allocation of resources to education

The Edvocate

• Lynch Educational Consulting
• Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
• Write For Us
• The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
• The Edvocate Podcast
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Assistive Technology
• Best PreK-12 Schools in America
• Child Development
• Classroom Management
• Early Childhood
• EdTech & Innovation
• Education Leadership
• First Year Teachers
• Gifted and Talented Education
• Special Education
• Parental Involvement
• Policy & Reform
• Best Colleges and Universities
• Best College and University Programs
• HBCU’s
• Higher Education EdTech
• Higher Education
• International Education
• The Awards Process
• Finalists and Winners of The 2022 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2021 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2020 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2019 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2018 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Finalists and Winners of The 2017 Tech Edvocate Awards
• Award Seals
• GPA Calculator for College
• GPA Calculator for High School
• Cumulative GPA Calculator
• Grade Calculator
• Weighted Grade Calculator
• Final Grade Calculator
• The Tech Edvocate
• AI Powered Personal Tutor

College Minor: Everything You Need to Know

14 fascinating teacher interview questions for principals, tips for success if you have a master’s degree and can’t find a job, 14 ways young teachers can get that professional look, which teacher supplies are worth the splurge, 8 business books every teacher should read, conditional admission: everything you need to know, college majors: everything you need to know, 7 things principals can do to make a teacher observation valuable, 3 easy teacher outfits to tackle parent-teacher conferences, allocating resources to improve student learning.

Providing every child with an equal opportunity to learn has been a central challenge in public education. In fact, at its inception, universal public education in the United States was viewed as the “great equalizer.” Education was perceived, by some, as the vehicle through which individuals could rise above the social and economic circumstances which may have created longstanding barriers to reaching their potential as individuals and contributing citizens.

As the test of time has proven, education alone cannot address entrenched social problems; multiple institutions, policies and support systems are necessary to level the social and economic playing field. However, education is and will continue to be one of the primary means by which inequity can be addressed. Public funds will continue to be allocated in support of educational programs, and the rationale for these investments will likely continue to be that education creates social equity.

The purposeful and practical allocation of resources to support equitable access to high-quality learning opportunities, is a major component of education policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Leaders at all levels are charged with making decisions about how to effectively distribute and leverage resources to support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation consists of more than assigning dollar amounts to particular schools or programs. Equally, if not more important, is the examination of the ways in which those dollars are translated into actions that address expressed educational goals at various educational levels. In this respect, leaders are concerned not only with the level of resources and how they are distributed across districts, schools, and classrooms, but also with how these investments translate into improved learning.

It is critical for resource allocation practices to reflect an understanding of the imperative to eliminate existing inequities and close the achievement gap. All too often, children who are most in need of support and assistance attend schools that have higher staff turnover, less challenging curricula, less access to appropriate materials and technology, and poorer facilities.

Allocating and developing resources to support improvement in teaching and learning is critical to school reform efforts. Education policymakers must be informed about emerging resource practices and cognizant of the ways incentives can be used to create conditions that support teaching and learning.

Resource allocation in education does not take place in a vacuum. Instead, it often reflects policy conditions that form a context in which opportunities for effective leadership can be created. For example, effective leaders know how to use data strategically to inform resource allocation decisions and to provide insights about how productivity, efficiency, and equity are impacted by allocated resources.

The roles, responsibilities, and authority of leaders at each level of education also impacts whether and how they are able to allocate resources to particular districts, schools, programs, teachers, and students. Further, the type of governance structure that is in place also affects decisions about resources and incentives. Governance issues arise as leaders become involved in raising revenue and distributing educational resources. These activities involve multiple entities, including the voting public, state legislatures, local school boards, superintendents, principals, and teachers’ associations. Each of these connections can provide insights into how best to allocate resources and provide incentives that powerfully and equitably support learning, for both students and education professionals.

Resources necessary to operate a successful school or school district cannot be confined to dollars alone, however. Indeed, the resources needed to actively and fully support education are inherently complex and require an understanding that goes far beyond assessing the level of spending or how the dollars are distributed. Educational leaders must be able to examine the ways in which those dollars are translated into action by allocating time and people, developing human capital, and providing incentives and supports in productive ways.

Principals, district officials who oversee the allocation of resources, and state policymakers whose actions affect the resources the principal has to work with, are all concerned with three basic categories of resources: 1. Money.  Activities at several levels of the system, typically occurring in annual cycles, determine both the amount of money that is available to support education and the purposes to which money can be allocated. No one level of the educational system has complete control over the flow, distribution, and expenditure of funds. 2. Human capital.  People “purchased” with the allocated funds do the work of the educational system and bring differing levels of motivation and expertise developed over time through training and experience.

3. Time.  People’s work happens within an agreed-upon structure of time (and assignment of people to tasks within time blocks) that allocates hours within the day and across the year to different functions, thereby creating more or less opportunity to accomplish goals.

These resources are thus intimately linked to one another. Each affects the other and even depends on the other to achieve its intended purpose. An abundance of money and time, for example, without the knowledge, motivation, and expertise of teachers (human capital) does little to maximize desired learning opportunities created for students.

Furthermore, an abundance of human capital without money or time to distribute it does little to alter practice in classrooms or to share expertise with others. From their position of influence over the acquisition, flow, and (intended) use of resources, educational leaders thereby undertake a massive attempt to coordinate, and render coherent, the relationships of the various resources to the goals they set out to achieve.

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

Girls Thinking Global Receives Grant from The ...

Respect for teaching: why is education so ....

Matthew Lynch

Related articles more from author.

The Edvocate’s List of 19 Ways to Say, ‘Thank You’ to Teachers

Pass or Fail: Thoughts on Intervening Early and Often

Another Failed Charter: Do These Schools have a Future?

2 sex ed approaches—which one works better.

Many low-income students use only their phone to get online. What are they missing?

3 Questions We Should Ask About Preschool

« Back to All Tools and Publications

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn

What is Resource Equity?

A working paper that explores the many – often hidden – dimensions of equity that support academic excellence

Jonathan Travers, October 1, 2018

Resource equity refers to the allocation and use of resources (people, time, and money) to create student experiences that enable all children to reach empowering and rigorous learning outcomes—no matter their race or income.

In this working paper, we’ve identified specific “dimensions of equity,” and we explain how each links to student outcomes, identify typical sources of inequities within systems, share ways that schools and systems have organized resources to create greater resource equity, and provide sample diagnostic questions to help systems self-assess.

*For more about resource equity check out the Alliance for Resource Equity *

While there is no set “recipe” for great school systems, assessing the dimensions of equity helps education stakeholders see more clearly whether school systems provide all students the resources they need, and can help leaders design school and system policies to more equitably allocate and effectively use resources based on student need.

The ideas in this paper are still actively evolving. We invite you to share your reactions and questions about equity by emailing Betty Chang .

Chiefs for Change: Statement on the Need for High Quality Curriculum, June 6, 2018

Email Newsletter Signup

" * " indicates required fields

Learn how ready your district is for SBB

Enter your email to download our free in-depth SBB assessment.

Stay in the know with the latest news and happenings.

Do school districts allocate more resources to economically disadvantaged students?

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, michael hansen , michael hansen senior fellow - brown center on education policy , the herman and george r. brown chair - governance studies @drmikehansen jon valant , and jon valant director - brown center on education policy , senior fellow - governance studies @jonvalant nicolas zerbino nicolas zerbino senior research analyst.

Friday, December 16, 2022

• Introduction

Chapter 1: Which districts allocate resources progressively?

• Case studies: Massachusetts , Indiana ,  Louisiana ,  Nevada ,  New York , and  North Carolina

Methodological appendix

Policymakers across local, state, and federal governments regularly make decisions about how to allocate resources to U.S. public schools. For students, these decisions matter. They can mean the difference between having access to smaller classes, more experienced teachers, newer materials and facilities, additional support staff, and richer extracurricular opportunities. Research confirms, too, that resources make a difference , especially for the most disadvantaged and marginalized groups of students.  

For decades, advocates and researchers have raised alarms about inequities in resource allocation and pushed for reforms to the country’s school finance systems . These inequities have roots in the complex, decentralized ways in which public schools are funded. States are constitutionally responsible for the provision of public education and play key roles in creating school finance policies and frameworks . In fact, differences in state policies and resources have produced large state-to-state differences in per-pupil funding levels —differences that tend to leave fewer resources for groups of students that are concentrated in lower-spending states (such as Hispanic/Latino students). However, state officials are not the only important actors in shaping which funds reach which students. Local officials are key decision-makers , too. This is because states give localities a great deal of discretion in how they raise and spend school funds. This deference to localities—coupled with stark resource inequalities across communities in the same state—can give rise to large within-state differences in per-pupil funding , with students in low-income, low-wealth communities at the greatest risk of attending underfunded schools.   

Read the full introduction for “Do school districts allocate more resources to economically disadvantaged students?” →

Authors: Jon Valant , Nicolas Zerbino

In the 1930s, Harold D. Lasswell, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, published a book that set out to explain how individuals and groups secure political power and, in turn, the resources that accompany that power. In the decades since, Lasswell’s book titled, “Politics: Who Gets What, When, How,” has become a shorthand definition for politics itself. In a world of scarce resources, understanding who has power—and what they want and do with it—is fundamental to understanding “who gets what.”

In education, “who gets what” has real consequences. For a student, attending a better-funded school can mean access to more experienced teachers, smaller class sizes, richer extracurricular offerings, and more modern facilities and materials. These types of resources make a difference. C. Kirabo Jackson and Claire Mackevicius analyzed 31 studies of the causal effects of K-12 public school spending on student outcomes. Twenty-eight of those studies found positive effects from increased spending. Jackson and Mackevicius estimate that increasing per-pupil spending by $1,000 for four years is associated with increases of 0.04 standard deviations on test scores, 1.9 percentage points on high school graduation rates, and 2.7 percentage points on college-going rates. The positive effects were evident across student subgroups but less pronounced for economically advantaged students.   

Continue reading

Chapter 2: Does teacher sorting contribute to financial inequalities?

Authors: Michael Hansen , Nicolas Zerbino

Two parallel movements in education policy over recent decades have attempted to reduce inequalities in public schools, though inequalities of different forms. On one side, schools in the U.S. have historically spent lower amounts on a per-pupil basis in socioeconomically disadvantaged communities than those in more affluent areas. On the other side, research has shown teachers matter greatly to students’ immediate and long-term outcomes , but student access to quality teaching is stacked against those from disadvantaged communities.

Both problems have commanded policy attention in the modern era of education reform, though progress on these issues has been uneven. States have made important advances in school finance reform over recent decades, significantly narrowing spending gaps (though important gaps still exist in some contexts). Conversely, progress on the teacher quality side has been less encouraging. Evidence shows teacher qualifications among entering teachers has shown modest improvement , but policy efforts to strengthen the teacher workforce (primarily during the Race to the Top era) were often perceived as federal overreach by states and with hostility among teachers , with little discernable progress at scale.

Read more to learn about the methodological process behind “Do school districts allocate more resources to economically disadvantaged students?” by Brown Center researchers Jon Valant, Michael Hansen, and Nicolas Zerbino.

The authors thank Melissa Carmona, Marguerite Franco, Maile Symonds, and Lauren Worley for excellent research assistance. We also thank Katharine Meyer, Rachel Perera, Marguerite Roza, and Kenneth Shores for their thoughtful comments and suggestions. Another thank you for Adelle Patten and Antonio Saadipour for their communications contributions. Finally, we acknowledge generous financial support from the Gates Foundation in enabling the Brown Center to conduct this work. 

K-12 Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Michael Trucano, Sopiko Beriashvili

April 25, 2024

Online only

9:00 am - 10:00 am EDT

Kelli Bird, Ben Castleman

April 23, 2024

• Support Our Mission

Planning Types

Focus Areas

• Academic Planning

Strategic Planning

• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Planning
• Campus Planning
• Institutional Effectiveness Planning
• Resource Planning
• All Planning Types >>

A framework that helps you develop more effective planning processes.

Discussions and resources around the unresolved pain points affecting planning in higher education—both emergent and ongoing.

Common Challenges

• Student Success, Retention, and Graduation
• Planning Alignment
• Change Management
• Engaging Stakeholders
• Accreditation Pressures
• All Challenges >>

Learning Resources

Featured Formats

• Example Plans
• All Learning Resources >>

Popular Topics

• Implementation
• Higher Education Trends

Conferences & Programs

Upcoming Events

• Trends that Impact Higher Education Planning: Spring 2024 Webinar | May 9
• When City Parks are your Quad: Urban Campus Planning for Safety and Wellbeing Webinar | May 14
• All Events >>
• SCUP Planning Institute: Foundations Philadelphia, PA | July 19
• SCUP Planning Institute: Design Philadelphia, PA | July 20-21
• Annual Conference
• Event Recordings and Presentations
• Planning Institute
• Integrated Planning Coaching
• Share Your Expertise

The SCUP community opens a whole world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise.

Get Connected

• Membership Options
• Emerging Leaders Program
• Member Directory
• SCUP Fellows
• Corporate Visibility

SCUP Membership

Access a world of integrated planning resources, connections, and expertise-become a member!

Planning for Higher Education Journal

A guide for optimizing resource allocation.

The article presents a framework for integrating assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation at all levels of an institution. For that purpose, data are collected from academic departments and non-academic units. They are then integrated with strategic planning metrics into an assessment report that identifies the resources that need to be allocated, and to evaluate progress toward developing a strategic plan. The framework can be applied at the departmental or unit level, as well as at the institutional level. It provides valuable input for the budget process and can be used for updates in strategic planning.

3 Takeaways . . . . . . For Using Research to Guide Asset Apportionment

• Explore best practices for assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes.
• By programs/units, colleges, and at the institution level, evaluate the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes.
• Integrate assessment findings to inform institutional planning and decision-making related to budgeting and resources allocation.

Introduction

Most colleges and universities have well-established processes for assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation. Those processes are often disconnected in practice (Middaugh 2009), which results in inefficient allocation of resources. Reinforcing the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting is important for meeting accreditation standards, for better use of assessment results, and for ideal allocation of resources. Accreditation standards require institutions to demonstrate institutional effectiveness by providing documented evidence that all activities using institutional resources support the institution’s mission (Hinton 2011; Hollowell, Middaugh, and Sibolski 2006).

Reinforcing the link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting is important for meeting accreditation standards, for better use of assessment results, and for ideal allocation of resources.

In light of the requirements issued by regional accrediting agencies to demonstrate institutional effectiveness, higher education institutions are greatly concerned with bridging the gap between assessment and decision-making—and effectively linking assessment, planning, and budgeting processes (Middaugh 2009). In this article, we present a framework for connecting assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes at higher education institutions to optimize resource allocation.

According to Banta and Palomba (2014), the term assessment is commonly used to measure student learning, but it can also be used to evaluate academic programs, academic support services, and administrative services. Assessment happens at the academic, non-academic, and institutional levels of the college or university. Different assessment practices and processes often exist at each level.

Academic Assessment

Academic assessment practices include appraisal of program learning outcomes, periodic program reviews, and program accreditations, which happen at the level of program, academic department, and college/school. Academic assessment practices often result in a set of recommendations or actions for improvement.

Assessment of program learning outcomes is widely used in higher education institutions as a means of evaluating student learning achievement in academic programs (Banta and Palomba 2014). Periodic program reviews are usually conducted at the academic department level and address areas such as teaching, research, student enrollment, and instructional facilities, in an effort to assess the quality of academic programs and identify areas for improvement (Hollowell et al. 2006). Program reviews often consist of preparing a self-study by the department, which is then followed by an external evaluation that results in an improvement plan. Academic programs, departments, or colleges may also seek accreditation by a specialized professional accrediting body that evaluates the extent to which a department or program maintains a set of standards and practices that are deemed to be of high quality (Wuest 2017).

Non-Academic Assessment

Assessment also happens at the level of non-academic units, which include administrative and academic support divisions. Although assessment processes in non-academic units are less common than assessment processes for academic units, they can occur through periodic reviews (White 2007) and outcomes assessment (Banta and Palomba 2014) for the purpose of improving service offerings (Nichols & Nichols 2000). Those processes can also result in a set of recommendations or actions for improvement.

Periodic unit reviews resemble occasional program reviews: Units prepare a self-study report and invite external reviewers to evaluate the unit and the quality of its services (Middaugh 2011). The unit review usually results in a set of recommendations for improvement that is based on the requests of the unit and the observations of the external reviewers. Unit outcomes assessment resembles program learning outcomes assessment. However, it focuses on the functions, processes, and services offered by the unit, rather than learning outcomes acquired by students upon completion of an academic program (Nichols & Nichols 2000). By measuring a set of key performance indicators and comparing them to preset targets, unit outcomes assessment determines whether the unit’s functions and services are being performed properly (UCF Administrative Assessment Handbook 2008).

Institutional Assessment

One of the major types of institutional assessment is regional institutional accreditation, which provides the university and the accrediting agency with insight into areas where the institution meets or exceeds expectations and where areas for improvement exist. Another type of institutional assessment is a performance evaluation of the university’s strategic plan through tracking selected metrics and comparing them to targets. That method is commonly used to evaluate the implementation of the institutional strategic plan and monitor the achievement of the institutional goals.

According to Wuest (2017), different appraisal practices should be well integrated, and the link should be made evident to stakeholders to reinforce a culture of continuous improvement where faculty, staff, and administrators are motivated to participate in assessment activities (Aloi 2005). Having that integrated view of assessment at the institutional level serves several purposes: identifying interactions among different programs, helping students achieve institution-wide learning goals, supporting resource allocation decisions, and demonstrating institutional effectiveness to external stakeholders (Miller and Leskes 2005).

Strategic planning is a systematic and data-based process, which helps organizations set their priorities, build commitment, and allocate resources (Allison & Kaye 2011). According to Hinton (2011), the foundation of the strategic plan is the institutional mission statement, which is a basic declaration of purpose that delineates why an entity exists and what it intends to achieve. Strategic goals and objectives are considered the basic elements of the strategic plan. The implementation plan helps turn the goals and objectives into a working proposal. It documents the responsible entity for implementing an action, a deadline for every action, and a measure to assess the progress toward the completion of the action (Hinton 2011).

Successful strategic planning is characterized as being integrated, strategic, and aligned (Norris & Poulton 2008).

Integrated, Strategic, and Aligned Planning

Successful strategic planning is characterized as being integrated, tactical, and aligned (Norris & Poulton 2008). Integrated planning takes a comprehensive view: Academic, resource, and facility planning are all interconnected. For planning to be strategic, it should define what the institution as a whole unit should do, taking into consideration external factors. In addition, alignment of activities such as strategic planning, capital planning, accreditation, and performance management across the college, department, and unit levels is important for successful planning (Norris & Poulton 2008).

Strategic Planning Across the Institution

Strategic planning happens at different levels of the institution. At the level of academic departments, colleges, and schools, each academic dean is responsible for developing strategic plans for the school, while each department chairperson formulates a strategic plan for the department (Nauffal and Nasser 2012). Strategic planning at the level of non-academic units focuses on the means through which to contribute toward meeting institutional goals and serving the institution (Nichols & Nichols 2000).

Academic and non-academic strategic plans are typically interconnected with the institutional strategic plan. Some institutions follow a top-down approach where administrators lead institutional planning activities, some institutions utilize bottom-up movements, and others use a mixed approach (Brinkhurst, Rose, Maurice & Ackerman 2011). Bottom-up strategic planning is characterized as participative, and division managers play an important role in the process. Higher-level administrators do most of the planning at institutions that follow a top-down strategic planning approach (Dutton & Duncan 1987).

Cowburn (2005) argued that top-down and bottom-up approaches have both proven to result in failure. A balanced method where top-down meets bottom-up is required for institutions to effectively formulate and implement their strategic plans. Simply collecting objectives from different levels of the institution does not make a strategic plan, and dictating strategic goals without consultation doesn’t lead to coherent and effective planning. Consulting with academic departments and administrative units is essential when setting strategic priorities for the institution. Once those priorities are set, individual units need to link their plans to the university’s objectives in a consistent and structural way (Cowburn 2005).

Strategic Plan Assessment

In order to monitor the implementation of the strategic plan, an assessment that includes the frequency of evaluation, the objectives to be measured, entities that will conduct the appraisal, the methods, and how the results will be utilized for decision-making is used (Trettel & Yeager 2011). In general, key performance indicators are identified for each objective of the strategic plan in order to provide quantitative and qualitative insight about the achievement of the intended outcomes (Trettel & Yeager 2011).

The most common budgeting models for institutional resource allocation are incremental budgeting, formula-based budgeting, zero-based budgeting, performance-based budgeting, responsibility-center budgeting, and initiative-based budgeting (Goldstein 2012). There is no one perfect budgeting model for all institutions, and some colleges and universities may choose to implement a hybrid model by combining components from two or more budgeting models. A summary of the common budgeting models with their description and pros and cons is included in figure 1.

Program prioritization decisions include addition, reduction, consolidation, restructuring, or elimination of programs based on assessment results (Dickeson 2010).

Figure 1 Common Budgeting Model

Data from Goldstein (2012)

Integrating Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Budgeting Processes

Linking assessment and strategic planning.

The link between strategic planning and assessment is two-way, where assessment results inform strategic planning efforts and provide evidence of meeting institutional outcomes. On the other hand, the strategic plan supports the assessment process by providing a framework for revising assessment outcomes and driving program reviews and accreditation efforts (Wuest 2017). According to Aloi (2005), to establish an effective link between strategic planning and assessment, both should be part of an ongoing and decentralized process where all levels of the university undergo evaluation and use the results for planning purposes.

Linking Assessment and Budgeting

Higher education institutions should streamline their assessment processes—for example, improvement plans resulting from activities such as periodic reviews—in a way to collect data that can inform the budgeting process (Trettel & Yeager 2011). Dickeson (2010) noted that the majority of resources in higher education institutions are consumed by programs. According to him, proper reallocation of resources can be achieved through a rigorous and effective program prioritization process. The programs are ordered based on a list of 10 criteria, which may be modified by the institution. Data related to each criterion are collected and can be benchmarked with other institutions. Stronger programs are rewarded by allocating additional resources to them, while weaker programs receive a reduced budget. Program prioritization decisions include addition, reduction, consolidation, restructuring, or elimination of programs based on assessment results (Dickeson 2010).

Linking Strategic Planning and Budgeting

Because higher education institutions have a limited budget to allocate per year, it is important to prioritize and assign funds to the most rewarding and strategic activities, projects, or initiatives. In general, there should be a strong link between strategic planning and budgeting: Activities that are directly linked to strategic key priorities are funded, while other activities based merely on people’s wishes are not funded. According to Stack and Leitch (2011), integrated planning occurs when planning and budgeting processes are coordinated in an effective manner at different levels of the institution and in alignment with the institutional mission and priorities. Even though the main components of an integrated planning framework are common in most institutions, Stack and Leitch (2011) recommended that each institution develop its unique framework, taking into consideration its culture.

Framework for Linking Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Resource Processes

In order to integrate assessment, strategic planning, and resource allocation processes, we created a linking framework as shown in figure 2. The framework reflects the two-way link that exists between assessment processes and strategic plans—and comprises decentralized and ongoing processes, which happen at all levels across the university. As shown in figure 2, different processes exist at different levels of the institution, and findings are used to update the corresponding strategic plan at each level.

Figure 2 Framework for Integrating Assessment, Strategic Planning, and Resource Allocation

Click image to view larger.

To integrate resource allocation processes with assessment and strategic-planning processes, it is important to align all cycles.

We developed the framework at American University of Beirut (AUB) in response to the accreditation standards related to closing the loop between assessment, planning, and resource allocation. At AUB, the main entities involved in that process were the Academic Assessment Unit, the Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC), the Office for Financial Planning, and the Planning and Budgeting Committee; therefore, we based our framework assuming the existence of those entities. Although most colleges and universities do not have those exact same units, they may have different ones with similar responsibilities. Depending on their organizational structure, assessment processes, strategic planning processes, and resource-allocation methods, higher education institutions can adapt the framework by using the same main components and customizing the details.

Our framework begins with the more detailed assessment and strategic plans occurring at the level of academic departments and non-academic units. It then moves up to the level of college and faculties, and, finally, to the level of the institution as a whole. The assessment and strategic planning conducted at the level of faculties incorporates the feedback from departments; the assessment and strategic planning at the level of the institution includes feedback from colleges and non-academic units. At all levels, assessment results are organized into annual progress reports that include planned actions for improvements with their estimated resources attached. Strategic plans are developed at all levels through a balanced top-down and bottom-up approach. All strategic plans are updated based on assessment findings.

At the level of academic departments, an assessment committee is formed and prepares an annual progress report. That includes improvement plans and recommendations resulting from all assessment processes—with relevant intended actions and estimated resources noted. By the end of the academic year, all academic departments submit to the dean’s office their college’s/school’s annual departmental progress reports. They detail their progress in implementing the improvement actions that resulted from the periodic program review, program learning outcomes assessment, strategic-planning initiatives, and/or accreditation processes. At the level of colleges and schools, all departmental progress reports collected from all respective academic departments are compiled to develop annual faculty assessment reports. Those annual reports are augmented with the results of the evaluation of college/school strategic plans, which include activities, requested resources, and an estimated timeline for implementation.

Non-academic units perform ongoing assessment activities similar to those conducted by academic departments. Unit outcomes assessment, periodic unit reviews, and the performance evaluation of unit strategic plans, if available, are compiled. Those annual unit progress reports list activities completed during the previous year, along with planned activities and their estimated resources.

At the institutional level, the academic assessment unit collects the annual faculty assessment reports and the annual unit progress reports from all colleges and units. AAU compiles those reports and the assessment results of the institutional strategic plan to generate the University Assessment Report (UAR). The UAR includes the university’s overall assessment plan and a list of improvement actions and requested resources. All planned activities are categorized and linked to the institutional strategic goals, objectives, or initiatives in the UAR. By assigning categories to activities, similar actions across the university can be easily grouped and their resource requests isolated. Additionally, linking activities to the institutional strategic plan lets administrators identify the highest-priority actions, those that are needed to achieve the institutional goals, objectives, or initiatives.

The Institutional Assessment Committee (IAC), which is formed of representatives from all faculties and non-academic units, provides leadership in the implementation of the different university assessment processes, ensuring the integration of findings with strategic plans and resource allocation. The IAC reviews the UAR, provides feedback, and approves improvement plans submitted by all departments and units. The IAC also identifies the highest-priority activities that have direct links to key initiatives of the institutional strategic plan.

The Office for Financial Planning links capital budget requests to the recommendations received from IAC. Non-recurring operating budget requests are also linked to those recommendations. The Planning and Budgeting Committee reviews all operating and capital budget requests collected from different internal constituencies. The budget requests related to high-priority activities, projects, and initiatives resulting from assessment are allocated immediately—because they are aligned with the institution’s key priorities. Other budget requests that are not linked to the improvement plan or to the institutional strategic plan are postponed or not granted. Based on assessment data, strategic plans, capital and operational requests, and available budget, all stakeholders decide on resource allocation for the following year. Consequently, the framework ensures the distribution of resources based on strategic priorities, assessment results, and stakeholder feedback.

To integrate resource allocation processes with assessment and strategic-planning processes, it is important to align all cycles. Because the assessment and strategic planning cycles are based on the academic year—while the budgeting cycle is based on the fiscal year—a two-year timeline can be adopted, where assessment data collected in one year are used to inform the next year’s budget. Therefore, the progress report filled by departments and units should include the list of improvements resulting from assessment findings, the planned actions for coming years, and the estimated resources for implementing those actions.

Based on assessment data, strategic plans, capital and operational requests, and available budget, all stakeholders decide on resource allocation for the following year.

By linking assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes, results are better utilized, strategic plans reflect the real needs and priorities of the institution, and resources are distributed more effectively. In addition, the integration between assessment, planning, and budgeting can be used to improve internal processes, functions, and services, which is usually required for institutional accreditation. In order to ensure the successful implementation of the linking framework, it is extremely important to have strong support from the top administration, mainly the president, provost, and deans. Because ongoing assessment and regular reporting are essential for the success of the process, the buy-in of department chairs, faculty, and directors is needed. Colleges and universities can tailor the framework to reflect their own institutional structure and processes. While it is challenging to change processes in higher education institutions, having a documented link between assessment, strategic planning, and budgeting processes can help colleges and universities identify areas for improvement and address them to achieve institutional effectiveness.

Allison, M. & J. Kaye. Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organizations: A Practical Guide and Workbook . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Aloi, S. L. “Best Practices in Linking Assessment and Planning.” Assessment Update 17, no. 3 (2015): 4–6.

Banta, T. W. & C. A. Palomba. Assessment Essentials: Planning, Implementing, and Improving Assessment in Higher Education . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.

Brinkhurst, M., P. Rose, G. Maurice & J. D. Ackerman. “Achieving Campus Sustainability: Top-down, Bottom-up, or Neither? International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 12, no. 4 (2011): 338–354.

Cowburn, S. “Strategic Planning in Higher Education: Fact or Fiction?” Perspectives 9, no. 4 (2005): 103–109.

Dickeson, R. C. Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010.

Dutton, J. E. & R. B. Duncan. “The Influence of the Strategic Planning Process on Strategic Change.” Strategic Management Journal 8, no. 2 (1987): 103–116.

Goldstein, L. A Guide to College and University Budgeting: Foundations for Institutional Effectiveness , 4th ed. Washington, DC: National Association of College and University Business Officers, 2012.

Hinton, K. E. A Practical Guide to Strategic Planning in Higher Education . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2012.

Hollowell, D., M. F. Middaugh & E. Sibolski. Integrating Higher Education Planning and Assessment: A Practical Guide . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2006.

Middaugh, M. F. “ Closing the Loop: Linking Planning and Assessment .” Planning for Higher Education 37, no. 3 (2009): 5.

Middaugh, M. F. Planning and Assessment in Higher Education: Demonstrating Institutional Effectiveness . New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

Miller, R. & A. Leskes. Levels of Assessment: From the Student to the Institution . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2005.

Nauffal, D. I. & R. N. Nasser. “ Strategic Planning at Two Levels .” Planning for Higher Education 40, no. 4 (2012): 32.

Nichols, K. W. & J. O. Nichols. The Department Head’s Guide to Assessment Implementation in Administrative and Educational Support Units . New York: Agathon Press, 2000.

Norris, D. M. & N. L. Poulton. A Guide to Planning for Change . Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2008, 99–120.

Stack, P. & A. Leitch. “Chapter 3: Integrated Budgeting and Planning,” in Integrated Resource and Budget Planning at Colleges and Universities . Edited by C. Rylee. Ann Arbor: Society for College and University Planning, 2011. 17–31.

Trettel, B. S. & J. L. Yeager. “Linking Strategic Planning, Priorities, Resource Allocation, and Assessment.” In Increasing Effectiveness of the Community College Financial Model . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.

“UCF Administrative Assessment Handbook,” 2008. Retrieved from University of Central Florida: http://oeas.ucf.edu/doc/adm_assess_handbook.pdf .

White, Eileen Knight. “Institutional Effectiveness: The Integration of Program Review, Strategic Planning, and Budgeting Processes in Two California Community Colleges” (PhD diss., St. Andrews University, 2007), https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/1539 .

Wuest, B. “Connecting the Dots: Integrating Planning and Assessment.” Assessment Update 29, no. 2 (2017): 1–16.

Author Biographies

Engage with the Authors

To comment on this article or share your own observations, message or email www.linkedin.com/in/dss00 , www.linkedin.com/in/hiba-itani-08789277 , or [email protected] .

Designing for Equity Voices, Tools, and Resources for Equity in Education

Amanda Avallone (she/her/hers) Learning Officer (ret.) Next Generation Learning Challenges in Portland, Maine

Together, educators are doing the reimagining and reinvention work necessary to make true educational equity possible. Student-centered learning advances equity when it values social and emotional growth alongside academic achievement, takes a cultural lens on strengths and competencies, and equips students with the power and skills to address injustice in their schools and communities.

