The Impact of Texas “Wealth Equalization” Program on the Academic Performance of Poor and Wealthy Schools

  • Hassan TajalliEmail author


The purpose of this study is to examine the propositions of “money matters/doesn’t matter” in a zero-sum public school system. Specifically, this study seeks to assess the impact of Texas Wealth Equalization Program on the academic performance of contributing wealthy school districts and the receiving poor school districts. Although the primary interest of this study is the aforementioned two sets of school districts, the study also incorporates a set of intermediate districts into the analysis in order to control for the possible threat of history. The study uses three state and national assessment tools to measure school performance. The results show that answer to the propositions of “money matters/doesn’t matter” is contextual. Controlling for the possible threat of history, the findings show that transfer of nearly $3.4 billion from wealthy to poor school districts did not result in lower academic achievement among the students of rich school districts while it resulted in modest performance improvement in poor districts. Policy implications of Wealth Equalization are discussed.


School finance Wealth Equalization Program Robin Hood Program Texas school finance Poor schools performance 


  1. Alexander, K. (1998). Money matters: commentary and analysis. Journal of Economic Analysis, 24(2), 237–242.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, B. D., Green, P. C., & Richards, C. E. (2008). Financing education systems. New York: Merrill-Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, B., & Weber, M. (2016). Beyond the echo-chamber: State investments and student outcomes in U.S. elementary and secondary education. Journal of Education Finance, 42(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  4. Bundt, J., & Leland, S. (2001). Wealthy or poor: Who receives and who pays? A closer look at measures of equity in Iowa School Finance. Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 397–413.Google Scholar
  5. Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education the characteristics of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  6. Card, D., & Payne, A. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 49–82.Google Scholar
  7. Coate, D., & VanderHoff, J. (1999). Public school spending and student achievement: The case of New Jersey. Cato Journal, 19(1), 85–99.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Condron, D. J. (2017). The waning impact of school finance litigation on inequality in per student revenue during the adequacy era. Journal of Education Finance, 43(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. Corcoran, S. P., & Evans, W. N. (2015). Equity, adequacy, and the evolving state role in education finance. In H. F. Ladd & M. E. Goertz (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed., pp. 353–375). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Corcoran, M., Gordon, R., Laren, D., & Solon, G. (1992). The association between men’s economic status and their family and community origins. Journal of Human Resources, 27(4), 575–601.Google Scholar
  12. Deke, J. (2003). A study of the impact of public school spending on postsecondary educational attainment using statewide school district refinancing in Kansas. Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 275–284.Google Scholar
  13. Deutsch, F. (2003). How small schools benefit high school students. NASSP Bulletin, 87(June), 35–44.Google Scholar
  14. Downes, T. A. (1992). Evaluating the impact of school finance reform on the provision of public education: The California case. National Tax Journal, 45(4), 405–419.Google Scholar
  15. Downes, T. (2004). School finance reform and school quality: Lessons from vermont. In J. Yinger (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 283–313). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Driscoll, L. G., & Salmon, R. G. (2008). How increased state equalization aid resulted in greater disparities: An unexpected consequence for the commonwealth of Virginia. Journal of Education Finance, 33(3), 238–261.Google Scholar
  17. Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W. 2d 391 (Tex 1989).Google Scholar
  18. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465–498.Google Scholar
  19. Finn, J., & Achilles, C. (1999). Tennessee’s class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(2), 97–109.Google Scholar
  20. Gregg, P., Jonsson, J. O., Macmillan, L., & Mood, C. (2017). The role of education for intergenerational income mobility: A comparison of the United States, Great Britain, and Sweden. Social Forces, 96(1), 121–152. Scholar
  21. Guryan, J. (2001). Does money matter? Regression-discontinuity estimates from education finance reform in Massachusetts. NBER Working Paper 8269.Google Scholar
  22. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8, 41. Scholar
  23. Hanushek, E. A. (1991). When school finance ‘reform’ may not be good policy. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 423–450.Google Scholar
  24. Hanushek, E. A. (2003). The failure of input based schooling policies. Economic Journal, 113(485), 65–98.Google Scholar
  25. Harter, E. (1999). How educational expenditure relate to student achievement: Insights from Texas elementary schools. Journal of Education Finance, 24(3), 281–302.Google Scholar
  26. Hedges, L. V., Laine, R. D., & Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Education Researcher, 23(4), 5–14.Google Scholar
  27. Hoxby, C. M. (2001). All school finance equalizations are not created equal. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1189–1231.Google Scholar
  28. Hoxby, C. M., & Kuziemko, I. (2004). Robin Hood and his not-so-merry plan: Capitalization and the self-destruction of Texas’ school finance equalization plan. Working Paper 10722, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Hy, R. J. (2000). Education is an investment: A case study. Journal of Education Finance, 26(2), 209–218.Google Scholar
  30. Imazeki, J., & Reschovsky, A. (2004). School finance reform in Texas: A never-ending story? In J. Yinger (Ed.), Helping children left behind: State aid and the pursuit of educational equity (pp. 251–282). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Izraeli, O., & Murphy, K. J. (2007). The impact of proposal a on school financing, equity, and quality of public schools in the state of Michigan. Journal of Education Finance, 33(2), 111–129.Google Scholar
