IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/edfpol/v1y2006i2p217-246.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does No Child Left Behind Place a Fiscal Burden on States? Evidence from Texas

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Imazeki

    (Department of Economics, San Diego State University)

  • Andrew Reschovsky

    (Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs and University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires states to establish goals for all students and for groups of students characterized by race, ethnicity, poverty, disability, and limited English proficiency and requires schools to make annual progress in meeting these goals. In a number of states, officials have argued that increased federal education funding is not sufficient to cover the costs imposed by the new legislation. In this article, we use data from Texas to estimate the additional costs of meeting the new student performance standards. We find that these costs substantially exceed the additional federal funding. The article concludes with a discussion of whether NCLB should be considered an underfunded federal mandate and a brief discussion of the appropriate federal role in the financing of K–12 education. © 2006 American Education Finance Association

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Imazeki & Andrew Reschovsky, 2006. "Does No Child Left Behind Place a Fiscal Burden on States? Evidence from Texas," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 1(2), pages 217-246, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:1:y:2006:i:2:p:217-246
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.217
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bo Zhao, 2023. "Estimating the cost function of connecticut public K–12 education: implications for inequity and inadequacy in school spending," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 439-470, July.
    2. Howard Chernick & Andrew Reschovsky, 2023. "Measuring the Fiscal Health of U.S. Cities," IMFG Papers 63, University of Toronto, Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance.
    3. Buerger, Christian & Bifulco, Robert, 2019. "The effect of charter schools on districts’ student composition, costs, and efficiency: The case of New York state," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-72.
    4. Timothy J. Gronberg & Dennis W. Jansen & Mustafa U. Karakaplan & Lori L. Taylor, 2015. "School district consolidation: Market concentration and the scale‐efficiency tradeoff," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(2), pages 580-597, October.
    5. Bo Zhao, 2020. "How to Design a State Education Aid Formula That Is Equitable, Adequate, and Politically Feasible: The Case of Connecticut," Working Papers 21-1, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    6. Gronberg, Timothy J. & Jansen, Dennis W. & Taylor, Lori L., 2011. "The Impact of Facilities on the Cost of Education," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 64(1), pages 193-218, March.
    7. Nicholas Chiumenti & Bo Zhao, 2020. "Measuring Disparities in Cost and Spending across Connecticut School Districts," New England Public Policy Center Research Report 20-2, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    No Child Left Behind Act; education funding; education finance; student performance; Texas;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I22 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Educational Finance; Financial Aid

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:1:y:2006:i:2:p:217-246. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.