Search

The right to education depends upon a willingness to finance education fairly. Addressing the difference in educational achievement between learners of different backgrounds is a key aspect of fairness. Framed by contemporary neoliberal policies around marketisation and competitiveness, this paper examines fairness in the education finance policy (EFP) of three jurisdictions in England, Israel and Oklahoma. Using a comparative analysis of school funding formulae and an international survey on the perceptions of local policy actors, the "de jure" and the "de facto" EFPs are examined. Our findings reveal "de jure" policies attempting to address fairness through integrating different student background characteristics. However, variability is evident in the extent to which the "de facto" policies align with an aspiration for fairness. This is linked to the marketisation of education in each jurisdiction. We conclude that weightings of students' background characteristics can only be one feature in policy interventions orientated towards bringing about social equity.

Purpose: Resource allocation is a key policy instrument that affects the educational achievement distribution (EAD). The literature on methods of allocation is focused mainly on equity issues. The purpose of this paper is to develop a composite funding formula, which adds to the equity-based element (i.e. a needs-based element compensating for students' low starting points), an element of rewarding improvement in schools' educational achievement distribution (IEAD) (i.e. raising the overall level of achievement and narrowing the achievement gap). Design/methodology/approach: This formula is developed using advanced regression models as well as integrating further policy considerations. The data sets are comprised of nation-wide student-level information on longitudinal students' achievements (8th graders of 2006, and four years later 12th graders 2010), as well as student background characteristics, and teacher profiles and school features. The Israel data serve as an interesting case study for other countries which are similarly characterized by its students' diversity, and by its aspiration to improve its EAD and to narrow the achievement gap. Findings: Results reveal that the variance among students' performance is mostly explained by their past performance. In addition, other background characteristics also contribute to the explained variation in students' performance; however, a lower contribution was found, compared with that of the previous performance. Specifically, schools' value added contributes 25 percent to the overall 50 percent of explained variance. In other words, allocating resources to schools solely with accordance to equity issues might have an adverse effect on improvement. Yet, designing a composite mechanism that integrates both equity and improvement issues might be more effective. Practical implications: Policy makers in other countries that strive to achieve improvement as well as equity in education might consider adjusting the technique developed in this work. The proposed technique might be adjusted based on each country's nation-wide student-level data. The design of a research-based funding formula aimed at improvement in education as well as considering equity issues might be more effective, equitable, and efficient. Originality/value: The main contribution of this work is the conceptual development of IEAD, as well as its measured weight in the funding formula. This work suggests an innovative method of allocation that rewards schools by allocating larger resources based on the improvement gained in the process of learning (not just on the inputs or outputs/outcomes). This research value lays in its design of a composite funding formula that takes into account, in addition to the equity component, an innovative improvement-based component. In addition to that, the value of this research lays on its policy implications. This research suggests and develops a technique for developing a research-based funding formula that might be useful for other countries aspire to improve their education.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationships between the distribution of educational funds allocated by the central government and the educational achievement distribution (EAD) at the primary school level. To this end, the extent of equity in education funding, and the extent of the equality of educational opportunity (EEO) in the EAD is analyzed. Finally, the relationships between equitable funding and EEO are investigated. Regression models (for the overall population, the Hebrew-speaking schools, and the Arabic-speaking schools) were used to analyze equity. The Ministry-of-Education data sets consist of national examination scores and funds allocated by the central government, the background characteristics of fifth grade students in Israel, were matched at the school level. Findings reveal resources are allocated more equitably to the Hebrew-speaking schools compared with Arabic-speaking schools. Additionally, a low extent of EEO in the EAD of the entire student population was revealed, for all examined subjects, with the exception of literacy. Finally, a positive relationship was found between equitable funding and EEO, while controlling for students' demographics and background characteristics.

Purpose: The method by which the state allocates resources to its schooling system can serve as an important instrument for achieving desired improvements in levels of educational attainment, social equity and other social policy goals. In many school systems, the allocation of school resources is done according to a needs-based funding formula. The purpose of this paper is to provide a deeper understanding of some significant tradeoffs involved in employing needs-based funding formulae. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on theoretical investigations of normative aspects involved in using needs-based funding formulae. Findings: There are a number of underexplored complications and difficulties that arise from the use of needs-based funding formulae. Dealing with these involves significant tradeoffs that require taking normative decisions. Understanding these tradeoffs is important for improving the use of needs-based funding formulae. Originality/value: The paper highlights three under-examined issues that emerge from the current use of needs-based funding formulae. These issues are: to what extent funding formulae should be responsive to social and economic needs? To what extent should funding formulae allow for the use of discretion in resource allocation? To what degree needs-based formulae funding should be linked to outcomes? By discussing these issues and the tradeoffs involved in them, the paper provides a deeper understanding of significant aspects stemming from the use of needs-based funding formulae. This, in turn, can serve as a basis for an improved and better informed process for decision making regarding the use of funding formulae.

Entitlement to education is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges education as a fundamental right stating that everyone has the right to education. The question of financing this right mainly focuses on the "governmental" allocation of resources to the educational system, as public schools are in the main financed by the government. However, in recent years, there is an incremental trend of supplements to government resources allocated to schools by non-governmental actors. This paper aims to investigate the question of entitlement focusing on the "local authorities'" allocation to schools, using Israel as a case study. The "fairness" analysis conducted using various statistical measurements, developed in the school finance policy literature, reveals that the level of equity at both the input and output sides of the educational process is rather low. Additionally, comparing fairness analysis of two years data (that of 2006 and 2011) before and after the Israeli parliament (the Knesset) elections and the school finance policy reform (both on 2009), reveal that the trend is for equity to be on the decline. Aiming at a potentially more successful implementation of fairness, an alternative policy is discussed, taking into account both improvement and compensation elements. The implications concern all other countries with diverse populations who strive for fairness and aim at improving their educational achievement distribution via more effective policy.

This paper sets out a new budget allocation formula for schools, designed to achieve a more equitable distribution of educational achievement. In addition to needs-based elements, the suggested composite allocation formula includes an improvement component, whereby schools receive budgetary allocations based on a new incentive measure developed in this paper: Improvement in the Educational Achievement Distribution. The development of the budget allocation formula is demonstrated utilizing Israeli data. Large-scale, nationwide datasets relating students' academic achievement to student background variables, teacher profiles, and school characteristics were analyzed to identify appropriate needs-based formula components and to estimate their weights. The results are compared with the funding formulas currently used in Israel. (Contains 16 notes, 4 tables, and 2 figures.)

The educational achievement distribution of Israeli students is characterized by a low level of achievement with a wide achievement gap between high and low achievers compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD average. In fact, Israeli student achievement is characterized by the widest gap among the OECD countries. Furthermore, student achievement is unlikely to improve or the gap narrow since the current reforms implemented diminished many of the compensating equitable elements that were previously more dominant in Israeli school finance policy. School funding in Israel has taken on a new direction, emphasizing "adequate" (interpreted as equal) funding for schools. This funding principle is mostly based on student numbers rather than on student needs, and thus departs from the previous equitable allocation. This reform is likely to lead to greater vertical and horizontal disparities and to an unfortunate widening of the achievement gap, an outcome that contradicts declared policy objectives and societal needs. Endnotes are provided.