Policy Brief
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF AN
EDUCATION FINANCE AND
POLICY SURVEY
Leanna Stiefel
(corresponding author)
Robert F. Wagner Graduate
School of Public Service and
Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human
Development
New York University
New York, NY 10012
[email protected]
Amy Ellen Schwartz
Robert F. Wagner Graduate
School of Public Service and
Steinhardt School of Culture,
Education, and Human
Development
New York University
New York, NY 10012
[email protected]
Anne Rotenberg
Robert F. Wagner Graduate
Abstract
In the spring of 2008 the authors surveyed members of
the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) to
gain insight into their views on education policy issues.
The results summarize opinions of this broad group
of education researchers and practitioners, providing
AEFA members and education leaders with access to
views that may be helpful as they consider policies to
analyze or pursue. This article reports the results in
six areas of current policy interest. How should education aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing?
Does school finance reform work? What has accountability wrought? Can school policies close the blackwhite achievement gap? And how should teachers be
compensated? Our findings identify areas of substantial agreement as well as areas where there is disagreement. For example, there is considerable agreement that
state and federal governments should provide additional
funding for disadvantaged students but disagreement
on how to measure school finance adequacy.
School of Public Service
New York University
Bronx, NY 10463
Editors’ note: This survey was conducted before the American Education Finance Association (AEFA) changed
its name to the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP). As a result, we have elected to retain the
AEFA acronym throughout the article.
c 2011 Association for Education Finance and Policy
267
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
INTRODUCTION
Even while academic journals and the popular media focus considerable attention on conflicts in education policy research and disagreements among
researchers, policy makers must make decisions. They must decide, for example, if they should reform school finance systems and whether they should
expand school choice. The results of this survey will provide access to the
views on these and other issues of respondents from the American Education
Finance Association (AEFA), a professional association of researchers and
practitioners who focus on education finance and policy issues. Knowing how
these professionals view the issues may be helpful in weighing evidence or
deciding when further exploration is needed.
Unfortunately, identifying issues on which many professionals substantially agree—even when they do—is not straightforward. In academic review
articles, authors weigh the evidence (perhaps using formal tools of metaanalysis) but limit their analysis to published research.1 An alternative source
of information comes from professionals either individually (in court proceedings or legislative hearings or as consultants) or in small groups charged with
the task of sifting the evidence (e.g., the What Works Clearinghouse) or those
who support a particular point of view (e.g., New York Times 2004). But these
efforts reflect, at least to some extent, the opinions of a relatively small group
of professionals. To gain insight into the opinions of a broader group, we take
a different approach, surveying the members of AEFA, the largest organization of professionals focused specifically on issues in education finance and
policy. While it is a focused group of professionals, AEFA is also diverse in its
membership, including professors, students, lawyers, union members, consultants, and employees of think tanks, many of whom do research or policy
analysis and some of whom are practitioners or even policy makers. Disciplines represented include policy analysis, finance, economics, and others.
While the survey is likely to be of interest to members and policy makers, in
the end it represents views and opinions of those from this diverse group who
responded to the survey. The issues covered are often of a contentious nature,
and the results presented here do not resolve controversies but rather present
an alternative reading of what an important group of respondents says. Also
note that this survey was conducted independently of AEFA and is the work
of the authors alone.
In this article, we report the results in six areas of current policy interest.
How should education aid be distributed? Is school choice a good thing? Does
school finance reform work? What has accountability wrought? Can school
policies close the black-white achievement gap? And how should teachers be
1.
268
See, for example, Hanushek 1986; Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine 1996; Podgursky and Springer
2007; or Ladd and Fiske 2008.
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
compensated? In a few cases, there are substantial differences in responses
across disciplinary and age groups, and these cases are included in the results.
After a description of the survey itself in section 2, in section 3 we briefly
present overviews of current debates in existing literature as they relate to the
survey questions and then provide the results of the survey that align most
closely with these overviews.2 In section 4, we summarize the areas where
respondents’ opinions are in substantial agreement and areas where they are
not.
THE SURVEY
In April and May 2008, electronic invitations to respond to an online survey
were emailed to all 528 then-current AEFA members.3 Fifty-seven percent of
successfully contacted members responded.