Practitioner's Guide to Next Gen Learning

Resources for educators who are committed to redesigning their schools so that education can be a force for equity and human flourishing.

If you talk to just about anyone in the next gen learning space, you are likely to hear the terms rethink, reimagine, and redesign. These are powerful words because they convey three truths: 1) that the way we think shapes the schools we build; 2) that what we imagine can expand our ideas about what is possible; and 3) that, if education as an institution is not equitable, it’s because it was designed to be that way.

At the same time, the prefix “re” is even more potent. It tells us that we can, and should, think deeper, imagine bolder, and design better than we have in the past. The COVID-19 pandemic and widespread protests against racism and systems of oppression have given educators plenty to rethink. However, many schools, districts, and organizations in the NGLC community are doing more than thinking. They are taking action to transform schools so that education dismantles—instead of perpetuates—an inequitable status quo.

This edition of Friday Focus: Practitioner’s Guide to Next Gen Learning is dedicated to curating and sharing resources for educators who are committed to redesigning their schools so that education can be a force for equity and human flourishing. This collection of resources is drawn from the NGLC website , including the diverse voices of our guest bloggers, tools built in collaboration with equity-focused partners, and resources from organizations with Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC) founders and leaders.

The resources are organized into six themes, as follows:

• Redesigning for equity
• Supporting adult learners and leaders
• Building a school culture of community and equity
• Creating culturally responsive learning
• Teaching for social justice
• Working for equity amidst the pandemic

(Re-) Designing for Equity

Racism and inequity are products of design. They can be redesigned —Caroline Hill of 228 Accelerator, Michelle Molitor of The Equity Lab, and Christine Ortiz of Equity Meets Design

If we want more equitable school designs, it stands to reason that we’ll have to purposefully “design for equity.” As part of a design thinking process, equity design principles like these from the NGLC Equity Toolkit play an important role in reimagining learning. They make explicit the intended values, qualities, and functionality in the learning experience a school creates for students. In addition to design principles, this resource includes planning and design tools contributed by CityBridge Education and the Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), an Assessment for Learning Project grantee.

To learn about ways schools are putting equity design into practice, you can also read “ Designing for Race Equity: Now Is the Time ,” an NGLC blog post by CityBridge’s Andrew Plemmons Pratt. In this story, Andrew unpacks the five principles of the equityXdesign framework and shares stories and examples of ways they are put into practice at various schools that partner with CityBridge.

CCE’s “ Building for Equity: A Guide for Inclusive School Redesign ” provides educators with a framework and tools for driving equity-focused, innovative school change. This guide’s approach emphasizes ways that both culturally responsive learning and personalized, student-centered design can be achieved together.

“ What Happened When My School Started to Dismantle White Supremacy Culture ,” a post by NGLC contributing blogger Joe Truss, describes how his school came to define their North Star and find their purpose as an anti-racist school. Joe, the principal of Visitacion Valley Middle School in San Francisco, California, explains how exploring and dismantling White Supremacy Culture enabled his staff to build a new foundation and engineer their school for equity.

Using the right kind of data to make educational decisions is the focus of “ Street Data: A New Grammar for Educational Equity ,” by Shane Safir, author of The Listening Leader: Creating the Conditions for Equitable School Transformation . In her blog post for NGLC, Shane points out that the kinds of data school leaders rely on for decision making further marginalizes the students we claim we want to serve. By contrast, "street data" humanizes the process of gathering data and takes us down to the ground to listen to the voices and experiences of our students, staff, and families.

Supporting Adult Learners and Leaders

[T]o build a new, more inclusive culture, we first needed to be able to see the norms, values, and practices in our institutions that advantage white people and ways of working, to the exclusion and oppression of all others. —Ben Hecht, in “ Moving Beyond Diversity Toward Racial Equity ”

Schools and other institutions that have made the commitment to redesign for equity recognize that working toward racial equity involves more than what Ben Hecht, writing in the Harvard Business Review , calls “‘velcro-ing’ new guidelines, practices, or programs onto the existing structures and culture of the workplace.” Creating a culture of equity requires changing ways of being, doing, and communicating. The following set of resources provides support for leaders and educators to learn, practice, and take action to adopt new structures in service to equity.

Professional Learning Sequences in the NGLC Equity Toolkit feature 14 tools and adult learning experiences, from a variety of organizations, designed to develop awarenesses of individuals’ identity and privilege, as well as the structures of power within the classroom, school, and community. In the course of the learning experiences, school leaders actively work toward the creation of equitable practices, policies, and structures and build capacity in equity-based skills and mindsets, including constructivist listening, recognizing dominant discourse, and using consultancy or tuning protocols to support equity-oriented instruction.

Discussion Protocols , also from the NGLC Equity Toolkit , are user-friendly tools to help adult learners construct meaning from reading a shared text. These protocols, from School Reform Initiative and National School Reform Faculty , provide a structured process or set of guiding steps for participants to follow. This process honors multiple lived realities and diverse perspectives and provides a safe space for people to offer different interpretations of the issues and subject matter presented in the text they are discussing.

For guidance in creating a “brave space” for conversations about race that are inclusive to all races, sexes, genders, abilities, immigration statuses, and other lived experiences, explore these Tools for Courageous Conversations from the Remote DEI Collective . This resource also includes considerations for implementation in a remote work environment.

This Organization-Wide Equity Pause Resource from Equity Meets Design notes that, “Our common discourse of urgency and business-as-usual creates little time for reflection; our pace of life eclipses our awareness.” It therefore offers examples and guidance to leaders, challenging them to create ongoing spaces for transformation by pausing other tasks and making the time to do the work of becoming anti-racists in an anti-racist organization.

This story from NGLC’s Friday Focus: Practitioner’s Guide to Next Gen Learning , titled “ Share Your DC: A Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Expedition ,” features an equity-focused learning expedition designed for adults in the school community. Khizer Husain, the chief of staff at Two Rivers Public Charter School in Washington, D.C., describes how, over the course of three evenings, Two Rivers educators and parents grapple with the complex problem of creating a strong, diverse community where members can truly connect across difference.

Building a School Culture of Community and Equity

[T]he system of education in the U.S., a western, industrialized, capitalist country, is itself an expression of culture. It has been used to advance and sustain dominant white values as the “norm” and to position everything else as the “other.” When students experience this “othering” and cannot bring all their ways of knowing and being to a learning opportunity, it impacts their willingness, motivation, and ability to learn deeply. —Sarah Luchs, for NGLC, in “ Unpacking Cultural Complexity to Create More Equitable Learning ”

Developing new mindsets, structures, and skills among adults is an essential component of designing schools for equity. However, that work alone will not transform the student experience or build equitable and inclusive relationships with families and the communities schools serve. The tools and resources below provide guidance, examples, and food for thought about what it takes to create an inclusive community in which all students are known, valued, and feel as if they belong.

Using personal experience to address the topic of belonging, NGLC contributors Marco Dominguez, an English teacher at Desert Ridge High School in Mesa, Arizona, and Jaime Barraza, chief of staff at Distinctive Schools in Chicago, explore cultural belonging through video storytelling. In “ Mr. Sundays: A Latino Teacher's Exploration, “ Marco describes his relationships with learners and also the “great sadness” he feels knowing that he is likely the first and only Latino teacher his students will ever have. Jaime’s video, “ My Name is Jaime ,” uses the motif of his name—and how it was distorted at school—to tell the story of what it means to be “othered” and, conversely, the power of learning experiences that support students to decide for themselves “what is worthy and what is valuable.”

“ Cultivating Anti-Bias and Anti-Racist Leaders of the Future,” a blog post by NGLC grantee Sara Cotner, the founder and CEO of Montessori for All in Austin, Texas, describes the collaborative and inclusive process their flagship school, Magnolia Montessori, followed to develop “ Creating a Welcoming & Inclusive Community For All. ” This public-facing guide presents, in English and in Spanish, the school’s key understandings for each grade band related to identity, diversity, justice, and action, along with sample texts learners may read and discuss at school or with their families.

“ Creating An Intentionally Diverse School: Lessons Learned ,” a NewSchools Venture Fund publication, features intentionally diverse schools, including NGLC grantees Thrive Public Schools in San Diego, California, and Valor Collegiate Academies in Nashville, Tennessee. Based on interviews with educators at these schools, the brief emphasizes creating not just a diverse student body, but also an inclusive environment where every member of the school community is valued, respected, and important.

As part of their work to design more equitable models, many schools in the NGLC community are shifting away from traditional disciplinary practices and “command and control” school cultures that disproportionately and negatively affect children of color. Instead, they embrace creating an intentional community, co-created values, and accountability for upholding shared ideals. “ School Culture: Restorative Practices ,” from the NGLC Equity Toolkit , provides authentic videos and other resources to support implementing restorative practices at your school.

Creating Culturally Responsive Learning

If we’re serious about equity, we need to ask ourselves why cultural responsiveness is not as visible and valued as whole person development and personalization within next gen learning. Let’s start talking about it and propel next gen learning to be that force for equity we need it to be. —Kristen Vogt, NGLC, in “ Why Aren't We Talking about Culturally Responsive Education in Next Gen Learning? ”

The stories and resources in this section explore the intersection of next gen learning design and culturally responsive teaching and learning. In “ Culturally Relevant Performance Assessment for Students ,” for example, NGLC contributing blogger Maya Kaul from the Learning Policy Institute includes this quotation from Gloria Ladson-Billings: "All instruction is culturally responsive. The question is: To which culture is it currently oriented?" Using examples of performance assessments, such as capstone projects, from schools in California and Hawaiʻi, Maya illustrates how schools can foster a sense of cultural belonging among all students, especially those whose cultural identities are not traditionally honored and represented in the classroom.

In “ Culturally Responsive Assessment through Nā Hopena Aʻo (HA) ,” NGLC guest bloggers Brook Taira and Kauʻi Sang from the Hawaiʻi Department of Education in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, explain how their state is responding to a need for culturally responsive and place-based educational frameworks. The Hawaiʻi DOE, an Assessment for Learning Project grantee, has designed a proficiency-based pathway to prepare students for college, career, and community in Hawaiʻi and beyond. The new set of learner outcomes that emerged from this work, titled Nā Hopena Aʻo (or HĀ), is uniquely grounded in Hawaiian values, language, culture, and history.

“ The Intersection of Project-Based Learning and Cultural Responsiveness ,” by Riley Johnson at New Tech High in Napa, California, describes how his school begins the year with a school-wide design challenge in which students explore their own culture, the culture of those around them, and the culture that makes up the backbone of their community. Through this shared design challenge, Riley reports, the school community has found ways to be more explicit at identifying what it means to be culturally responsive and, more importantly, what it looks like in action.

Writing for the blog Diverse Issues in Higher Education , Donna Y. Ford, Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University, calls attention to the negative effects of adopting culture-blind social emotional learning (SEL) philosophies and frameworks. In “ Social-Emotional Learning for Black Students is Ineffective When it is Culture-Blind ,” she cautions against simplistic solutions to complex problems like racial trauma, and she urges educators to “understand that there is no way to work effectively with the ‘whole child’ of color when culture is demonized, ignored, discounted, and/or trivialized.”

Teaching for Social Justice

If 2020 has revealed one thing, it's the level of racial and economic inequality that continues to plague our country and world. As future leaders, it's imperative that all of our students, regardless of their ethnicity or zip code, know how to advocate for themselves and their communities. —Theresa Bruce, Modern Classrooms Project, Baltimore, Maryland

In NGLC’s work with partner schools and districts in our community of practice, we often refer to the importance of not just learning about a topic but learning deeply by doing. The following stories and resources apply that learning design principle to social justice. For example, teacher Theresa Bruce, in her blog post for NGLC, “ 21st Century Learners as Activists ,” explains why teaching advocacy is an essential competency and a priority within her classroom. To illustrate, she describes her unit on civil disobedience, which pushes students “to examine current systemic structures and institutions while also learning about methods of mobilization, organization, protest, and advocacy to utilize outside of the classroom.”

“ Transforming High School by Challenging Students to Take Action ” by Matt Doyle, superintendent at Vista Unified School District in California, includes a personal narrative by Perla Lopez, a student at Vista High School. In this NGLC blog post, Perla describes her experience in her high school’s Challenge course, a class in which learners investigate a topic, engage with it, and then determine how to take action on their learning by advocating for change.

The ASCD Education Update article “ Why We Can't Afford Whitewashed Social-Emotional Learning ,” by Dena Simmons, challenges educators to teach “fearless SEL.” The author, who is the assistant director at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence, argues that, “We owe our students an education that centers on their lives and explicitly addresses the sociopolitical context. This will not only prepare our students to engage civically and peacefully across difference, but also to become the changemakers and leaders we need.”

For classroom activities, texts, and other resources for teaching and learning social justice at all grade levels, explore these free online resource hubs: “ 20 Picture Books for 2020: Readings to Embrace Race, Provide Solace & Do Good ,” “ Teaching for Change: Building Social Justice Starting in the Classroom ,” and “ Teachers 4 Social Justice: 2020 Resources for Abolitionist Teaching and Solidarity in These Times .”

Working for Equity During a Pandemic

Even though options for connecting are limited right now, we can create spaces in remote settings to provide support, interact, and dedicate time and resources to ongoing action, backing up commitments to equity and racial justice...when the pandemic keeps us isolated, and when racism persists, the distance in our workplaces must not serve as another dehumanizing force. —Kristen Vogt and Stephen Pham, in “ Taking Action toward DEI and Antiracist Commitments Remotely ”

As a result of the pandemic, many organizations, including schools, are finding themselves operating in an unfamiliar environment, such as a remote work culture. The resources below are designed to support positional leaders and others to promote equity in spite of physical distance or other challenges. For example, the seven organizations of the Remote DEI Collective (RDC) have been remote or partially remote for longer than the pandemic and are committed to engaging in matters of DEI and antiracism remotely. While the RDC does not claim to have all the answers, they offer some considerations for navigating these unprecedented times in their Remote DEI Toolkit .

In his essay “ What’s Next for Schools? Dismantling, Healing, and Refusing to Return to Normal ,” Adelric McCain, director of equity and impact for the Network for College Success at the University of Chicago, identifies the disruption of Spring 2020 as an opportunity to radically rethink the power dynamics between students and teachers and points to two areas worthy of inquiry: “First, how do we as educators create learning spaces in which students’ identities truly matter? Secondly, how do we critically examine our practices and beliefs in order to create learning spaces (virtually or in person) where young people are seen and heard, and not just assessed?”

“ Schools as Communities of Care ,” an NGLC blog post by Jeff Heyck-Williams, the director of the Two Rivers Learning Institute in Washington, D.C., explores the role of schools as community hubs that can support intentional progress toward a more just and equitable society or, as products of a racist White-supremacist culture, intentionally create communities of inequity. Jeff argues that, although educators are right to worry about how disrupted learning will impact our most marginalized students, “the conversation around these inequities...needs to start with the trauma of these times. Schools need to ensure that they are communities of care before they undertake any of their other essential work.”

“ Crises as a Catalyst: A Call for Race Equity & Inclusive Leadership ,” by ProInspire, is a reflective guide for individuals and organizations to advance race equity and inclusive leadership during crises. In response to “the unprecedented circumstances brought forth by COVID-19 and recent acts of police brutality,” the guide includes questions to support both individual reflection and team discussions to support organizational leadership to “evolve who we are as leaders and ignite an inner transformation that can sustain the work needed to support Black, Indigenous, and communities of color in the social sector as a whole.”

Photo at top courtesy of Thrive Public Schools.

Amanda Avallone (she/her/hers)

Learning officer (ret.), next generation learning challenges.

Amanda retired from Next Generation Learning Challenges in 2022. As a Learning Officer for NGLC, she collaborated with pioneering educators and their communities to design authentic, powerful learning experiences for young people. She created educator professional learning experiences that exemplify the kind of learning we want for our students and she supported, connected, and celebrated, through storytelling, the educators who are already doing the challenging work of transforming learning every day.

