California is a prime example. The state's Serrano decision in the early 1970s was one of the first requiring a state to correct massive inequities among districts in educational services. Some efforts were made to equalize spending by revising aid formulas and transferring some property tax revenues from wealthier to poorer districts. But there was also a dramatic decline in spending on California schools relative to other states. In the 1960s, California was 5th in per pupil spending, by the 1990s it was 42nd.
Class size is now the largest in the nation.
The legal basis for more equitable funding is clearly stronger in many places than it was in the past. In states where court challenges have been successful, some of the grossest inequities in per pupil district expenditures have been reduced, if not eliminated. School finance reform has become a high priority issue across the nation and an unusually broad consensus has been formed around the proposition that a better system of funding schools needs to be created. But many of the groups that have come to that consensus have arrived there with decidedly different agendas. On the other hand are those with an equity agenda who see school finance reform as an essential ingredient in an effort to revitalize failing, ineffective school districts while also compensating as much as possible for the devastating effects of poverty, race, and class injustice on the lives of children.