The survey covered a range of policy areas, including school finance, school
choice, and accountability. Most questions asked that respondents indicate
strength of agreement in one of five categories: strongly disagree (coded 1 for
analysis purposes), disagree (coded 2), neutral (coded 3), agree (coded 4), and
strongly agree (coded 5). Other questions provided a list of options. One set
of questions on vouchers was taken from a previous survey of economists
belonging to the American Economic Association (Klein and Stern 2007). A
table of all survey questions with survey takers’ responses is available from the
authors.
Table 1 displays characteristics of survey respondents with comparisons,
where possible, with the AEFA membership.4 As shown, the respondent sample is roughly similar to the AEFA membership in the percentage male (roughly
60 percent) but has a higher percentage of PhDs compared with the roster
group (61 percent versus as low as 40 percent). Some members, however, did
not include the honorific title of “Dr.” in the roster, which led to an undercount
of the PhDs.5
RESULTS
Results are displayed in bar and pie charts. Note that bar charts report mean
scores as well as the percent of respondents that agree or strongly agree and
the percent that disagree or strongly disagree to provide a sense of both central
2.
3.
4.
5.
We provide citations to the AEFA Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (Ladd and
Fiske 2008) where relevant.
AEFA membership was defined as members listed in the 2008 printed membership roster; 518
surveys were successfully delivered.
The membership characteristics were not available from the AEFA executive director and were
gathered where available from information in the printed membership roster.
We classified individuals with PhDs according to self-appellation as “Dr.” in the roster, but at least
fifteen members, known by authors to have PhDs, did not list themselves as such. Had they been
included in the PhD category, the percent with PhDs would have increased to 45.1 percent.
269
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Table 1. Comparison Demographics of Survey Respondents (N = 295) and 2008 AEFA Members (N =
528)
Demographic Group
Sex
Education
Discipline
Age
a
b
2008 AEFA Roster
Male
60%
60%
Female
40%
40%
Doctoral degreeb
61%
40%
Master’s degree
21%
–
Professional degree
14%
–
4%
–
41%
–
Bachelor’s degree
Professional role
Survey Respondentsa
Faculty
Researcher
25%
–
Student
10%
–
Practitioner
9%
–
Consultant
7%
–
Other
5%
–
Retired
4%
–
Policy analysis
30%
–
Economics
28%
–
Finance
24%
–
All other
18%
–
6%
–
30–39
26%
–
40–49
17%
–
50–59
24%
–
60 and over
26%
–
Under 30
Percent of 518 successfully delivered surveys.
Based on authors’ count of members in roster with “Dr.” before their name.
tendencies and dispersion.6 For some questions, respondents were asked to
check all options with which they agreed; where applicable, these questions are
noted in the figure. Finally, to conserve space, some results are summarized
in the text but not shown in a chart. These are available from the authors on
request.
6.
270
A table available from the authors includes all results for all questions. Charts by discipline or age
do not include dispersion due to space and because there is less dispersion to show when subgroup
results are reported.
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
How Should Education Aid Be Distributed?
School finance experts have devoted a great deal of attention to the distribution
of education aid, including both the design of state school aid formulas (e.g.,
Schwartz, Stiefel, and Rubenstein 1998 and Picus, Goertz, and Odden 2008
for summaries and overviews) and aid for colleges and college students (e.g.,
Baum 2008). While there is broad agreement in principle on the importance
of adjusting for differences in costs and revenue-raising capacity in allocating
state school aid, there is much continuing debate about how costs should be
determined and exactly how adjustments should be made. To some extent,
there are differences in which methods should be used, say, in measuring
adequacy in school finance (e.g., Downes and Stiefel 2008; Duncombe and
Yinger 2008). But there are also concerns about potential responses to formulae that incorporate such adjustments. As an example, Cullen (2003) notes
that school district responses may lead to inefficiencies in resource allocation.
Similarly, Fischel (2008) notes a potential reduction in government efficiency
with larger state and smaller local shares in education finance. Interestingly,
the disagreements do not seem to reflect differences in theory (what might
happen) but in empirics (what does happen). In the end, while some scholars
urge the adoption of specific finance mechanisms, such as district foundation
formulae implemented nationwide, others see the virtues of local and state
control and unconstrained public choice.
In another vein, there is a smaller but now growing literature on education
finance in higher education that considers whether, to what extent, and in what
form aid should be given in support of a college education. As an example,
current research examines whether price, loans, or aid changes will have the
largest impact on student attendance and attainment, generally finding aid to
be most effective (e.g., Dynarski 2003; Kane 2004; Long 2007).
What are the views of AEFA survey respondents about these policy issues?
Turning first to considerations of how costs and cost adjustments should be
made, we asked AEFA members about the best methods for measuring adequacy in school finance. Mirroring conflicts in the literature, AEFA respondents show much diversity of opinion. Of the four main methods currently in
use, AEFA respondents favor “professional judgment,” but “evidenced based”
and “econometric cost functions” also have significant support (figure 1). The
“successful schools” method garners the least support, and a sizable group
either does not know or does not subscribe to any of these methods.
Not surprisingly, the results differ somewhat across disciplines.
Economists (41 percent) and finance professionals (40 percent) are more supportive of econometric cost functions than are policy analysts (29 percent), but
economists (23 percent) are less supportive of either professional judgment
or evidence-based methods than are finance and policy analysts (40 percent
271
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 1. Which of the Following Is the Best Way to Estimate the Cost of Adequate School Funding?
Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.
for both methods). Economists also more frequently respond that they do not
know or that they subscribe to none of the methods (36 percent) compared
with finance professionals (15 percent) or policy analysts (27 percent). By age
group, only the 40- to 49-year-olds stand out—50 percent of them support
econometric cost functions.7
Despite disagreements among respondents on how exactly to determine
costs and cost adjustments, following the broad consensus in the literature that
students do vary in costs and needs, there is strong agreement among AEFA
respondents that state aid policies should make adjustments for students with
disadvantages (average responses of 4.6 or higher out of a possible 5). As shown
in figure 2, however, adjustments in state aid for conditions not directly related
to disadvantaged students garner somewhat less support (i.e., for changes in
student enrollment, labor market wage differences, district size, and gifted
students). That said, respondents also strongly support federal policies that
provide more funding for disadvantaged students (over 75 percent agree; not
shown in the figure but available from the authors).8
There are several noteworthy differences concerning adjustments in state
aid by discipline and age group. Generally economists are less supportive than
finance, policy analysis, or other disciplinary professionals of adjustments in
state aid for students of various types, especially for gifted students (figure 3).
Economists are also the least supportive of federal increases in funding for
students with disabilities (figure 4). Of all age groups, respondents aged 30−39
7.
8.
272
There is not a one-to-one mapping of disciplines by age, although economists and policy analysts
are disproportionately younger and finance professionals are older. The cross tabulations by age
and discipline are shown in appendix table 1.
Hereafter, results “not shown” are available from the authors on request.
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 2. State Aid to Local School Districts for K–12 Education Should Make Adjustments for:
Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plus
agree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.
Figure 3. State Aid to Local School Districts for K–12 Education Should Make Adjustments for:
(by Discipline)
are the least supportive of increasing federal funds for low-income or disabled
students (figure 5).
Does state aid reduce efficiency? Only 20 percent of all respondents agree
or strongly agree that increasing the state share of K−12 education spending
reduces efficiency, although among economists 37 percent believe this, and
among policy professionals only 13 percent do (not shown). When asked about a
particular form of state aid—the foundation formula—the greatest percentages
of all respondents (40 percent each) see it serving two purposes: providing
273
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 4. The Federal Government Should Provide More Funding for Students with Disabilities
(by Discipline)
Figure 5. The Federal Government Should: (by Age)
equity in input distribution and breaking the correlation between property
wealth and school spending (figure 6). There is considerably less support
for the notion that foundation formulas help districts meet state standards,
which would be consistent with their use to pursue adequacy goals. Finally,
with regard to local revenue, respondents overall are almost evenly divided on
whether districts should face limits on raising local revenue for public schools,
although finance professionals differ and more strongly think they should (57
percent; not shown). In addition, the majority of respondents over age sixty
say there should be limits (55 percent; not shown), while the other age groups
are more consistent with all respondents.
274
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 6. A Foundation Formula Is the Best State Aid Formula to:
Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.
Figure 7. More Students Would Go to College If:
As for higher education finance, in accordance with the literature, respondents are in clear agreement that increasing college affordability, either
through lower tuition or higher financial aid, would both serve to increase the
number of students going to college, with higher financial aid being judged
slightly more effective (figure 7).
Is School Choice a Good Thing?
An ongoing debate in the literature concerns the effects of school choice
(including vouchers, charters, magnets, and cross- and intradistrict choice)
on performance, efficiency, and segregation in schooling. On the one hand,
275
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 8. Effects of School Choice. Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses
show percent that strongly agree plus agree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.
Levin (2002, 2008) and others argue that increasing school choice options in
general is likely to increase expenses for the school system. Others, such as
Hoxby (2000), argue that competition will increase school efficiency, offering
the hope of lower costs and higher quality for all. Moreover, Nechyba (2003),
who uses general equilibrium analyses, finds that at the very worst, vouchers
would lead to small declines in average public school quality compared to the
current residence-based systems of school assignment. Empirical studies of
school choice typically show small performance advantages for students who
attend these schools (see Bifulco and Ladd 2006; Sass 2006; and Bifulco and
Buckley 2008 for charter school studies, and Rouse 1998; Peterson et al. 2002;
Zimmer and Bettinger 2008; Hoxby and Muraka 2009; Rouse and Barrow
2009; and Wolf et al. 2009 for voucher studies).
Interestingly, the opinions of AEFA survey respondents mirror the literature, indicating a mixed view of choice among respondents. While there is
wide agreement that choice increases school segregation and inequality of
outcomes between schools, many respondents also see increasing innovation
(mean 3.3) as an advantage of school choice (figure 8). In terms of the fiscal and
organizational impacts, narrow majorities disagree that school choice reduces
bureaucracy or costs, and most do not believe that school choice increases
efficiency (means below 3). Finally, most respondents think that school choice
does not meet the needs of students with disabilities. Once again, economists
differ and are more positive about the impacts of choice (figure 9). Those over
age sixty are less positive than younger respondents (figure 10).
Turning next to specific types of school choices, the vast majority (approximately two-thirds) of all respondents do not see that students who attend
276
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 9. Increasing School Choice (by Discipline)
Figure 10. Increasing School Choice (by Age)
charter schools gain more on standardized tests (relative to traditional public
schools; figure 8), although economists and those under age forty are more
likely to see such gains than finance professionals or those over sixty (figures
9 and 10).
Finally, on the question of vouchers, 68 percent of all respondents oppose universal provision of vouchers for use in government or privately run
schools, but there is less opposition to vouchers targeting low-income parents
(53 percent) and even less opposition to vouchers for parents with children
in poorly performing schools (48 percent) (figure 11). Since the voucher questions were taken directly from a survey of members of the American Economic
277
Figure 11. Educational Vouchers Should Be Provided for:
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
278
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 12. Educational Vouchers Should Be Provided for: (by Discipline)
Figure 13. Educational Vouchers Should Be Provided for: (by Age)
Association (AEA), we are able to compare responses. Figure 12 shows that
among AEFA respondents, economists are the most supportive of vouchers,
although their mean score (3.3) is lower than that of AEA economists (3.7).
Figure 13 shows that support for vouchers declines monotonically with age
among AEFA respondents.
Does School Finance Reform Work?
School finance court cases in over forty-two states have focused scholars’ attention on the effects of the cases. A series of influential articles by Murray, Evans,
and Schwab (1998) and a review by Corcoran and Evans (2008) find that subsequent reforms reduced the revenue disparities across districts, suggesting
improvements in equity. That said, studies of the impact on performance are
279
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 14. Effects of School Finance Reform
decidedly mixed. Card and Payne (2002) find some evidence of convergence in
scholastic aptitude test (SAT) scores, and Guryan (2001) reports improvement
in fourth-grade scores, while Downes (1992) finds little evidence of change,
and Roy (2004) finds only modest gains. Although few questions on the survey address this issue directly, its importance merits a separate highlighting
of responses.
It is, given the findings in the literature, unsurprising that there is considerable disagreement among AEFA respondents. As shown in figure 14, only
one-quarter agree that school finance reform has narrowed the black-white
gap. As to whether school finance restructuring is temporary, those who disagree (38 percent) are offset by those who agree (28 percent), with 30 percent
neutral. There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines or
age groups.
What Has Accountability Wrought?