Read More About Designing for Equity

Who Gets to Be an Inventor? Using a Culturally Responsive-Sustaining Approach to Help All Students See Themselves as Inventors

Jillian Harmon (she/her)

March 25, 2024

Bring Your Vision for Student Success to Life with NGLC and Bravely

March 13, 2024

How to Nurture Diverse and Inclusive Classrooms through Play

Rebecca Horrace, Playful Insights Consulting, and Laura Dattile, PlanToys USA

March 5, 2024

Here’s How Data Can Help Unlock Education Equity

Tc’s renzhe yu, alex bowers, and youmi suk break down their ongoing, different approaches to the same goal: high quality education for all.

Now more than ever, educational equity — ensuring all students have access to meaningful educational opportunities, from college preparation and career assistance to support resources to civic participation — is crucial across America. However, the journey towards educational equity demands a multifaceted approach, with cross-collaboration and data at the helm. That’s where a core aspect of TC’s educator preparation and overall ethos comes into play, seeking to narrow the opportunity gaps millions of U.S. students face. 

While The Center for Educational Equity , established in 2005, focuses on research and policy around fair school funding and civic participation, three TC faculty members are finding unique ways to leverage data for equity. Renzhe Yu , Assistant Professor of Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining, is leveraging data analytics to uncover the unintended consequences of the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence. Alex Bowers , Professor of Education Leadership, is showcasing the power of learning analytics and interoperable data sets to identify and address critical indicators of equity. Youmi Suk , Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics, is harnessing big educational data and cutting-edge machine learning methods to address questions about equity and fairness in educational practice.

Renzhe Yu, Assistant Professor of Learning Analytics and Educational Data Mining; Alex Bowers, Professor of Education Leadership; Youmi Suk, Assistant Professor of Applied Statistics (Photo: TC Archives)

• To reveal the bias and unintended consequences of generative artificial intelligence , Renzhe Yu performs large-scale data analytics.
• In order to identify issues of equity in a transparent way, Alex Bowers utilizes learning analytics and public data.
• Working to improve test fairness and curriculum planning , Youmi Suk draws connections between psychometrics, causal inference and algorithmic fairness.

(Image: iStock)

How Data Analytics Can Address the Growing Digital Divides

Stemming from Yu’s interest in learning how to “equip ourselves to better address existing issues related to education inequity,” his most pressing research focuses on understanding how the mass adoption of generative artificial intelligence has exacerbated digital divides in schools and institutions. Explored in a forthcoming working paper, the project uses large-scale text data from the education system to examine differences in everyday teaching and learning experiences as well as institutional attitudes toward generative AI.

“There are students who are more tech-savvy, there are instructors who are more experienced in using technologies, there are institutions that are more open-minded…and they have probably taken good advantage of ChatGPT and other generative AI tools in the past year,” explains Yu. But there’s also a significant number of students, parents, instructors, and institutions that don’t have that kind of access or awareness. “Although it’s just one year, the emergence of this technology may have widened these gaps,” says Yu.

To explore this growing divide, Yu and his research team focused on real-world data sources instead of conducting lab-controlled experiments in order to see how these relationships are playing out in real life. Because of his familiarity with the tech industry and the still-common impulse to innovate without considering the way that entire populations can be left behind, Yu says, “it’s really important to identify these unintended consequences in the early phase of life for these technologies.”

Yu’s other research interest in algorithmic bias — where he has long been exploring how algorithms used for decision making are treating learners differently based on race or other socio-demographic markers — is also made more urgent by the emergence of generative AI tools because if biased algorithms are “having dynamic conversations with students, [as is the case with generative AI,] the negative consequences of any bias in the process would be even more concerning.”

Ultimately, Yu hopes that his work provides perspective that is often ignored in the innovation process in order to create an education system that achieves equity with the help of advanced technology. 

How Data Can Inform Equity Efforts in School Policy and Conversation

Meanwhile, Bowers is looking at new ways school leaders can use reliable, evidence-based data practices to support equity efforts in schools nationwide. “One of my goals is to help bring communities together around the data that already exists for them—that’s already available, and help empower those communities,” he explains.

His recent work focuses on building collaboration with urban schools to identify data-driven equity practices and outcomes in education. In using a multidimensional framework, Bowers is hoping to facilitate more meaningful discussions with school communities by moving away from stigmatizing variables like standardized test scores and graduation rates.

“I think school districts are excited to have a definition of equity that they can bring into these community conversations, both with the school board, but also with teachers, parents, students.”

The project is fueled by his earlier research , which explores the value of interoperable, equitable datasets, along with a report that he co-authored with the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). The comprehensive report details the 16 indicators for assessing equity in education, including academic outcomes like test scores, graduation rates, behavioral data, and opportunities such as student engagement, access to quality learning, pre-K experiences, and more.These indicators give administrators and teachers a more transparent lens to examine school performance.

“It can help us move into a framework of, "How are we serving our students?" "Are we serving our communities?" It's moving away from fixating on the gaps and the outcomes and [instead] trying to problem solve as a collaborative opportunity through which we can bring in existing data.”

How Interdisciplinary Approaches to Analyzing Data Can Promote Fairness

For clearer reading.

Causal Inference: An interdisciplinary subfield that determines the cause of an observed effect by considering assumptions, design and estimation strategies.

Psychometrics: A subfield of psychology centered on theories and applications of measurement, assessment and testing.

A leading researcher exploring test accommodation effectiveness, Suk takes a multi-pronged approach to her main research goal of “developing and applying quantitative methods to address practical and important problems in the educational, social, and behavioral sciences.” One of her central projects is forging a connection between test fairness, a field of study that has been developed over 60 years, and algorithmic fairness, an emerging field with high stakes as algorithmic models are utilized in all aspects of life. 

“We can leverage the people, the methods and the concepts developed in test fairness in order to facilitate understanding of algorithmic fairness,” says Suk who is incorporating psychometrics and causal inference concepts into her work. “And it can go both ways. If there's any new discussion happening around algorithm fairness, we can leverage that discussion to make assessments and tests fairer.” As a part of this work, Suk is crafting new frameworks to investigate test fairness on the individual level instead of on the group level, based on the discussions on individual fairness within the algorithmic fairness research.

Her work is also directly informing her recent research on fair and personalized math curriculum recommendations for high school students, funded by the National Science Foundation. It’s known that students get the most benefit from personalized recommendations but “we have to be aware there may be some unconscious bias [in the recommendations],” explains Suk. To address this, Suk is applying algorithmic fairness constraints to create more equitable recommendations for high school students.

Through her varied research, Suk ultimately hopes to “create equitable and fair testing environments for all students and personalized curriculum plans that empower every student to succeed.”

— Sherri Gardner and Jaqueline Teschon

Tags: Evaluation & Learning Analytics Bias Education Leadership Evaluation & Learning Analytics

Programs: Applied Statistics Cognitive Science in Education Education Leadership Learning Analytics Measurement and Evaluation

Departments: Human Development Organization & Leadership

Published Monday, Apr 22, 2024

Teachers College Newsroom

Address: Institutional Advancement 193-197 Grace Dodge Hall

Box: 306 Phone: (212) 678-3231 Email: views@tc.columbia.edu

Explore our publications and services.

University of michigan press.

Publishes award-winning books that advance humanities and social science fields, as well as English language teaching and regional resources.

Michigan Publishing Services

Assists the U-M community of faculty, staff, and students in achieving their publishing ambitions.

Deep Blue Repositories

Share and access research data, articles, chapters, dissertations and more produced by the U-M community.

A community-based, open source publishing platform that helps publishers present the full richness of their authors' research outputs in a durable, discoverable, accessible and flexible form. Developed by Michigan Publishing and University of Michigan Library.

• shopping_cart Cart

Browse Our Books

• See All Books
• Distributed Clients

Feature Selections

• New Releases
• Forthcoming
• Bestsellers
• Great Lakes

English Language Teaching

• Companion Websites
• Subject Index
• Resources for Teachers and Students

By Skill Area

• Academic Skills/EAP
• Teacher Training

For Authors

Prospective authors.

• Why Publish with Michigan?
• Open Access
• Our Publishing Program
• Submission Guidelines

Author's Guide

• Introduction
• Final Manuscript Preparation
• Production Process
• Marketing and Sales
• Guidelines for Indexing

For Instructors

• Exam Copies
• Desk Copies

For Librarians and Booksellers

• Our Ebook Collection
• Ordering Information for Booksellers
• Review Copies

Background and Contacts

• About the Press
• Customer Service
• Staff Directory

News and Information

• Conferences and Events

Policies and Requests

• Rights and Permissions
• Accessibility

Resource Allocation in Higher Education

Offers guidance for implementing reforms in the allocation of resources in colleges and universities

Description

Resource Allocation in Higher Education describes how colleges, universities, and government agencies can use budgeting processes to improve program planning and productivity. Drawn from the contributors' direct experiences as well as research findings, it blends conceptual foundations with practical insights. Many resource allocation processes in higher education need reform, and this volume will stimulate and assist that effort. Beginning with the economic theory of nonprofits, the essays examine current budgeting systems in both theoretical and practical terms. Resource allocation systems from other domains such as health care are explored for relevant insights. Throughout, decentralization remains a major theme. Topics range from the eminently practical--how to establish a global accounting system or choose an endowment spending rate--to the more abstract--the theory of how various nonprofit enterprises balance academic values against market pressures. The volume ends by proposing value responsibility budgeting, which offers institutions a potentially better way of pursuing their academic values while remaining responsive to market pressures. Those within higher education institutions who are responsible for resource allocation, such as provosts, chief financial officers, or budget directors, will find much that speaks to them. While mostly in the domain of higher education economics, management, and planning, the essays are written for any serious reader concerned with the problem of reform in higher education. William F. Massy is Professor of Education and Business Administration at Stanford University.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, resource allocation in education.

Journal of Educational Administration

ISSN : 0957-8234

Article publication date: 1 February 1971

The paper is devoted to the question of how to allocate a given educational budget. Alternative avenues of expenditure on post‐secondary education are treated as investment projects and their benefit‐cost ratios are compared. The analysis is essentially static and is based on two investigations carried out by the author, one in Canada, the other in the United Kingdom. The paper is organised into three sections. The first discusses the methodology underlying the two detailed studies. The second presents conclusions on particular aspects of the general problem of allocating resources within formal education, and is divided into four parts: the balance between private and social costs and benefits, between academic levels of education, between types of education and between male and female education. The final section of the paper contains four more general points and emphasises our ignorance in much of this area.

SELBY SMITH, C. (1971), "Resource Allocation in Education", Journal of Educational Administration , Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 135-150. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009662

Copyright © 1971, MCB UP Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Advertisement

Measuring and Assessing Regional Education Inequalities in China under Changing Policy Regimes

• Open access
• Published: 06 March 2019
• Volume 13 , pages 91–112, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lili Xiang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2032-9706 1 ,
• John Stillwell 1 ,
• Luke Burns 1 &
• Alison Heppenstall 1  

11k Accesses

22 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

China’s uneven regional economic development and decentralisation of its education system have led to increasing regional education disparities. Here, we introduce a new multidimensional index, the Index of Regional Education Advantage (IREA), underpinned by Amartya Sen’s capability approach, to evaluate the effectiveness of policies targeted at reducing regional/provincial educational inequalities in China since 2005. The analysis of the distribution of IREA scores and the decomposition of the index reveals that education in north-eastern China is better than in the south-west part of the country, a pattern which lacks conformity with the eastern, middle and western macro-divisions adopted by Central Government as the basis of policy implementation. In addition, the education of migrant children and the low transfer rate into high schools are identified as key issues requiring Government attention.

Similar content being viewed by others

The influence of education on health: an empirical assessment of OECD countries for the period 1995–2015

Higher education expansion and inequality in educational opportunities in China

Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement in Primary and Secondary Education: a Meta-analytic Review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Education equality has been valued in numerous international legal instruments and by leading worldwide development agencies (OECD 2012 ; UNESCO 2015 ). Equality in education matters not only because it can improve human capital production, but also because it offers the chance to promote fairness in other systems, like the economy (UNESCO 2002 ; Brighouse et al. 2010 ; Wilkinson and Pickett 2010 ; Baker et al. 2016 ). Education inequalities will exacerbate existing economic inequalities and be detrimental to long-term economic prosperity (Guo 2006 ; Holsinger and Jacob 2009 ; Shindo 2010 ). After 30 years of reform and the pursuit of an ‘opening up’ policy, remarkable economic and social achievements have been made by China. However, the rapid economic development has been accompanied by intensifying inequalities, such as increasing provincial economic inequalities and widening gap between urban and rural  areas (Zhang and Kanbur 2009 ; He et al. 2018 ). Although debates about policy were generated that reflect concern with unequal development (Wei 1999 ; Yang 2002 ; Kanbur and Zhang 2005 ; Fan and Sun 2008 ; Li and Wei 2010 ), most of the literature considers only regional economic inequality in China, and relatively little attention has been paid to regional education inequality.

As the Chinese education system attempts to meet the needs and aspirations of economic and social transition, education reform based on decentralisation was conducted, involving local governments assuming primary responsibility for education investment and administration (Thomas and Peng 2010 ). Due to the negative effects of decentralisation and the uneven regional economic development prevailing in China (Bardhan 2002 ; Yang 2002 ; Rodríguez-Pose and Ezcurra 2009 ), regional education disparities have increased (Tsang 1996 ). As a consequence, since 2003, several re-centralisation policies aimed at reducing regional education inequalities have been implemented by Central Government, including the Law of Compulsory Education in 2006 and the National Medium and Long-term Educational Reform and Development Plan Outline (2010–20) (NMLERD) in 2010 (The State Council of China 2010 ; Sun 2012 ).

Accordingly, evaluation of these policies is needed to assess their success and to set policy in the future. However, there is a limited amount of published research on regional education inequality in China and most of this work has used a Gini index to measure inequality in terms of education attainment (Qian and Smyth 2008 ; Wang 2014 ). In this context, the Gini index is a score that reflects the extent of overall inequality within an area; however, a single score for a whole country (China) cannot distinguish the locations of disadvantaged and advantaged areas; different distributions of regional education inequality may get the same score, so it becomes impossible to accurately measure regional education inequality and identify disadvantaged areas with this Gini index. Moreover, education equality is a multidimensional issue, so the use of only one indicator (of attainment) may lead to limited results. Implementing a policy based on improper evaluation may cause detrimental effects on education development (Vaughan 2007 ). Thus, a composite index of education inequality, underpinned by Sen’s capability approach, is proposed in this paper as a more robust measure of inequality that can be used to investigate temporal changes as well as geographical disparities at the regional (or provincial) scale in China.

This paper is structured in five sections. The next section sets the scene by reviewing previous and current education related policies with a focus on their influence on education equality; the following section introduces the methodology underpinning a new Index of Regional Education Advantage (IREA); the results of the analysis are reported in the fourth section whilst the fifth section discusses the effects of related policies and makes a series of policy suggestions. Conclusions are then drawn in the final section.

Policy Background

Since the open-door policy was launched in 1978, China has achieved unprecedented economic growth and vigorous urbanisation (Li and Wei 2010 ; Chen et al. 2013 ). However, at the same time, due to the uneven development process, regional inequalities have intensified (Wei 1999 ; Yang 2002 ; Liu et al. 2014 ). In the early stage of economic reform, the China’s strategies for regional development followed inverted-U and growth pole theories and the reform policies in 1980s were favourable to coastal areas (Wei 1999 ), where many special economic zones and economic open cities were established to attract foreign investment and trade. These coastal ‘open cities’ and special economic zones enjoyed great autonomy, superior tax incentives and privileged resource allocations. Although some interior cities also opened up from 1994, inland areas experienced significant disadvantage and were lagging far behind (Yang 2002 ; Kanbur and Zhang 2005 ). The widening regional development and income gaps led to massive population migration from inland areas to coastal areas (Liu and Xu 2017 ).