  32. Jackson, K. C., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218.Google Scholar
  33. Janssen, J. J. (2000). Public school finance, school choice, and equal educational opportunity in Texas: The enduring importance of background conditions. The Review of Litigation, 19(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  34. Keels, M. (2013). Getting them enrolled is only half the battle: College success as a function of race or ethnicity, gender, and class. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83(23), 310–322.Google Scholar
  35. Koski, W., & Hahnel, J. (2008). The past, present and possible futures of educational finance reform litigation. In H. Ladd & E. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy, by and (pp. 42–60). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2016). School finance reform and the distribution of student acheivement. National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 22011.
  37. Loury, L. D., & Garman, D. (1995). College selectivity and earnings. Journal of Labor Economics, 13(2), 289–308.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, S. E., & Lopoo, L. M. (2008). Government spending and intergenerational mobility. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1), 139–158.Google Scholar
  39. Mosteller, F., Light, R., & Sachs, J. (1996). Sustained inquiry in education: Lessons from skill grouping and class size. Harvard Education Review, 66(4), 797–842.Google Scholar
  40. Murdock, S. H., Cline, A., & Cline, G. (2014). Population change in Texas: Implications for education and the socioeconomic future of Texas. Wichita Falls, TX: Coalition for Hispanic Education.Google Scholar
  41. Murdock, S. H., et al. (1997). The Texas challenge: Population change and the future of Texas. College Station: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Murray, S. E., Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (1998). Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources. The American Economic Review, 88(4), 789–812.Google Scholar
  43. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from
  44. National Equity Atlas. (2016). Retrieved March 8, 2018 from
  45. Neal, D. A., & Johnson, W. (1996). The role of Premarket factors in Black-White wage differences. The Journal of Political Economy, 104(5), 869–895.Google Scholar
  46. Nguyen-Hoang, P., & Yinger, J. (2014). Education finance reform, local behavior, and student performance in Massachusetts. Journal of Education Finance, 39(4), 297–322.Google Scholar
  47. Okpala, C. (2002). Educational resources, student demographics and achievement scores. Journal of Education Finance, 27(3), 885–908.Google Scholar
  48. Olson, L. (1998). Will success spoil success for all? Education Week., Feb, 4.Google Scholar
  49. Orfield, G., Eaton, S. E., & Jones, E. R. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  50. Papke, L. E. (2005). The effects of spending on test pass rates: Evidence from Michigan. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 821–839.Google Scholar
  51. Patterson, J. C. (2000). Texas’ TAAS miracle or mirage? Curriculum Administrator, 36(7), 31–37.Google Scholar
  52. Peevely, G. L., & Ray, J. R. (2001). Does equalization litigation effect a narrowing of the gap of value added achievement outcomes among school districts? Journal of Education Finance, 26(4), 463–476.Google Scholar
  53. Roy, J. (2011). Impact of school finance reform on resource equalization and academic performance: Evidence from Michigan. Education Finance and Policy, 6(2), 137–167.Google Scholar
  54. Ryan, J. E. (1999). Schools, race, and money. The Yale Law Journal, 109, 249–316.Google Scholar
  55. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 US 1 (1973).Google Scholar
  56. Slavin, R. E. (1997). How title 1 can (still) save America’s children. Education Week. May 21.Google Scholar
  57. Solon, G. (2004). A model of intergenerational mobility variation over time and place. In M. Corak (Ed.), Generational income mobility in North America and Europe (pp. 38–47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Tajalli, H., & Ortiz, M. (2017). An examination of Hispanic college enrollment and graduation: Has the Texas Closing the Gaps plan been successful? Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(4), 330–343. Scholar
  59. The Perryman Group. (2007). A tale of two StatesAnd one million jobs!! An analysis of the economic benefits of Achieving the future goals of the “Closing the Gaps” initiative of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Waco, TX: The Perryman Group.Google Scholar
  60. Texas Education Agency. Glossary of terms, 20072008. Retrieved September 9, 2017 from
  61. Tienda, M. (2015). Texas’ education challenge: A demographic dividend or bust? In: Orrenius, P. M., & Cañas, J. (eds) Ten-gallon economy: Sizing up economic growth in Texas (pp. 61–77).Google Scholar
  62. Toenjes, A., & Dworkin, A. (2002). Are increasing test scores in texas really a myth, or Haney’s myth a myth? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, 17. Scholar
  63. U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010 (2010 U.S. Census Briefs No. C2010BR-04). U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  64. U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey: 2015. Retrieved from
  65. Verstegen, D., & King, R. (1998). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production function research. Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243–262.Google Scholar
  66. Zhan, M. (2014). Education loans and college graduation: Differences by race/ethnicity. Social Development Issues, 36(2), 17–34.Google Scholar
  67. Zimmer, R., & Jones, J. T. (2005). Unintended consequence of centralized public school funding in Michigan education. Southern Economic Journal, 71(3), 534–544.Google Scholar
  68. Zimmerman, D. J. (1992). Regression toward mediocrity in economic stature. American Economic Review, 82, 409–429.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceTexas State University-San MarcosSan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations