districts have outspent the wealthiest districts. By racial composition, predominately non-White districts also spent more per pupil than other districts. However these schools tend to be in urban areas, which often carry higher costs of living and labor expenses.
“Despite the progressive pattern of school funding documented here, public discourse often proceeds as if high-poverty and predominantly non-white districts spend less than their more advantaged counterparts,” the authors write. “The perception that districts serving more disadvantaged students have systematically lower spending reflects a historical reality that has not been accurate for at least two decades.”
The authors continue, “High-poverty schools undoubtedly need more resources than their low-poverty counterparts to provide equivalent educational opportunities; our findings do not contest this. Our goal here is to document how actual average spending levels relate to district characteristics and how that has changed over time. Although this analysis cannot answer the critical questions of how schools can best use their resources or how much funding is needed to meet educational goals, we hope our findings can help ground discussions of school spending in an understanding of historical and current spending patterns.”