As with the other areas, the jury is still out on whether state or federal accountability policies improve student performance. On the one hand, Carnoy
and Loeb (2003), Hanushek and Raymond (2005), and Figlio and Ladd (2008)
report evidence of some improvement based on the experiences of the states
before the enactment of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). On the other hand,
Rothstein, Jacobsen, and Wilder (2008), Ladd (2007), and Rebell and Wolff
(2008) argue that accountability under NCLB is seriously broken. Although
the authors do not concur on all desired changes, together they argue that at
least the systems need to include more measures, use better assessments, pay
280
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 15. The Federal Government Should Mandate:
more attention to qualitative inspections, and include corrections to counter
gaming the system.
As shown in figure 15, respondents are divided about one aspect of
accountability—whether the federal government should increase its role in
testing by mandating national tests (44 percent oppose nationalization, 42
percent support the reform). A majority (62 percent), however, oppose nationalizing curricula. By age group, those 30–39 are more supportive of national
roles in both areas than any other age group (not shown), and there are no
statistically significant differences by disciplines.
While recognizing the benefits of accountability, a majority of respondents
are concerned that schools are gaming the system (figure 16). There is a particular concern about teaching to the test, but also about cheating. In contrast
to these forms of direct gaming, there is no clear consensus on the severity
of problems, such as whether schools are excluding groups of potentially
low-scoring students (e.g., special education students and English language
learners, or ELLs). Economists are more likely than finance professionals,
however, to say that accountability has increased the exclusion of special
education students (mean 3.5) and ELLs (mean 3.3), and finance professionals
are less likely to say so (means 2.9 for special education and 2.8 for ELLs) (not
shown). In addition, those in their thirties are more likely to agree that exclusion has occurred (means 3.4 for special education and 3.3 for ELLs), and those
in their fifties are less likely to agree (2.9 for special education and 2.9 for ELLs)
(not shown).
When asked to identify the best way to measure school quality (figure 17), respondents clearly supported using value-added test scores adjusted for student
281
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 16. Federal and State Accountability Systems Have:
Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plus
agree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.
Figure 17. The Best Way to Measure School Quality Is to Use:
Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.
characteristics (68 percent). Ratings of school inspection teams and parent satisfaction surveys are supported by only a little over one-third of respondents
each. Raw test score levels received the least support (9 percent), a notable
result considering the current reliance on raw test score levels in the federal
NCLB accountability program.9
9.
282
There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines or age groups.
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Figure 18. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to:
Notes: Mean score is at top of bar. Numbers in parentheses show percent that strongly agree plus
agree, and percent that strongly disagree plus disagree.
Can School Policies Close the Black-White Achievement Gaps?
Jencks and Phillips’s Black-White Test Score Gap (1998) focused interest in an
area of research that arguably began with the Coleman report (Coleman et al.
1966). Since then, numerous authors have documented test score gaps, analyzed their determinants, and asked whether policies focused on schools can
close the gaps (e.g., Rothstein 2004; Stiefel, Schwartz, and Ellen 2007; Harris
2008; Loeb and Bassok 2008; Murnane et al. 2006; Reardon and Robinson
2008). While there is nearly universal consensus that disparities are driven
by both in-school and out-of-school factors, debate continues about whether
schools can compensate sufficiently to close the gap in nonschool factors.
As does the literature, respondents view some in-school programs as
promising for narrowing the gap. In choosing from a specified list of reforms, respondents exhibit clear enthusiasm for three: reducing disparities in
school resources, increasing black students’ exposure to experienced teachers,
and, above all, increasing pre-K programs (figure 18). There is also support,
although less strong (mean 3.7–3.9), for increasing the length of the school
year and decreasing racial segregation within and across schools.
Economists exhibit some differences compared with other disciplines (figure 19), showing less support for decreasing school size and more for increasing school choice as ways to reduce the black-white test score gap. Those over
sixty are more supportive than other age groups of decreasing school size and
are less supportive of school choice (figure 20).
Mirroring the literature’s findings that out-of-school factors also drive disparities, most AEFA respondents also view such policies as promising for
283
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figure 19. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to:
(by Discipline)
Figure 20. A Promising Way for Schools to Reduce the Black-White Test Score Gap Is to: (by Age)
narrowing the racial test score gap. Over 75 percent of respondents think that
increasing family income and/or wealth among black families will help, and
over 70 percent support decreasing segregation in communities (not shown).10
How Should Teachers Be Compensated?
While there is a considerable body of literature finding that teachers are important determinants of student performance, there is little evidence identifying
10. There are no statistically significant differences across disciplines or age groups.
284
Note: Bars do not total 100 percent because more than one response per respondent is possible.