Since the late 1990s, a series of policies and programmes were carried out by the Chinese Government to alleviate regional inequality and promote social and political stability, such as the Eleventh Five-Year Plan (2006–2010), which emphasises coordinated regional development (Fan and Sun 2008 ). In this context, state policies relating to the Chinese education system have also undergone considerable change in the last thirty years based on the different development stages that the country has experienced and the various objectives associated with each stage. These policies can be classified into two broad periods according to their main purpose.

Financial and Administration Decentralisation, 1985–2005

Education in China experienced particularly dramatic disruption in the chaotic social movement referred to as the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (1966–76) (Unger 1984 ). With the shift from a planned to a market oriented economy in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the importance of science and technology for economic transition and development was reiterated by the Chinese Government (Hannum et al. 2007 ; Huang et al. 2015 ). The Decision on the Reform of the Education System (DRES) made by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China ( Zhonggong zhongyang guanyu jiaoyu tizhi gaige de jueding ) was issued in May, 1985. Its main aim was to produce a qualified labour force for promoting market reform and economic modernisation. The nine-year compulsory education framework was confirmed in the DRES and, in addition, the financial management and administration functions of the education system were to be decentralised so as to increase efficiency (Hannum et al. 2007 ). These measures were implemented through the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China in 1986 (Sun 2010 ).

After these reforms were introduced, management and financial responsibilities for education provision were transferred to local government. This meant that local governments were given the primary responsibility for providing most of the funding for schools, including investment in the construction or reconstruction of school buildings, education facilities, teachers’ salaries, and all recurrent expenditures (Sun 2010 ). In rural areas, primary, middle and high schools were sponsored by local authorities in villages, townships and counties respectively, while primary and secondary education in urban areas was sponsored by district and municipal governments respectively (Tsang 1996 ; Sun 2010 ). For the above local governments, there were two main sources of public funds for education: budgetary allocation from local government and very limited categorical grants from higher levels of government (Tsang 1996 ).

Central Government thus had almost no role in the financing of basic education under the new system (Hu 2012 ). In order to complement insufficient budgets, local authorities were allowed to collect education levies and surcharges as extra-budgetary funds to support education within the same locality. However, this tax income proved insufficient to cover the related education expenditure and was an unstable source of income. Therefore, schools needed to raise funds through different methods to meet expenditure. Schools raised extra money (known as ‘non-budgeted item’ or yusuanwai ) both to pay for non-recurrent expenditure and to raise teachers’ income through charging miscellaneous fees, running enterprises and receiving individual donations and generating income from school-run industries (Sun 2010 ; Huang et al. 2015 ). The diversification of sources of funding for education is a distinctive characteristic of this period. The mobilisation of non-government resources was broadened and intensified at school level. The extra-budgetary resources grew sharply and became increasingly important sources of funding for basic education (Tsang 1996 ). Gradually, education services became a valued commodity and access to education became increasingly linked to the consumers’ ability to pay (Whitty 1997 ).

With the rapid growth of the economy, huge progress in education was also made after 1985 with 98.5% of the counties in China introducing the nine-year compulsory education system. Moreover, the conditions of school buildings, education equipment and teachers’ qualifications were also improved dramatically (Tsang 2000 ). The policies in this period were successful in mobilising additional government and non-government resources but they also exposed significant inefficiencies and glaring inequalities. It became apparent that the decentralised administration and financial system was limiting the Central Government’s ability to reduce regional disparities (Tsang 1996 ), and the allocation of resources for regional education services had been directly linked to their economic development (Zhu and Peyrache 2017 ). Therefore, due to the uneven regional economic development occurring in China in these years, different areas had varying abilities to invest in education (Zhang et al. 2012 ).

Given the continuing inadequacy of national investment in education, this situation led to certain areas becoming seriously disadvantaged. In poor rural areas, the weak tax base of local governments, meagre household incomes and an impotence to mobilise non-governmental resources imposed strong limits on the amount of budgetary and extra-budgetary funds that could be collected for basic education. Furthermore, as a result of the worsening financial circumstances in some areas, teachers’ payments were delayed or stopped. As a consequence, poor and remote areas had very low enrolment and completion rates for basic education as well as higher proportions of dilapidated school buildings (Tsang 1996 ). In contrast, wealthier areas became capable of mobilising their affluent non-public resources to improve their education services. This situation increased regional education disparities and family educational expenditures (Hannum et al. 2007 ).

China’s Central Government gradually realised the limitations of decentralisation and responded with a series of policies to promote education equity and expand access to education in disadvantaged areas. For example, from 2001 to 2005, the basic sources of funding for compulsory education have moved from township government to county government, which better assured educational expenditure, especially on teachers’ pay in poor villages. However, there were still substantial impoverished counties with insufficient finance to supply adequate funds for education. Thus, education in undeveloped areas remained in the predicament of having a funding shortage and more policies were required to solve this problem after 2005.

Education Equality and Unified Planning at Provincial Level, after 2005

The policies in the last ten years have attempted to reduce education inequalities among different groups and different regions by implementing some substantive measures. The five most important policies discussed in this research, in chronological order, are: (1) notification of the reform of the funding guarantee system for rural compulsory education (NR) (December 24, 2005); (2) the Compulsory Education Law of the People’s Republic of China (June 29, 2006); (3) notifications of the State Council on exemption of tuition and miscellaneous fees for compulsory education in urban areas (NU) (August 12, 2008); (4) National Medium and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Plan Outline (2010–20) (NMLERD) (July 29, 2010); and (5) notifications of further improvement of the funding guarantee system for urban and rural compulsory education (NUR) (November 25, 2015).

It is important to recognise that a macro-region division has frequently been used by the Chinese Government when implementing policies. Mainland China is divided into three economic zones: eastern (eleven provincial level units); central (eight provincial level units); and western (twelve provincial level units) (Fig.  1 ), based on their economic development level and geographic location (Li and Wei 2010 ). By adjusting the size of each province according to their per capita GDP (PCGDP), the inset cartogram (Fig. 1 ) displays the extent of economic inequality. The macro region with highest PCGDP is the eastern region, while the western region has the lowest PCGDP. The financial policies for education which will now be described are based on this spatial partitioning.

Three macro-regions of China and cartogram inset with per capita GDP (2014) for provincial level units

Since 2005, a new funding guarantee system of education has been gradually introduced that provincial level governments are required to make overall plans for the provision of education, and the role of county level governments has changed from providing funding to administering funding for education. In December 2005, NR was issued by the State Council (Table 1 ), indicating that all the rural areas in western China were exempt from tuition and miscellaneous fees from 2006, and all rural parts of central and eastern areas were exempt from these fees from 2007. In addition, the new policy stipulated that the basic standard for per pupil public funding in rural areas in each provincial level unit should be formulated by provincial level governments. Accordingly, the public funds for each pupil should not be lower than the amount of this basic standard. The funds for waiving tuition and miscellaneous fees and basic public funds for rural areas are shared by Central Government and local governments on the basis of the items and proportions as prescribed by the State Council: 80:20 for the west; 60:40 for central; the proportions for eastern provinces, except for municipalities directly under the control of Central Government, were determined by their financial position respectively. Central Government provides all the funds for free textbooks in western and central areas, whereas these fees are guaranteed by local governments in the eastern region. Building renovation expenses for all primary and middle schools in rural areas are jointly sponsored by Central Government and local government (50:50) for provincial level units in western and central areas, while these funds are provided entirely by local government in the eastern region. The provincial level governments should enhance the amount of transfer payments to ensure the salaries of teaching staff in rural areas.

Exemption from tuition and miscellaneous fees for compulsory education was confirmed by the Compulsory Education Law in July 2006 and therefore extended across the country as a whole (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress 2006a ). It also stipulated that the funding for compulsory education should be fully guaranteed by public finances from national and local government to fundamentally solve the problem of insufficient educational funds. It also proclaimed that compulsory education should be administered by county or higher-level authorities. Each level of government should establish separate funding for compulsory education, and these funds should be equally distributed, except for the extra funds provided to rural areas and low-performance schools (Standing Committee of the National People's Congress 2006b ).

It is clear that the principles emphasised by Central Government and imposed by law were to allocate education resources rationally, improve the education condition of disadvantaged areas and promote the balanced development of education. At the same time, the local authorities in urban areas were still responsible for providing funds for their own compulsory education and were only partly supplemented by Central Government through limited grants and transfer payments. Although the Compulsory Education Law had already claimed that no tuition or miscellaneous fees should be charged for provision of compulsory education, it had been applied to urban areas only after the release of NU in 2008 (Table 1 ) and the related funds were still solely provided by local (provincial level) government.

From 2004 to 2010, the Government’s educational budget ( zhengfu yusuannei jiaoyu bokuan ) increased from £40.3 billion Footnote 1 to £134.9 billion, an increase of 235% (Ministry of Education of PRC 2005 , 2011 ). Moreover, the funds from Central Government increased from £2.99 billion to £25.47 billion, or 7.5 times (Ministry of Education of PRC 2011 ). Central Government improved its ability to reduce education inequalities and to support education in rural and western areas. Furthermore, the NMLERD Plan Outline was published in 2010 (The State Council of China 2010 ; Sun 2012 ). The word “equity” appears in the document 17 times (Hu 2012 ) and the text indicates that fairly large regional and rural-urban inequalities continue to exist (Sun 2012 ). More accessible and equitable education which benefits everyone was posited as the most important objective; the plan aims to achieve equal basic public education for everyone and to narrow disparities (Thomas and Peng 2010 ; Sun 2012 ).

In 2015, the NUR was issued to unify the funding guarantee system for compulsory education in urban and rural areas. The education expenditure proportions shared by Central Government and local governments are unified in this new policy, while in previous policies the Central Government mainly supported education in rural areas and local governments in urban areas had to take responsibility for the funds for their own compulsory education services. In addition, the basic standard for per pupil public funds per year were also unified: £60 for primary school pupils and £80 for middle school pupils from western and central areas; £65 for primary school pupils and £85 for middle school pupils in eastern areas. Specifically, the public funds are guaranteed by Central Government and local governments in the proportion 80:20 for western areas, 60:40 for central areas and 50:50 for eastern areas (Table 1 ).

All in all, it is clear from this synopsis of policy that Central Government has put more emphasis on promoting education equality by supporting disadvantaged groups and regions. However, before addressing the question of how policies have affected inequalities within the education system, it is necessary to accurately monitor the impact of policies that have been implemented already. In order to achieve these objectives, the evolution of regional education inequalities is evaluated in the following section using a new index.

Index of Regional Education Advantage (IREA)

In this section, a new multidimensional measure of nationwide education inequality that we call the Index of Regional Education Advantage (IREA) is introduced. Policy implementation based on improper evaluation may cause detrimental effects on education development (Vaughan 2007 ). Due to the narrowly defined focus (i.e., attainment) of conventional approaches, capability theory, proposed on the basis of criticisms of other human well-being evaluation approaches, was used to develop an alternative analysis framework. The proposed approach in our new index is more comprehensive in terms of the dimensions that are included and therefore is likely to provide a better measure and deeper understanding of regional education disparities.

Capability Approach and its Application in Education

Education is a key social factor among the non-economic dimensions that measure the well-being of an area (Jorda and Alonso 2017 ). In this research, Sen’s capability approach, a normative framework for assessment and evaluation of well-being, social arrangements and policy design (Sen 1995 ; Sen 2001 ; Robeyns 2005 ) has been adopted as a theoretical framework to underpin our index. As Sen only sets out a general framework and deliberately leaves the capability component under-specified (Walker 2005 ), this approach requires further adaptation to the specific context.

Capability refers to the ability or level of freedom of an individual to choose or achieve something that he/she has reason to value being or doing (Walker 2005 ). In terms of education, children are not yet mature enough to make their own choices, so their freedom is constrained by compulsory education and the freedom considered here is more about the level of freedom they will have in the future (Saito 2003 ), given that education is crucial for them to develop other relevant capabilities. Agency is also one of the central concepts of the capability approach, referring to responsible individuals or groups who make their own choices and shape their own valued lives (Walker and Unterhalter 2007 ). In this research, the capability approach has been applied in the context of education within a region and thus all the people within that region are taken as one agent; in other words, this research looks at the average capabilities within each region (Robeyns 2005 ).

‘Functioning’ is the other core concept in Sen’s approach. This refers to the achieved outcomes of education. Previous education inequality evaluation has usually focused on achieved outcomes, i.e., the functioning of systems, measured by educational attainment (Sen 1995 ; Qian and Smyth 2008 ; Lopez-Acevedo 2009 ; Tomul 2009 ). Average years of schooling has been frequently used as a proxy for educational attainment by researchers (Qian and Smyth 2008 ; Herrero et al. 2012 ) and organisations like the World Bank and UNESCO. However, evaluating only attainment outcomes or functioning provides little information about the process and context. There may be different stories lying behind equal achievement; however, the underpinning differences are germane to the discussion of equality and policy implications (Terzi 2007 ). The capability approach emphasises the potential to achieve functioning which requires us to evaluate the current functioning but also the opportunities and real freedoms available to achieve what people value (Walker and Unterhalter 2007 ).

Resource-based approaches are also frequently used in education disparity assessment; these consider the individual or group being equally well off when they have same amount of resources (Sen 1995 ) and are defined without considering the substantial variation in the ability to achieve conversion from capability into functioning across individuals and societies (Koo and Lee 2015 ). Individuals or groups may achieve different levels of functioning with the same resources. In contrast, the capability approach looks not only at the resources people have at their disposal but also the freedom to achieve the functioning combinations they value (Sen 2001 ).

Due to the deficiencies of existing simplistic measures, this research presents a new analytic framework for education in China based on Sen’s capability approach (Fig.  2 ). The proposed framework that we use for regional education disparity involves three dimensions: enrolment, attainment and provision, each of which is influenced by social context, including education policies, the environment and social norms. The achieved educational attainment and enrolment rates work as the conversion factors. The enrolment rate indicates the available opportunity for children to participate in education, as only enrolled children have the chance to be well educated. Attainment refers to the current outcome (functioning of the past) and the educational foundation which will influence the ability of a region to convert resources into functionings in the future (future education attainment). Education provision indicates the availability of educational resources (schools, teachers, et cetera), which are normally related to regional economic context (i.e., per capita GDP), and their quality and degree of sufficiency will influence the capability to achieve functionings. In addition, the social norms and traditions that form people’s preferences within a region will consequently influence their aspirations and effective choices. The achieved functionings in turn will influence, through feedback, the region’s future resource conversion and capability. The capability approach of Sen, therefore, offers the theoretical justification for a comprehensive and multi-dimensional method to evaluate real regional education advantages or disadvantages. This assessment framework fills the current theoretical void and provides a basis for inequality measurements using the new synthetic index.

The theoretical framework for the IREA index, adapted from Robeyns ( 2005 )

The IREA has been created specifically to enable comparison of the characteristics of education found in different regions for different years. This is to reflect the development of education across China and the way in which educational inequalities have evolved before and after the introduction of new policies since 2005. IREA scores for 2004, 2009 and 2014 were calculated in this research. The year 2004 was selected as a reference year and the analysis of data for 2009 and 2014 enables an evaluation of the effectiveness of the related policies and provides a background for the implementation of NMLERD (2010) and NUR (2015).

IREA combines 17 education-related variables (Table 2 ), each of which is related to one of three facets of education ̶ enrolment, attainment and provision ̶ in a single score that quantifies the extent of education inequality between different provinces in China. The availability, compatibility and applicability of data have been considered and all the input data are data from Educational Statistics Yearbook of China and China Educational Finance Statistical Yearbook that relate to geographical provinces in China. In this case, data from Statistics Yearbooks are better than data from the decennial census, since only 2000 and 2010 census data are available. In addition, most of the variables follow the official definitions (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China 2015 ) and measure education in the same direction such that a higher score for each indicator represents a preferable situation.

As each variable has a different measurement unit, standardisation is required to convert the indicators into a common metric to allow aggregation (OECD 2008 ). The most commonly used methods, z-score and max-min standardisation, are problematic. The z-score is not suitable because all the values needed for the later analysis should be positive, and the max-min method will arbitrarily increase the variance of some variables (Herrero et al. 2012 ) (e.g., net enrolment rate for primary schools). An alternative method, the distance to a reference for area i , I i , is proposed for use in this study, and defined as:

where x i is the value of a variable x for area i and x ∗  is a reference value for all areas. This standardisation process only defines the units for measuring variables. In order to enable the index to be comparable across years, the mean of 2009 was used as the common reference values for all three years. Once standardisation has been undertaken, the data are ready for aggregation in the next step.

Weighting and Aggregation

As the IREA is a composite summary measure, it is often desirable to assign weights to indicators based on their perceived importance (Jiang and Shen 2013 ). In addition, the IREA adopts a hierarchical indicator system so the score of each facet should be obtained before calculating the final composite score. There are several approaches that can be used to determine the weights of indicators, such as equal or arbitrary weights, expert opinion weights, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (Decancq and Lugo 2013 ). Whilst all methods have their advantages as well as disadvantages, the decision about which method to adopt depends on the research purpose, the data type and the data characteristics (Deutsch and Silber 2005 ). We have used different weighting and aggregation methods for assigning weights to each of the facets and indicators.

The three variables for measuring enrolment (Table 2 ) are not independent and not perfectly substitutable; for example, the enrolment in primary schools will influence the volume of students transferring from primary school to middle school. The geometric mean is therefore used to obtain the enrolment score.

The weights for the two indicators of attainment are determined according to the principle of frequency-based weights (Deutsch and Silber 2005 ; Decancq and Lugo 2013 ). The indicators which are weak in reflecting education differences should be given relatively lower weights. As the literacy rate is already very high and average years of schooling (AYS) has been emphasised in previous research (Qian and Smyth 2008 ), a weighting of 1 was given to the literacy rate, while a weight of 2 was assigned to AYS.

Weightings, which represent relatively subjective approaches, proved difficult to establish for the final facet, provision of education, where the assessment involves a large number of indicators (twelve variables); therefore a more objective, mathematical approach, PCA, was considered since it is a useful statistical technique to simplify a large set of multidimensional variables and was originally designed as a dimension-reducing technique (Jiang and Shen 2013 ; Pan et al. 2017 ). It avoids arbitrariness (Pan et al. 2017 ) and can also take into account the (multi)collinearity between variables, the so-called double counting problem (Decancq and Lugo 2013 ). For the purpose of weighting, a commonly used approach is factor loading of the first component to weight the indicators related to education provision (Jiang and Shen 2013 ). The indicators with more unequal distributions will be assigned higher weights in PCA, while the ones with low standard deviations would be given lower weights (Vyas and Kumaranayake 2006 ).

After acquiring the scores for three facets, the enrolment and attainment scores were combined to produce a score for conversion factors with a weight of 1:2, given that attainment represents educational grounding for a region and is a more important conversion factor. According to the theoretical discussion, the conversion factors will influence the agents’ capability to achieve valued functioning with given education provision, and will jointly affect the results. Thus, the IREA score was acquired by calculating the geometric mean of the scores of the provision and conversion factors. This fits with the theoretical framework and, in addition, it avoids the perfect substitutability feature of the arithmetic mean and penalises the dispersion of the variables that are aggregated. The marginal utility of an increase would be much higher for the variable with a lower score; thus, this geometric aggregation method provides a greater incentive for policy makers to address the problems within facets with low scores (OECD 2008 ; Herrero et al. 2012 ). This composite index provides a numeric measure that represents the magnitude of educational advantage or disadvantage and is useful in helping to formulate appropriate policy agendas.

Analysis of Results

Overall IREA scores have been calculated by ranking all areas by the value of their IREA across all the three years and then dividing the rank order into categories of equal class interval, so that quintiles are produced allowing comparison over time (Fig.  3 a, b and c). Thus, from 2004 to 2014, if a province’s IREA changed quintile, this can be interpreted as the conditions of education having worsened or improved (Norman and Darlington-Pollock 2018 ). Quintiles 1-5 cover the range from lowest to highest scores. The spatial patterns of IREA scores across the three years display the overall regional educational inequalities and their evolution. The IREA was also decomposed into the scores for different facets to reveal the detailed variations and rationale behind the regional education disparities.

IREA quintile distribution by provincial level units, 2004, 2009 and 2014

Spatial Patterns of IREA

Unlike previous regional educational studies which all focus on the coast-inland education dichotomy in China (Qian and Smyth 2008 ) or inequalities among the regional divisions, a different spatial pattern is apparent. Using the macro division between the north-east and south-west provinces shown by the dotted line shown in Fig. 3 , the IREA scores of the north-east provinces are significantly higher than those of the south-west provinces, although the specific distributions have changed over time. The dotted line has been shown in Figs.  3 and 4 to indicate the overall regional education inequality pattern. The inequalities are more distinctly exhibited in the cartograms, in which the size of each region is adjusted according to its IREA value. In 2004 (Fig. 3 a), the IREA scores for Shanghai and Beijing were significantly higher than all other areas and most of the south-west provinces were in the worst quintile. In 2009 (Fig. 3 b), the distribution appears different, but in reality, the advantaged areas were still the north-east provinces, while the comparatively disadvantaged areas were located in the south-west. The distribution in 2014 (Fig. 3 c) is also consistent with this pattern. Thus, most provinces to the north-east of the dotted line have education advantages; the education conditions in provinces on this line are mixed and intermediate; the educationally disadvantaged provinces are concentrated to the south-west of this line. Figure 3 d shows the improvement of IREA for each province during the period from 2004 to 2014. We can observe that the improvement of western areas, especially the northern part, has been dramatic. Education in the eastern coastal areas also has developed considerably, while the development of south and middle areas has been comparatively slow.

Cartograms for enrolment, attainment and provision by provincial level units, 2004, 2009 and 2014

Decomposition of the IREA

The IREA is a synthetic score which comprehensively reflects the condition of regional education inequalities. However, a single score conceals information and detailed variations between different component facets. In order to reveal the potential processes and detailed variations behind this index, the IREA was decomposed into its three component parts (Fig.  4 ).

In 2004 (before the relevant policies had been implemented), attainment, which is the achieved function of a previous stage, showed variations between eastern and western areas. For enrolment, the scores of the provinces to the north-east of the dotted line are relatively better. In addition, the provision scores of southern provinces were lower than those of the northern and coastal ones. Beijing and Shanghai had comparatively high scores for the three facets in 2004. The educational resources provided will be converted into the regions’ capability under the influence of the conversion factors, enrolment and attainment. Accordingly, in 2004, some of the northern and coastal provincial level units have a higher capability (IREA score) to achieve better education in the future.

Consequently, education attainment in 2009 displays a pattern of differentiation between north-east and south-west China. In addition, the enrolment score shows a clear north-east versus south-west pattern. At this stage, there is more financial investment from Central Government devoted to support education in the western areas. Education provision in the northern, eastern and part of the western areas is higher than the remaining areas. Accordingly, the IREA score, which measures the capability, also shows a north-east and south-west gradient.

From 2004 to 2014, the attainment level improved countrywide and the spatial pattern gradually changed from variations between eastern and western regions to differentiations between north-east and south-west areas. In 2014, the enrolment rates in most areas along the dotted line and to the north-east improved and moved into the fourth or fifth quintiles. However, it worth mentioning that the enrolment scores of Beijing and Shanghai experienced decline from 2004 to 2014. As the western areas acquired more support from Central Government, the pattern of education provision changed such that middle and southern areas became neglected and showed lower provision scores.

In addition, in 2014, in the northern areas where there were more support from Central Government and a solid education foundation, and in the eastern coastal areas with their higher economic development levels, the capability of education (IREA) was higher, indicating that these areas will have more chance of being advantaged, while the south-west provinces, especially Tibet and Guizhou, will remain disadvantaged in education in future. Therefore, it is likely that education inequalities between the south-western and north-eastern areas will continue in the near future, if the relevant policies remain unchanged.

From the above analysis, we can conclude that basic primary school, middle school and high school education in China experienced considerable development over the ten year period. However, although Central Government has played an increasingly important role in promoting the development of education and in reducing education inequalities, there are still very dramatic regional education disparities and its spatial pattern has not really changed very much. With the help of the IREA index and its decomposition, particular problems underlying the current educational policies have been identified and discussed in the following sub-sections.

Spatial Pattern of IREA and Area Partitioning of Policy Implementation

It is not reasonable to implement education policies, especially the fiscal policies like NR, based on dividing China into eastern, central and western regions (Fig. 1 ) to promote education equality. The education-related policies should be implemented based on the evaluation of education-related indicators, whereas this division is based on economic development levels and natural environmental conditions. Thus, the new IREA which was developed based on direct indicators of education can better capture the differences in education development for each province across a number of facets. However, both the pattern of IREA and its decomposed facets at provincial scale do not match with the regional division adopted by Central Government. Furthermore, even economic development, measured by GDP per capita (the inset cartogram of Fig. 1 ), cannot be generalised and fully revealed by this rough partition. Undeniably, this regional division is helpful to clearly define the fiscal responsibilities of Central Government and local governments and acknowledge the increased educational investment in some less developed areas; however, education inequalities vary spatially and temporally, and it is not reasonable to set policies without considering the variations and their different development trajectories. This will decrease the effectiveness of these policies in reducing provincial level and rural-urban disparities in education and cause a waste of education funds to some extent. Unfortunately, the newly issued policies of NUR in 2015 are still based on this problematic regional division.

Moreover, the decomposition of the IREA index and examination its indicators enable us to explain the final composite IREA score and scores for three facets in each provincial level unit and to accurately identify other issues which hinder the efficiencies of policies in reducing regional education disparities.

High School Education Lagging behind

Education-related policies should also take the specific development level of each education stage into consideration. The component indicators reveal that the spatial variations in enrolment in compulsory education are small in 2014 (with the minimum 98.5%), however, the provincial differentiation in middle to high school transfer rates was very substantial in 2014, with the lowest value of 43.9% (Tibet) and highest value of 68.8% (Tianjin), the latter value being 1.5 times the former. As high school education is the bridge between compulsory education and higher education, the comparatively lower transfer rate for high schools will be detrimental for high quality human capital accumulation and lead to further economic disadvantage in these already disadvantaged areas. The apparent spatial variations in the middle to high school transfer rate occur arguably because of the lower percentage of education investment by Central Government in high school education. At present, compulsory education has acquired more policy attention, such as NR and NUR, but Central Government has paid little attention to high school education. The Pearson correlation coefficient of education expenditure per pupil for high school education and the per capita GDP increased from 0.94 to 0.95, which indicates the education investment in high school education in each province is thus still highly related to its economic development. Since the current popularisation of compulsory education, more emphasis should be put on supporting high school education development in less developed areas and the financial burden on families and local government should be reduced. Furthermore, more policies should be implemented to increase the availability of high school education for migrant children, while most emphasis by government at present has been on helping the children of migrants receive compulsory education locally.

Education of Child Migrants

Maps a and c in Fig. 4 illustrate that the enrolment scores of Beijing and Shanghai decreased over the ten year period. This was due to falling transfer rates from primary to middle school and from middle to high school, most likely to have been caused by the strict limitations on the migrants in these areas, i.e., migrants cannot enter local high schools. Migrants’ children are thus forced to go back to their hometowns to receive middle and high school education. Before 2015, only education in rural areas was supported by Central Government, which has not been adapted to the situation of current rapid urbanisation and large-scale population movements. In 2014, migrant workers’ children accounted for more than 25% of all primary school pupils and nearly 23% of all middle school pupils (calculated using data from the China Statistical Yearbook in 2015). Providing education to substantial numbers of migrants from rural areas will largely increase the financial burden on urban governments; therefore urban authorities usually display a negative attitude to offering equal education to migrants’ children. Quality education is not really available for migrant children (Li and Placier 2015 ; Xiang et al. 2018 ).

In order to meet the requirement of the people-oriented urbanisation proposed by Premier Li Keqiang in 2014, which is aimed at helping migrants to settle down in cities and ensuring that they enjoy the same public services, including education (Chen et al. 2018 , 2019 ), more Central Government policies are needed to guarantee migrant children’s right to access the same educational services. The NUR in 2015 unified the share of Central Government’s support via urban and rural education expenditure for compulsory education. This policy will, to some extent, reduce urban governments’ fiscal pressure on offering compulsory education to child migrants. However, high school education and all teachers’ salaries are still solely sponsored by local government. Moreover, it worthy of note that the proportion shared by local governments and Central Government still varies by the regional division. A higher proportion of education expenditure is still shared by local governments in eastern areas, which are the main target areas for migrants (Liu et al. 2014 ; Liu and Xu 2017 ).

Education in the Tibet Autonomous Region

The framework of the capability approach also helps us to explain why attainment falls short in some regions, despite the increased resources that have been allocated. Take Tibet as an example. Although an improvement of education in Tibet has taken place and its education provision has increased very rapidly in the last ten years (the education expenditure per pupil for primary schools in Tibet is £1661, twice as much as the national average of £840 in 2014), education in Tibet is still worse than other provincial units, especially in terms of the enrolment rate and attainment (for example, the AYS is only 3.8, while the national average is 7.9). Except for its historically low enrolment and attainment, Tibet’s ability to convert educational resources into capability (Fig. 2 ) has been influenced by its different context, including its natural physical condition and social environment. In 2004, the average population in Tibet was 2.6 persons per square kilometre and about 80% of residents lived in rural and nomadic livestock breeding areas (Postiglione et al. 2011 ). The service radius of primary schools in rural areas is around 15 to 20 km, and the situation is even worse for nomadic areas, reaching up to 100 to 150 km (Postiglione 2009 ). In addition, educational progress is hampered by parents’ cultural perspective on education (Postiglione et al. 2011 ). Some parents, especially those living in nomadic livestock breeding areas, are not willing to provide financial support for their children’s schooling, because they have not recognised the long-term value of education and the curriculum that children are taught in school can be vastly different from their experiences in everyday life. Moreover, as a result of the influence of religion, some of the children have unfavourable attitudes to education if education content is incompatible with their own culture. (Gyatso et al. 2005 ; Postiglione et al. 2011 ).

Conclusions

A multidimensional index, the IREA, has been proposed and implemented in this paper to evaluate the effectiveness of policies targeted at reducing regional educational inequalities in China since 2005. This is the first time that such a task has been achieved. Education equality has been conceptualised by adapting Sen’s capability approach which provides theoretical justification for the measurement of educational disparities and fills the current theoretical void for education inequality measurements. The patterns of the IREA and its component facets display a different ‘way of looking’ at education inequalities in China. Education in the north-east areas appears better than in the south-west parts of China, which is different from the area division adopted by Central Government as the base of policy implementation. In addition, the temporal comparison (2004, 2009 and 2014) of the IREA helps us to explain how the pattern of education inequalities has evolved over time. Furthermore, key issues such as the equal education of child migrants and the obvious regional variation within high school education have been highlighted and some suggestions for improvement have been proposed.

Within a wider context, our evidence from China in terms of education inequalities not only sheds new light on the debate over the impact of fiscal decentralisation and centralisation on educational resources redistribution, but also contributes to understanding the role of institutions in determining equal educational distributions among regions and different groups of people. The discussions of China’s policies for reducing regional education inequality provide an alternative model specification, offer reference to the research of other regional capability sets and can fit into different contexts to facilitate research on regional development. As the policies referred to are not only aimed at reducing regional education variations but also narrowing the education gap between urban and rural areas, there is considerable potential for future studies of urban and rural education inequalities in China and the policies which have influenced their development.

A conversion rate of 10 Chinese yuan to £1 is used in this research.

Baker, J., Lynch, K., Cantillon, S., & Walsh, J. (2016). Equality and education. In J. Baker, K. Lynch, S. Cantillon, & J. Walsh (Eds.), Equality: From Theory to Action (pp. 140–168). Hampshire: Springer.

Bardhan, P. (2002). Decentralization of governance and development. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16 (4), 185–205.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brighouse, H., Howe, K. R., Tooley, J., & Haydon, G. (2010). Educational Equality (2nd ed.). London: Continuum.

Chen, M., Liu, W., & Tao, X. (2013). Evolution and assessment on China's urbanization 1960–2010: Under-urbanization or over-urbanization? Habitat International, 38 , 25–33.

