This article provides a systematic decomposition of disparities in school funding by race and ethnicity using two new data resources. First, we use a national district level panel of data from the School Finance Indicators Database to evaluate recent (2012 – 2017) disparities in school revenue and spending by race in addition to poverty, across and within all states and within selected states. Next, we use data from the National Education Cost Model (NECM) to evaluate disparities in spending against estimates of “costs” of achieving national average student outcomes to determine racial differences in gaps between current spending and costs of equitable outcomes. As Latinx shares increase, per pupil spending and revenue decrease, respectively by about 4% to 7% for districts that are approximately 100% Latinx compared to those that have few or no Latinx students, controlling for poverty. More striking, when controlling for poverty, a district that is 100% Latinx is nearly 2.5 times as likely as a district that is 0% Latinx to be financially disadvantaged (have revenue 90% of labor market average, and poverty greater than 120%), when controlling for poverty and 28.5 times as likely when not controlling for poverty. Finally, spending is less adequate to achieve national average outcomes, across states, in districts serving larger shares of Latinx students.

In response to the COVID-19 global pandemic, most schools across the country closed in-person instruction for a period of time and many shifted to online schooling. Beginning in fall 2020, schools around the United States began reopening and many districts offered families a decision or “choice” to return their children to an in-person or online schooling experience. In many cities, this approach complicated existing school choice and permanent closure policies with already existing equity issues. Building upon previous scholarship on school choice and closure, this study draws on the concept of school choice with(out) equity (Frankenberg et al., 2010; Scott & Stuart Wells, 2013; Horsford et al., 2019). Using data from an online survey (n = 155 participants) in August 2020, this study examines why families (50% white, 50% people of color) decided to return their children to in-person schooling in Hartford, Connecticut. This study uses a mixed-method analysis of qualitative responses and quantitative data to understand family decisions to return to in-person schooling (Creswell, 2014). Rather than school choices with full equity considerations during the pandemic, these family responses focused on needs of childcare for full-time work and health safety. These responses suggest a partial equity in the landscape of available choices. The study raises questions about reapplying old forms of school choice to a new form of temporary school closure during pandemic.

An analysis of school district spending across the U.S. reveals 66 districts where the students face much greater needs than in surrounding districts (i.e., child poverty is more than 20% higher) but where per-pupil spending is less than 90% of the region’s average. This not only means that they have less money to spend on children who require more expensive services and supports, but it also puts them at a competitive disadvantage when it comes to hiring and retaining high-quality teachers and staff from the local area. These districts tend to be located in small to mid-size cities, and they serve disproportionately large numbers of Latinx students.

Connecticut experienced two major changes in testing policy for children with disabilities that played a major role in conclusions about educational progress in the state. First, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 required that all students with disabilities participate in grade-level, standardized tests. This movement of students deepened a crisis of stagnant and disparate achievement indicators. Policy reversed in 2007, when the federal Department of Education opened the door for modified assessments based on grade-level content and standards. When testing policy reversed, the exclusion of students with disabilities temporarily resolved this crisis by artificially inflating test results in math and reading. This article provides an overview of testing data from the Connecticut State Department of Education within its historical context. These fluctuations in standard test participation often linked closely with overall results and produced misinterpretations of educational and racial progress over time. Responses to these changes in testing policy make Connecticut an illuminating case regarding the problem of high-stakes testing and changes in policies for students with disabilities in a particular state characterized by deep racial and economic inequity. Rather than raising questions, moving children helped reinforce the legitimacy of high-stakes testing and nationally touted educational reforms.