Figure 21. The Best Way to Improve Teacher Quality Is to:
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
285
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
which teacher attributes identify “quality” or how teachers respond to various
levels and kinds of pay, such as pay for performance (Hanushek and Rivkin
2004; Podgursky and Springer 2007; Goldhaber 2008).
When asked specifically about one commonly used measure of teacher
quality—teachers’ SAT scores—respondents soundly rejected it as a good single indicator of quality: 60 percent disagree or strongly disagree (not shown).
With regard to compensation, a sizable percentage of respondents favor
reforms aimed at targeted salary increases, specifically for new teachers (49
percent) and math, science, and special education specialists (44 percent), with
only one-third favoring salary hikes for all teachers (figure 21). Economists,
however, are more favorable to math, science, and special education salary
differentials (58 percent), and finance professionals are less favorable (30 percent) than the average of all respondents. In addition, while all respondents
support changes to the salary structure, especially for introducing knowledgeand skills-based pay (46 percent), only a little over a third of respondents favor merit pay based on student performance. When asked specifically about
effective reforms for improving urban high schools, respondents see most
promise in raising teacher salaries in urban high schools.11
CONCLUSIONS
This survey of the views of AEFA members finds that there are important areas
of agreement as well as areas of conflict on major education policy issues. In
this section we highlight areas of high agreement, defined as those in which
all respondents averaged scores of 4.0 or higher or 2.0 or lower (on the fivepoint scale) or over 50 percent chose an option on multiple option questions.
Then we note areas of conflict, defined as those in which the average for all
respondents is in the middle of the five-point scale (3.1 to 2.9) with groups
on both the high and low ends or with close to only 30 percent agreement
on multiple option questions. While these are somewhat stringent cutoffs for
measuring agreement and conflict, they identify particular results that give
clear signals. We summarize these in bullet points following the six policy
areas of the article.
How should education aid be distributed?
Respondents are in widespread agreement that:
r
11.
286
State aid policies should make adjustments for disabled, poor, and
limited English students.
On this question, decreasing school size, focusing on the success of students in grade 9, and
establishing connections to business and careers also garner more than 50 percent of respondents’
agreement. There are also some isolated questions on which there are differences in responses by
some age groups, but these are not consistent across questions and are not reported.
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
r
More students would go to college if tuition were lower or if there were
more financial aid.
There are conflicting opinions about:
r
r
r
Whether school districts should face limits in raising local revenue.
Whether higher state aid reduces efficiency.
How to measure school finance adequacy.
Is school choice a good thing?
There is widespread agreement that:
r
r
Education vouchers should not be provided for all parents.
Charter schools do not cause students to gain more on standardized
tests than traditional public schools.
Respondents have conflicting opinions about whether:
r
Educational vouchers should be provided for parents with children in
poorly performing schools.
Does school finance reform work?
There are conflicting opinions about whether:
r
r
School finance reform has narrowed the black-white achievement gap.
Effects of school finance restructuring are temporary.
What has accountability wrought?
Respondents are in widespread agreement that:
r
r
r
r
The federal government should not mandate a national curriculum.
Federal and state accountability systems have increased teaching to
the test.
The best way to measure school quality is to use value-added test scores
adjusted for student characteristics.12
The best way to measure school quality does not use test score levels.13
12. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.
13. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.
287
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Respondents have conflicting opinions about whether:
r
r
r
The federal government should mandate national tests.
Federal and state accountability systems have increased the exclusion
of English language learners, reduced the black-white test score gap,
or improved curricula.
The best way to measure school quality is to use ratings of school
inspection teams, use parent satisfaction surveys, or use student attendance rates.14
Can school policies close the black-white achievement gap?
There is widespread agreement that:
r
r
Promising ways for schools to reduce the black-white test score gap are
to increase participation in pre-K programs, increase black students’
exposure to experienced teachers, or reduce disparities in school resources.
Promising ways for society to reduce the black-white test score gap are
to increase black family income and wealth or to decrease segregation
in communities.
How should teachers be compensated?
There is widespread agreement that:
r
SAT scores are not a good single measure of teacher quality.
Respondents have conflicting opinions on whether:
r
The best way to improve teacher quality is to increase all teachers’
salaries or to award merit pay for individual teachers based on student
performance.
AEFA is a small but focused professional association of researchers and
practitioners engaged in education policy and finance work. Our survey results
provide access to the views of AEFA members on a range of current issues in
education finance and policy, identifying areas of consensus and of continuing
disagreement. While the insight offered is unlikely to quell the rhetoric of the
14. Based on question with multiple options provided and multiple answers allowed.
288
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
policy debate, knowing how these professionals view the issues may prove
helpful in weighing evidence and identifying areas for further exploration.
Thanks to Jack Buckley, Sean Corcoran, Jennifer King Rice, and session participants at
the 2009 AEFA annual conference for helpful comments on earlier drafts. The authors
alone are responsible for the opinions expressed in the article.
REFERENCES
Baum, Sandy. 2008. The student aid system: An overview. In Handbook of research in
education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 59–104.
New York: Routledge.
Bifulco, Robert, and Katrina Buckley. 2008. Charter schools. In Handbook of research in
education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 425–46.
New York: Routledge.
Bifulco, Robert, and Helen F. Ladd. 2006. The impacts of charter schools on student
achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy 1(1): 50–90.
Card, David, and A. Abigail Payne. 2002. School finance reform, the distribution of
school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics
83(1): 49–82.
Carnoy, Martin, and Susanna Loeb. 2003. Does external accountability affect student
outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 305–
32.
Coleman, James S., E. Q. Campbell, C. J. Hobson, J. McPartland, A. M. Mean, F. D.
Weinfeld, and R. L. York. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Corcoran, Sean P., and William N. Evans. 2008. Equity, adequacy and the evolving
state role in education finance. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy,
edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 332–56. New York: Routledge.
Cullen, Julie Berry. 2003. The impact of fiscal incentives on student disability rates.
Journal of Public Economics 87(7–8): 1557–89.
Downes, Thomas. 1992. Evaluation of the impact of school finance reform on the
provision of public education: The California case. National Tax Journal 45: 405–19.
Downes, Thomas A., and Leanna Stiefel. 2008. Measuring equity and adequacy in
school finance. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen
F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 222–37. New York: Routledge.
Duncombe, William D., and John Yinger. 2008. Measurement of cost differentials.
In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and
Edward B. Fiske, pp. 238–56. New York: Routledge.
Dynarski, Susan. 2003. Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college
attendance and completion. American Economic Review 93(1): 79–88.
289
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Figlio, David, and Helen F. Ladd. 2008. School accountability and student achievement.
In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and
Edward B. Fiske, pp. 166–82. New York: Routledge.
Fischel, William A. 2008. Educational finance. The new Palgrave dictionary of economics online, 2nd ed. Available www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008
E000237&edition=current&q=educational % 20finance&topicid = &result number =1.
Accessed 8 September 2010.
Goldhaber, Dan. 2008. Teachers matter, but effective teacher quality policies are elusive. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd
and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 146–65. New York: Routledge.
Greenwald, Rob, Larry V. Hedges, and Richard D. Laine. 1996. The effect of school
resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research 66(3): 361–96.
Guryan, Jonathan. 2001. Does money matter? Regression discontinuity estimates from
education finance reform in Massachusetts. NBER Working Paper No. 8269.
Hanushek, Eric A. 1986. The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in
public schools. Journal of Economic Literature 24: 1141–77.
Hanushek, Erik A., and Margaret Raymond. 2005. Does school accountability lead
to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24(2):
297–327.
Hanushek, Eric A., and Steven G. Rivkin. 2004. How to improve the supply of high
quality teachers. In Brookings papers on education policy, 2004, edited by Diane Ravitch,
pp. 7–25. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Harris, Douglas N. 2008. Educational outcomes of disadvantaged students: From
desegregation to accountability. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy,
edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 551–72. New York: Routledge.
Hoxby, Caroline. 2000. Does competition among public schools benefit students and
taxpayers? American Economic Review 90: 1200–38.
Hoxby, Caroline, and Sonali Muraka. 2009. Charter schools in New York City: Who
enrolls and how they affect their students’ achievement. NBER Working Paper No.
14852.
Jencks, Christopher, and Meredith Phillips, eds. 1998. The black-white test score gap.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kane, Thomas J. 2004. College-going and inequality. In Social inequality, edited by
Kathryn Neckerman, pp. 319–54. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Klein, Daniel B., and Charlotta Stern. 2007. Is there a free-market economist in the
house? The policy views of American Economic Association members. American Journal of Economics of Sociology 66(2): 309–34.
Ladd, Helen F. 2007. Holding schools accountable revisited. Spencer Foundation Lecture, Association for Policy Analysis and Management Annual Meetings. Washington,
DC, March.
290
Leanna Stiefel, Amy Ellen Schwar tz, and Anne Rotenberg
Ladd, Helen F., and Edward B. Fiske. 2008. Handbook of research in education finance
and policy. New York: Routledge.
Levin, Henry M. 2002. A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational vouchers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(3): 159–74.
Levin, Henry M. 2008. Issues in educational privatization. In Handbook of research in
education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 391–401.
New York: Routledge.
Loeb, Susanna, and Daphna Bassok. 2008. Early childhood and the achievement gap.
In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and
Edward B. Fiske, pp. 517–34. New York: Routledge.
Long, Terry B. 2007. The contributions of economics to the study of college access and
success. Teachers College Record 109(10): 2367–443.
Murnane, Richard J., John B. Willett, Kristen L. Bub, and Kathleen McCartney. 2006.
Understanding trends in the black-white achievement gaps during the first years of
school. In Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs, edited by Janet Rothenberg Pack
and William G. Gale, pp. 97–135. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Murray, Sheila E., William N. Evans, and Robert M. Schwab. 1998. Education-finance
reform and the distribution of education resources. American Economic Review 88:
789–812.
Nechyba, Thomas J. 2003. Introducing school choice into multi-district public school
systems. In Economics of school choice, edited by Caroline Hoxby, pp. 145–94. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
New York Times. 2004. Charter school evaluation reported by The New York Times fails
to meet professional standards. [Advertisement.] 25 August.
Peterson, Paul, William G. Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, and David E. Campbell. 2002.
School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field
experiments. Journal of Policy and Management 21(2): 191–217.
Picus, Lawrence O., Margaret Goertz, and Allan Odden. 2008. Intergovernmental aid
formulas and case studies. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited
by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 257–75. New York: Routledge.
Podgursky, Michael J., and Matthew G. Springer. 2007. Teacher performance pay: A
review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26(4): 909–49.
Reardon, Sean F., and Joseph P. Robinson. 2008. Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic
and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In Handbook of research in education
finance and policy, edited by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 497–516. New
York: Routledge.
Rebell, Michael, and Jessica R. Wolff. 2008. Moving every child along: From NCLB hype
to meaningful educational opportunity. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rothstein, Richard. 2004. Class and schools. Washington, DC: Education Policy Institute
Press.
291
WHAT DO AEFA MEMBERS SAY?
Rothstein, Richard, Rebecca Jacobsen, and Tamara Wilder. 2008. Grading education:
Getting accountability right. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rouse, Cecilia Elena. 1998. Private school vouchers and student achievement: An
evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics
113(2): 553–602.
Rouse, Cecilia Elena, and Lisa Barrow. 2009. School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence and remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics 1: 17–
42.
Roy, Joydeep. 2004. Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization and
academic performance: Evidence from Michigan. Working Paper No. 8, Princeton
University.
Sass, Tim. 2006. Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Finance and Policy 1(1): 91–122.
Schwartz, Amy Ellen, Leanna Stiefel, and Ross Rubenstein. 1998. Education finance. In
Handbook of public finance, edited by Fred Thompson and Mark T. Green, pp. 447–82.
New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Stiefel, Leanna, Amy Ellen Schwartz, and Ingrid Ellen. 2007. Can public schools close
the race gap? Probing the evidence in a large urban school district. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 26(1): 7–30.
Wolf, Patrick, et al. 2009. Evaluation of DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts
after three years. NCEE 2009-4050. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
Zimmer, Ron, and Eric P. Bettinger. 2008. Beyond the rhetoric: Surveying the evidence
on vouchers and tax credits. In Handbook of research in education finance and policy, edited
by Helen F. Ladd and Edward B. Fiske, pp. 447–66. New York: Routledge.
APPENDIX
Table A.1.
Percent by age and discipline of those who answered both
<30–39
40–49
50–59
60+
Total #
9.7
17.7
33.9
38.7
62
Economics
42.7
17.3
21.3
18.7
75
Policy
40.7
16.1
17.3
25.9
81
Other
31.3
18.8
27.1
29.9
48
Finance
292