Chen, M., Liu, W., Lu, D., Chen, H., & Ye, C. (2018). Progress of China's new-type urbanization construction since 2014: A preliminary assessment. Cities., 78 , 180–193.

Chen, M., Gong, Y., Lu, D., & Ye, C. (2019). Build a people-oriented urbanization: China's new-type urbanization dream and Anhui model. Land Use Policy, 80 , 1–9.

Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32 (1), 7–34.

Deutsch, J., & Silber, J. (2005). Measuring multidimensional poverty: An emprical comparision of various approaches. Review of Income and Wealth, 51 (1), 145–174.

Fan, C. C., & Sun, M. (2008). Regional inequality in China, 1978-2006. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 49 (1), 1–18.

Guo, G. (2006). Decentralized education spending and regional disparities: Evidence from Chinese counties 1997–2001. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 11 (2), 45–60.

Gyatso, S., Postiglione, G. A., & Jiao, B. (2005). Education in rural Tibet: Development, problems and adaptations. China: An International Journal, 3 (1), 1–23.

Hannum, E., Park, A., & Cheng, K.-M. (2007). Introducation: Market reforms and educational opportunity in China. In A. Park & E. Hannum (Eds.), Education and Reform in China (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.

He, S., Chung, C. K. L., Bayrak, M. M., & Wang, W. (2018). Administrative boundary changes and regional inequality in provincial China. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 11 (1), 103–120.

Herrero, C., Martínez, R., & Villar, A. (2012). A newer human development index. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 13 (2), 247–268.

Holsinger, D. B., & Jacob, W. J. (2009). Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives . Hong Kong: Springer Science & Business Media.

Hu, W. (2012). Thirty years of education in China: Between change and no change. Chinese Education & Society, 45 (1), 84–94.

Huang, Z., Wang, T., & Li, X. (2015). The political dynamics of educational changes in China. Policy Futures in Education, 14 (1), 24–41.

Jiang, Y. H., & Shen, J. F. (2013). Weighting for what? A comparison of two weighting methods for measuring urban competitiveness. Habitat International, 38 , 167–174.

Jorda, V., & Alonso, J. M. (2017). New estimates on educational attainment using a continuous approach (1970-2010). World Development, 90 , 281–293.

Kanbur, R., & Zhang, X. (2005). Fifty years of regional inequality in China: A journey through central planning, reform, and openness. Review of Development Economics, 9 (1), 87–106.

Koo, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Regional capability and regional disparity: A conceptual framework and applications within Korea. International Review of Public Administration, 20 (2), 121–135.

Li, N., & Placier, P. (2015). Migrant and non-migrant families in Chengdu, China: Segregated lives, segregated schools. Social Sciences, 4 (2), 339–360.

Li, Y., & Wei, Y. H. D. (2010). The spatial-temporal hierarchy of regional inequality of China. Applied Geography, 30 (3), 303–316.

Liu, Y., & Xu, W. (2017). Destination choices of permanent and temporary migrants in China, 1985-2005. Population, Space and Place, 23 (1).

Liu, Y., Stillwell, J., Shen, J., & Daras, K. (2014). Interprovincial migration, regional development and state policy in China, 1985-2010. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 7 (1), 47–70.

Lopez-Acevedo, G. (2009). 18. Mexico: Evolution of education and inequality in the last two decades. In D. B. Holsinger & W. J. Jacob (Eds.), Inequality in Education: Comparative and International Perspectives (pp. 417-443). Hong Kong: Springer Science & Business Media.

Ministry of Education of PRC. (2005). Statistical Report on the Implementation of the National Education Funds in 2004. [Online]. [Accessed December 31st]. Available from: http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A05/s3040/200512/t20051230_78264.html

Ministry of Education of PRC. (2011). Statistical Report on the Implementation of the National Education Funds in 2010. [Online]. [Accessed December 31st]. Available from: http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A05/s3040/201112/t20111223_128871.html

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2015). China Education Monitoring and Evaluation Index System. [Online]. [Accessed August 18th]. Available from: http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A03/s182/201509/t20150907_206014.html

Norman, P. D., & Darlington-Pollock, F. (2018). The changing geography of deprivation in Great Britain: Exploiting small area census data, 1971 to 2011. In J. Stillwell (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Census Resources, Methods and Applications: Unlocking the UK 2011 Census . Abingdon: Routledge.

Google Scholar  

OECD. (2008). Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators: Methodology and User Guide . Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools , OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en

Pan, A., Bosch, D., & Ma, H. (2017). Assessing water poverty in China using holistic and dynamic principal component analysis. Social Indicators Research, 130 (2), 537–561.

Postiglione, G. A. (2009). Dislocated education: The case of Tibet. Comparative Education Review, 53 (4), 483–512.

Postiglione, G. A., Jiao, B., & Goldstein, M. C. (2011). Education in the Tibetan autonomous region: Policies and practices in rural and nomadic communities. In J. Ryan (Ed.), Education Reform in China: Changing Concepts, Contexts and Practces (pp. 92–110). New York: Routledge.

Qian, X., & Smyth, R. (2008). Measuring regional inequality of education in China: Widening coast-inland gap or widening rural-urban gap? Journal of International Development, 20 (2), 132–144.

Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6 (1), 93–117.

Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Ezcurra, R. (2009). Does decentralization matter for regional disparities? A cross-country analysis. Journal of Economic Geography, 10 (5), 619–644.

Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen's capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37 (1), 17–33.

Sen, A. (1995). Inequality Reexamined . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sen, A. (2001). Development as Freedom . New York: Anchor Books.

Shindo, Y. (2010). The effect of education subsidies on regional economic growth and disparities in China. Economic Modelling, 27 (5), 1061–1068.

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (2006a). Compulsory Education Law of PRC. Article 2.

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. (2006b). Compulsory Education Law of PRC. Article 42,Article 44, Article 45.

Sun, M. (2010). Education system reform in China after 1978: Some practical implications. International Journal of Educational Management, 24 (4), 314–329.

Sun, X. (2012). The national medium- and long-term educational reform and development guideline (2010-20). Chinese Education & Society, 45 (3), 9–22.

Terzi, L. (2007). The capability to be educated. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen's Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

The State Council of China. (2010). National Medium- and Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Plan Outline [Online]. [Accessed July 29th]. Available from: http://www.gov.cn/jrzg/2010-07/29/content_1667143.htm

Thomas, S. M., & Peng, W. J. (2010). Methods to evaluate educational quality and improvement in China. In J. Ryan (Ed.), Education Reform in China: Changing Concepts, Contexts and Practices . London: Routledge.

Tomul, E. (2009). Measuring regional inequality of education in Turkey: An evaluation by Gini index. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1 (1), 949–952.

Tsang, M. C. (1996). Financial reform of basic education in China. Economics of Education Review, 15 (4), 423–444.

Tsang, M.C. (2000). Education and national development in China since 1949: Oscillating policies and enduring dilemmas. China Review. pp.579–618.

UNESCO. (2002). Education for All, Is the World on Track? Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

UNESCO. (2015). Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

Unger, J. (1984). Severing the links between school performance and careers: The experience of China's urban schools, 1968–1976. Comparative Education, 20 (1), 93–102.

Vaughan, R. (2007). Measuring capabilities: An example from girls’ schooling. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education (pp. 109–130). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vyas, S., & Kumaranayake, L. (2006). Constructing socio-economic status indices: How to use principal components analysis. Health Policy and Planning, 21 (6), 459–468.

Walker, M. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and education. Educational Action Research, 13 (1), 103–110.

Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). The capability approach: Its potential for work in education. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education (pp. 1–18). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wang, W. (2014). Decomposing inequality in compulsory education finance in China: 1998-2008. Public Finance and Management, 14 (4), 437–458.

Wei, Y. D. (1999). Regional inequality in China. Progress in Human Geography, 23 (1), 49–59.

Whitty, G. (1997). Creating quasi-markets in education: A review of recent research on parental choice and school autonomy in three countries. Review of Research in Education, 22 , 3–47.

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. (2010). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone . London: Penguin Books.

Xiang, L., Stillwell, J., Burns, L., Heppenstall, A., & Norman, P. (2018). A geodemographic classification of sub-districts to identify education inequality in Central Beijing. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 70 , 59–70.

Yang, D. T. (2002). What has caused regional inequality in China? China Economic Review, 13 (4), 331–334.

Zhang, X., & Kanbur, R. (2009). Spatial inequality in education and health care in China. In S. Fan, S. M. R. Kanbur, & X. Zhang (Eds.), Regional Inequality in China: Trends, Explanations, and Policy Responses . London: Rouledge.

Zhang, G., Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Zhao, Y., & Qiu, W. (2012). Policy changes and educational reforms in China: Decentralization and marketization. On the Horizon, 20 (4), 313–323.

Zhu, M., & Peyrache, A. (2017). The quality and efficiency of public service delivery in the UK and China. Regional Studies, 51 (2), 285–296.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The lead author is grateful for funding from the Chinese Scholarship Council and the University of Leeds. Many thanks to Professor Adrian Favell for providing valuable suggestions and helpful comments to improve this paper.

Chinese Scholarship Council and the University of Leeds.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Geography, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Lili Xiang, John Stillwell, Luke Burns & Alison Heppenstall

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lili Xiang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest statement.

We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Xiang, L., Stillwell, J., Burns, L. et al. Measuring and Assessing Regional Education Inequalities in China under Changing Policy Regimes. Appl. Spatial Analysis 13 , 91–112 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09293-8

Download citation

Received : 22 May 2018

Accepted : 20 February 2019

Published : 06 March 2019

Issue Date : March 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-019-09293-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Regional education inequalities
• Capability approach
• Education policy
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Step 4: Analyse the Use of Resources for Education

Budgets reflect governments’ priorities. Without the allocation of resources , especially financial, States cannot realise the right to education. Specifically, States cannot meet their minimum core obligations , such as securing free and compulsory primary education for all, or the obligation to progressively realise certain aspects of the right to education, such as the progressive introduction of free secondary, vocational and higher education.

A lack of resources has grave effects on the enjoyment of the right to education because the lack of investment hinders the proper implementation and / or formulation of education policies . For instance, education policies that address lack of access and improving education quality often require the building of schools, the training of teachers, the distribution of textbooks and the inspection of schools.

Using a specific type of process indicator , this step will help you to analyse expenditure and resource allocation ratios, and to identify whether the policy failures you identified in Step 3 are a result of a State’s failure to allocate the necessary resources for the realisation of the right to education.

This step will also help you monitor other finance-related factors, such as corruption, that may be affecting the realisation of the right to education.

Download Step 4 (.pdf)

Dowload the complete guide (.pdf), 4.1 monitor resource allocation.

This step will help you assess whether the policy failures you identified in Step 3 are a result of inadequate financing. This will further strengthen your case that the deprivation or inequality you have identified is avoidable.

Firstly, the connection between education financing and the right to education will be explained. You will then be introduced to the three most important expenditure and resource allocation ratios that measure States’ efforts with regard to the fulfilment of the right to education. Lastly, you be guided on how to interpret the data you gather for these ratios when compared to relevant benchmarks.

The role of education and resource allocation ratios in monitoring the right to education

States are subject to different types of obligations regarding the right to education, one of which is to take appropriate financial measures .

Given that all human rights impose positive obligations, it is unthinkable that the obligations the right to education entails can be met without financial resources. However, as explained in What to monitor? , international human rights law acknowledges that the full realisation of the right to education is not immediately achievable due to resource constraints and instead imposes an obligation to progressively realise certain aspects of the right to education according to maximum available resources , although it should be stressed that some aspects of the right to education impose obligations of immediate effect.

Obligations of immediate effect are unqualified and not limited by other considerations. Vis-à-vis the right to education obligations of immediate effect include:

• Ensure the right to education is exercised free from discrimination of any kind.
• Provide free and compulsory primary education, or if this is not immediately possible States must work out and adopt a plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all.
• Take “deliberate, concrete and targeted” steps towards the full realisation of the right to education.

The obligations to secure the right to education free from discrimination and to provide free and compulsory primary education are also minimum core obligations of the right to education, along with the obligations to:

• Ensure that education conforms to the aims of education .
• Adopt and implement a national educational strategy that includes provision for secondary, higher and fundamental education .
• Ensure free choice of education without interference from the State or third parties, subject to conformity with “minimum educational standards”.

Minimum core obligations are also immediate in nature and must be prioritised when it comes to the allocation of resources.

The remaining content of the right to education is subject to progressive realisation according to maximum available resources. Progressive realisation does not mean States can defer their obligations; rather States have a specific and continuing obligation “to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible”. This means that States must continuously improve conditions necessary for the full realisation of the right to education and refrain from taking retrogressive measures that diminish peoples’ enjoyment of the right to education. For example, budget cuts that have the effect of reducing enjoyment of the right to education, particularly of already marginalised groups , would not be permissible under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, unless such measures have been “introduced after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and that they are fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the and in the context of the full use of the State party’s maximum available resources”.

Progressive realisation cannot be understood without reference to maximum available resources. According to the International Budget Partnership the use of maximum available resources requires States to:

Mobilise as many resources as possible , including maximising domestic revenue through the collection of tax.

Prioritise economic, social and cultural rights in the use and allocation of their resources.

Efficiently spend funds , including ensuring funds are not wasted through overpaying for goods and services.

Ensure that expenditure is effectively spent , that is, expenditures must have the effect of enhancing peoples’ enjoyment of the right to education.

Fully spend funds allocated to the right to education.

Ensure that funds allocated to education are not be diverted to other areas , especially programmes that are not related to economic, social and cultural rights.

The obligation to dedicate the maximum available resources to the realisation of progressive elements of the right to education is itself subject to the obligation “to strive to ensure the widest possible enjoyment of the right to education under the prevailing conditions”.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) also makes it clear that resource constraints, even in times of economic recession, do not eliminate the obligations to monitor enjoyment levels of the right to education, and to devise strategies and programmes to realise the right to education (Paragraph 11). The CESCR also specifies that there is a special duty to protect the most vulnerable members of society through the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programmes (Paragraph 12).

Expenditure and resource allocation ratios can be used to conduct a basic analysis of expenditure patterns. Ratios can help to assess the adequacy and distribution of resources allocated to education. More specifically, ratios can help you identify when a government:

• Devotes insufficient resources to the education sector, hampering the realisation of minimum essential levels or the progressive realisation of the right to education, as illustrated here .
• Prioritises aspects of the right to education that are subject to progressive realisation rather than obligations of immediate effect or minimum core obligations, for example disproportionate spending on tertiary versus primary education, as illustrated here .
• Fails to raise sufficient revenues to be able to adequately fund the education inputs necessary to fully realise the right to education.

Using the Indicators Selection Tool

To access the finance indicators, select Education Financing under the selection criteria Governance and Policy Processes .

If data is available for the indicator you have selected, you will be directed to the relevant source.

Expenditure and allocation ratios

 1.   education expenditure ratio.

This ratio refers to the percentage of GDP spent on public education. This is the most basic expenditure ratio related to the right to education. It provides a snapshot of the extent of State commitment to the provision of education, reflecting the level of resources the State is willing to invest in education relative to its level of development.

A low education expenditure ratio means that resources may be insufficient to effectively address the various obstacles inhibiting access to quality education.

  2.  Education allocation ratio

This ratio refers to the percentage of public expenditure allocated to education. It reflects the relative priority given to education amongst competing budgetary needs.

According to international law, national sovereignty implies that governments have a wide margin of discretion in selecting the appropriate measures necessary for realising economic, social and cultural rights. This includes spending priorities. Nevertheless, there are limits to that discretion. Therefore, the extent to which a low education allocation ratio is problematic from a human rights perspective depends on the circumstances. If a State has not fulfilled its minimum core obligations regarding the right to education, for example, a significant number of individuals deprived of the most basic forms of education or a wide disparity in the primary completion rates of boys and girls, then a low education allocation ratio would not be justified.

Thus, this ratio can help expose and challenge cases in which a government might make false arguments about lack of sufficient resources to discharge its duty of progressive realisation when, in fact, the problem is not resource constraints but rather the preference of that government to use available resources for other less essential areas, as illustrated here .

  3.  Primary education priority ratio

This ratio, which refers to the percentage of the total education expenditure allocated to primary education , reflects priorities within a given educational system. The interpretation of this ratio will depend once again on the circumstances. Countries that have already achieved high enrolment rates and standards of primary education may be justified in prioritising secondary or higher education, for example. However, in countries where a significant proportion of the population is illiterate or where many children are deprived of the most basic forms of education, a low primary education priority ratio could be interpreted as a violation of the State’s minimum core obligations to provide free and compulsory primary education.

4.2 Compare expenditure and resource allocation ratios with benchmarks

As for Steps 2.3 and 3.3 benchmarks can help you assess the adequacy of the ratio levels. 

Types of benchmarks

Specifically, ratio levels can be compared with the following types of benchmarks:

State formal commitments

Compare ratio levels with guarantees and commitments made in documents such as constitutions, laws, policies and national plans . For instance, if a country’s national laws state that a certain percentage of the national budget should be allocated to education  or stipulate a specific percentage for some level of education (eg primary education) you can compare the actual budget allocation with that set in law and make the case that the budget allocation is inadequate according the country’s own laws.

International benchmarks

The Education 2030 Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action sets spending targets for educaton at at least 4% to 6% of gross domestic product and / or at least 15% to 20% of total public expenditure. 

Cross-country comparisons

Comparing data across countries can reveal whether levels of education expenditure and allocation ratios are consistent with similar countries in the same region .

Cross-sector comparisons

Compare education spending relative to ‘non-priority’ sectors within the budget.

Time series analysis

Measuring levels of the same ratios over a period of time can give an indication of whether resources are being employed to progressively realise the right to education. For instance, analysing changes in the education allocation ratio can help you track shifts in the relative priority given by the government to the education sector.

4.3 Analyse other financial issues

Beyond looking at expenditure ratios, there are multiple other factors related to the management of financial resources that bear upon the realisation of the right to education according to maximum available resources , including:

Discriminatory distribution of education resources

The prohibition of discrimination  is an immediate obligation under human rights law. This means States cannot invoke a lack of resources as a reason for non-compliance. It is therefore necessary to analyse whether resources are being distributed in a discriminatory manner amongst different groups.

One form of discrimination would be if funding for education is disproportionally allocated to districts where most people are from the majority ethnic or religious group. This could be assessed by comparing the education budget allocated per child in districts where most people are from the majority ethnic or religious group to that where most people are from minority ethnic or religious groups.

Another form of discrimination includes unfair distribution patterns of public education programmes that benefit people other than those who need assistance most. Paragraph 12 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultral Rights (CESCR) General Comment 13 states: “In times of severe resources constraints whether caused by a process of adjustment, of economic recession, or by other factors the vulnerable members of society can and indeed must be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programmes.” A failure to meet this immediate obligation can be assessed by contrasting the benefits of a programme with levels of deprivation that the programme is supposed to address, as illustrated here .

Discrimination resulting in inequities in the quality of the provision of education is a related problem. The CESCR recognises that “sharp disparities in spending policies that result in differing qualities of education for persons residing in different geographic locations may constitute discrimination under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (CESCR General Comment 13 , Para 35). One way to measure this is to compare data, disaggregated  by region or municipality, on the quality of an essential education service (eg quality of teachers or conditions of school facilities) with demographic data from the same regions or municipalities disaggregated by ethnic group or poverty level. This could show, for instance, that less qualified teachers – a primary factor in the quality of education – are teaching in the areas largely populated by an ethnic minority or persons living in poverty, as illustrated here . 

Gap between approved budget and its execution

Comparing the approved budget for education with the execution of this budget  over time can give an indication of the real commitment (as opposed to its intentions) towards the full realisation of the right to education. This comparison could raise questions regarding the government’s compliance to various types of human rights obligations. For instance, if that comparison shows that the government has not spent a significant percentage of the overall budget that had been approved for the education sector, this may suggest a failure to actually fulfil its obligation of the use of maximum available resources for the progressive realisation  of the right to education, for examples of this, see here . On the other hand, if the gap between approved budget and its execution is specific to a programme designed to provide the goods and services necessary to ensure that disadvantaged groups (eg girls, children belonging to an ethnic minority, etc) enjoy the right to education, this may suggest a discriminatory practice against that disadvantaged group.

Inertia of the budgetary process may undermine a government’s decision to adopt a policy that prioritises marginalised groups

In many countries budgets are to a great extent determined by inertia – utilising past budget allocations to determine budgets for the forthcoming year. This inertia in the budgetary process may undermine the intentions of a government to shift its policy priorities in order to comply with its human rights obligation .

The first step in assessing whether the education budget is largely determined by inertia is to compare the current budget with those of previous years. If the education budget (and the composition of the budget, such as the percentage allocated to the various levels of education and amount dedicated to infrastructure) is static but education policy  has changed significantly, this may indicate that insufficient resources have been allocated to fully implement the new policy.

You may want to interview government officials (from the Treasury or the Ministry of Education) and ask whether, over those years, education priorities have changed. If they have, you should ask them how is it that if priorities have changed, these changes are not reflected in the budget. You may also want to ask whether the Ministry of Education requested extra funds from the Ministry of Finance to adequately cover new education priorities and policies. If they offer no reasonable response, you could reasonably infer that the budget is determined to a great extent by inertia. Alternatively, you may prefer a more direct approach and ask to what extent past budget allocations are used to determine budgets for the upcoming year.

Timely flow of resources

Another aspect that should be assessed is the extent to which resources reach schools in a timely manner. A failure to do so may undermine the government’s efforts to comply with its obligations regarding the right to education. For instance, if schools, local authorities or education ministries receive the funds necessary to buy essential resources (eg textbooks) towards the end of the school year, this may affect children’s right to education. For an example, see here . 

Corruption in the education sector

In many countries corruption in the education sector is rampant , siphoning scarce public resources into private pockets and undermining the government’s ability to provide quality education for all. Frequent forms of corruption in education include the illegal charging of ‘enrolment fees’, selling educational material and school supplies that should be distributed freely, accepting bribes to influence the selection of grant recipients, selling school diplomas or exam scores, and the use of school facilities by administrators or other people for private purposes.

Various aspects of corruption can be assessed. These include:

• The extent to which there is corruption in the education sector (in comparison with other sectors).
• The areas of the education sector in which corruption is more widespread (eg procurement of textbooks , demand of illegal fees, chronic absenteeism of teachers, etc).
• The marginalised groups that bear the brunt of the corruption practices in the education sector.
• The governance weaknesses (both within the education sector and overall in the country) that are driving corrupt practices (eg inadequate salaries for teachers, inadequate accountability mechanisms, people’s lack of awareness about the services they are entitled to, etc).

Various methods and tools  can be used to assess corruption in the education sector, including:

• Household surveys that measure people’s actual experience with corruption in the education sector  (and other relevant sectors) are particularly helpful in assessing the impact of corruption on everyday lives. Experience-based surveys also help to identify the extent to which disadvantaged groups bear the brunt of corrupt social services and whether corruption impacts on access to education and related services.
• Interviews with various education stakeholders, including parents, teachers, head teachers, representatives of school governance bodies (eg Parent Teacher Associations) and local government officials, can help to uncover problems in the use of public resources for education and in the accountability mechanisms regarding those resources. For examples of relevant questions, see here . For examples of monitoring exercises using this method, see here .
• Another method for assessing financial management is to track public expenditures. Data on budget allocations on education provides a rough indication of the relative importance a government attributes to this area, but offers little insight into how much actually reaches schools. To analyse this and other issues related to budget utilisation, Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys (PETS) devised by the World Bank could help you to track the flow of resources from the central government (eg Ministry of Finance) through the various levels of state administration down to schools the front-line service facilities, focusing on en route leakages and corruption. For information on conducting PETS, see here . For an example of the effectiveness of this method, see here .

• Teaching & Learning Home
• Becoming an Educator
• Become a Teacher
• California Literacy
• Career Technical Education
• Business & Marketing
• Health Careers Education
• Industrial & Technology Education
• Standards & Framework
• Work Experience Education (WEE)
• Curriculum and Instruction Resources
• Common Core State Standards
• Curriculum Frameworks & Instructional Materials
• Distance Learning
• Driver Education
• Multi-Tiered System of Supports
• Recommended Literature
• School Libraries
• Service-Learning
• Specialized Media
• Grade Spans
• Early Education
• P-3 Alignment
• Middle Grades
• High School
• Postsecondary
• Adult Education
• Professional Learning
• Administrators
• Curriculum Areas
• Professional Standards
• Quality Schooling Framework
• Social and Emotional Learning
• Subject Areas
• Computer Science
• English Language Arts
• History-Social Science
• Mathematics
• Physical Education
• Visual & Performing Arts
• World Languages
• Testing & Accountability Home
• Accountability
• California School Dashboard and System of Support
• Dashboard Alternative School Status (DASS)
• Local Educational Agency Accountability Report Card
• School Accountability Report Card (SARC)
• State Accountability Report Card
• Compliance Monitoring
• District & School Interventions
• Awards and Recognition
• Academic Achievement Awards
• California Distinguished Schools Program
• California Teachers of the Year
• Classified School Employees of the Year
• California Gold Ribbon Schools
• Assessment Information
• CA Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)
• CA Proficiency Program (CPP)
• English Language Proficiency Assessments for CA (ELPAC)
• Grade Two Diagnostic Assessment
• High School Equivalency Tests (HSET)
• National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
• Physical Fitness Testing (PFT)
• Smarter Balanced Assessment System
• Finance & Grants Home
• Definitions, Instructions, & Procedures
• Indirect Cost Rates (ICR)
• Standardized Account Code Structure (SACS)
• Allocations & Apportionments
• Categorical Programs
• Consolidated Application
• Federal Cash Management
• Local Control Funding Formula
• Principal Apportionment
• Available Funding

Funding Results

• Projected Funding
• Search CDE Funding
• Outside Funding
• Funding Tools & Materials
• Finance & Grants Other Topics
• Fiscal Oversight
• Software & Forms
• Data & Statistics Home
• Accessing Educational Data
• About CDE's Education Data
• About DataQuest
• Data Reports by Topic
• Downloadable Data Files
• Data Collections
• California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)
• California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS)
• Consolidated Application and Reporting System (CARS)
• Cradle-to-Career Data System
• Annual Financial Data
• Certificated Salaries & Benefits
• Current Expense of Education & Per-pupil Spending
• Data Governance
• Data Privacy
• Educational Data Governance (EDGO)
• Student Health & Support
• Free and Reduced Price Meal Eligibility Data
• Food Programs
• Data Requests
• School & District Information
• California School Directory
• Charter School Locator
• County-District-School Administration
• Private School Data
• Public Schools and District Data Files
• Regional Occupational Centers & Programs
• School Performance
• Postsecondary Preparation
• Specialized Programs Home
• Directory of Schools
• Federal Grants Administration
• Charter Schools
• Contractor Information
• Laws, Regulations, & Requirements
• Program Overview
• Educational Options
• Independent Study
• Open Enrollment
• English Learners
• Special Education
• Administration & Support
• Announcements & Current Issues
• Data Collection & Reporting
• Family Involvement & Partnerships
• Quality Assurance Process
• Services & Resources
• CA Equity Performance and Improvement Program
• Improving Academic Achievement
• Schoolwide Programs
• Statewide System of School Support (S4)
• Specialized Programs Other Topics
• American Indian
• Gifted & Talented Education
• Homeless Education
• Migrant/International
• Private Schools and Schooling at Home
• State Special Schools
• Learning Support Home
• Attendance Improvement
• School Attendance Review Boards
• Expanded Learning
• 21st Century Community Learning Centers
• After School Education & Safety Program
• Expanded Learning Opportunities Program
• Child Nutrition Information & Payment System (CNIPS)
• Rates, Eligibility Scales, & Funding
• School Nutrition
• Parents/Family & Community
• Clearinghouse for Multilingual Documents
• School Disaster and Emergency Management
• Learning Support Other Topics
• Class Size Reduction
• Education Technology
• Educational Counseling
• Mental Health
• Safe Schools
• School Facilities
• Transportation
• Youth Development
• Professional Learning Home
• Title II, Part A Resources and Guidance
• Finance & Grants
• Funding Profile

Mental Health Average Daily Attendance Allocation Plan

Note: Recipients and funding amounts are subject to budget and administrative adjustments.

Mental Health Average Daily Attendance Allocation Plan funding results for fiscal year 2023-24. The grant award period is from July 1, 2023 through September 30, 2025.

Program Questions: Chris Essman, Education Programs Consultant, email: [email protected] , phone: 916-327-3507

Fiscal Questions: Alexa Slater, Education Fiscal Services Assistant, email: [email protected] , phone: 916-322-0581

More about Mental Health Average Daily Attendance Allocation Plan

• Funding Profile Eligibility, funding amounts, important dates, and contacts.
• Search CDE Funding Search funding by fiscal year, status, type, and topic.
• Funding Results Search information about recipients of funds.
• GSPP: Planning and Implementation Grant Errata 1
• Res-23: Proposition 28: Arts and Music in Schools
• California State Preschool Program RFA FY 24-25
• LCSSP Cohort 8 Request for Application
• Funding Results (this page)
• Res-23: Title I, Part A
• GSPP Planning and Implementation Grant RFA
• Local Control Funding Formula Equity Multiplier
• GSPP: Consortium Grant Errata 1
• Res-23: ELOP Apportionment
• Res-23: Title I, Part D (updated 25-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Funding results page for the Title I, Part D program for fiscal year 2023-24. removed by RO -->
• Res-22: CSI LEA (updated 25-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Funding results page for the Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) Local education Agency program for fiscal year 2022-23. removed by RO -->
• Res-22: Title I, Part D (updated 25-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Funding results page for the Title I, Part D program for fiscal year 2022-23. removed by RO -->
• California State Preschool Program RFA FY 24-25 (updated 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> California State Preschool Program (CSPP) Request For Applications (RFA) Fiscal Year 2024-25 removed by RO -->
• Funding Results (updated 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) County Offices of Education (COEs) Plan Development and Implementation Support (PDIS) Subgrant. removed by RO -->
• Funding Results (updated 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Comprehensive Support and Improvement (CSI) County Offices of Education (COEs) Plan Approval (PA) Subgrant Funding Results. removed by RO -->
• GSPP Planning and Implementation Grant RFA (updated 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Golden State Pathways Program (GSPP) Planning and Implementation Grant Request for Application (RFA) for fiscal year 2023-24. removed by RO -->
• GSPP Consortium Request for Applications (updated 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> This is the Golden State Pathways Program (GSPP) Consortium Request for Applications (RFA) for fiscal year 2023-24. removed by RO -->
• Request for Applications (added 23-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> County Technical Assistance (Proposition 56 and 99) removed by RO -->
• Funding Results (added 22-Apr-2024) removed by RO --> Funding information for the 2023-24 Mental Health Average Daily Attendance Allocation Plan Grant. removed by RO -->

Can we store cookies on your device?

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We'd like to set additional cookies to understand how you use this website, remember your settings and improve our services. The cookies we use are listed on our cookies page.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

We use some essential cookies to make this service work.

BETA This is a new service – your feedback will help us to improve it.

PE and sport premium 2023 to 2024 This allocation: 22 February 2024 Not latest

Total allocation for academic year 2023 to 2024 £17,280.

Download PE and sport premium allocation for Stretton Sugwas CofE Academy 2023 to 2024 OpenDocument Spreadsheet ( ODS ), 4 KB This file is in an OpenDocument format. You may need a different format if you're using assistive technology. Request an accessible format . If you use assistive technology (such as a screen reader) and need a version of this document in a more accessible format, please email [email protected] . Please tell us what format you need. It will help us if you say what assistive technology you use.

Allocation history

• You can view all versions of this allocation for the academic year 2023 to 2024 and previous years on the allocation history .

General PE and sport premium resources

• PE and sport premium: conditions of grant 2023 to 2024
• PE and sport premium for primary schools