The Problem
In 2020 and 2021, Representative Harold Love discovered that the state of Tennessee had failed to provide TSU, a Historically Black College and University (HBCU), a required one-to-one match under the 1890 Land Grant Act.
In 2020 and 2021, Representative Love secured over $500 million in owed funding for Tennessee State University.
1. Establish a Fact-Finding Study Committee
The first thing we recommend is creating a bipartisan fact-finding committee. The goal of a fact-finding committee would be to study prior years’ federal and state funding for land-grant higher education institutions. This is how you can identify if there are inequities in payments to HBCUs (“1890 institutions”) or disparities in state-match funding.
Such fact-finding committees also can:
-
- Hold hearings to gather data
- Request analyses of past budgets
- Offer critical legislative and policymaking support, including the justification for new legislation
2. Engage Stakeholder Support
You’ll discover many stakeholders in your policymaking path to identify funds owed to HCBUs because of potential state failure to provide state-matching funds. This includes political stakeholders and university stakeholders. Here are some types of stakeholders and questions to consider for each group.
Allies and Caucus/Party Leaders
-
- What role does your party and/or caucus leadership play in this process?
- When should you engage them about this particular issue?
- How can you solidify support among allies and caucus/party leaders?
- How will engaging party and/or caucus leadership help in this process?
- What would you recommend to engage party/and or caucus leadership?
Bipartisan Allies:
-
-
- When would you engage your bipartisan allies?
- In what ways would you engage them beyond asking them to sponsor a bill?
-
State Governor:
-
-
-
- At what point do you engage the Governor of the State?
- How could engaging the Governor help in this process?
-
-
Other Political Stakeholders
-
-
-
-
- Do you engage other political stakeholders?
- Who and how?
-
-
-
University Leadership Stakeholders
-
-
-
-
-
- Do/when do you engage HBCU Presidents?
- What are the pros and cons? What impact could it have on the process? What role would you want HBCU Presidents to play?
- Would you want to engage with any other HBCU academic leaders?
- What are the pros and cons? What impact could it have on the process? What role would you want HBCU leadership to play?
- When or do you engage any 1862 institutions to join your effort to receive equitable funding?
- What role would you want 1862 institutions to play?
- Do/when do you engage with alumni associations?
-
-
-
-
Coalitions and Like-minded Stakeholders
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Do/when do you engage with organizations like the Thurgood Marshall College Fund or the Association for Public Land-Grant Universities?
- What organizations would you include in that engagement? What organizations would you not include?
- Do/when do you conduct public-facing campaigns?
- Do/when do you use social media or other platforms to raise awareness about this issue?
-
-
-
-
-
Potential for Replication In Your State
If you have a Historically Black College or University (HBCU) established through the 1890 Land Grant in your state, it also may be owed funding.
Your state’s HCBU (“1890 institution”) may have suffered from your state’s failure to provide state-matching funds that are equitable to what they appropriated to predominantly white land grant colleges and universities (“1862 institutions”).
Legislative Context: The 1890 Land Grant Act
The 1890 Land Grant Act, also known as the Second Morrill Act of 1890, provides federal grants for agricultural research, education, and extension to nineteen 1890 institutions. These grants come through the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
HBCUs did not always have access to the land grant program. Initially, USDA only provided land grant funds to the fifty-seven 1862 institutions deemed eligible under the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862.
What Did Passing New Legislation Require?
-
Researching your state’s history
- Building your needed supporter base and building consensus
- Finding your bill sponsor
- Creating clear and simple amendment draft language
- Constituent education
The landscape of research on education funding is broad and researchers have probed into the depths of this issue for decades. The topic consistently draws attention from economists in public finance, education researchers, as well as those concerned with issues like human capital and economic development. This research has looked at the geography of education funding, the historical legacy of policy decisions and social institutions, and the intricacies of state funding systems (budget mechanisms). On the whole, the research is both sound and credible, displaying a high level of sophistication and nuance (see Baker 2015 for a review).
Research consistently finds support for the relationship between increased funding and improved outcomes for children (e.g., reducing achievement gaps) and communities. That relationship holds most consistently for low-income students and school districts. Recently, research has turned to assess the true causal effect of additional funding. Moreover, the research indicates that it matters which specific strategies that funding supports because the simple increases in funding do not guarantee benefits will accrue to those students most in need. For example, researchers find that reforming the structure of education finance in a state is more impactful than merely allocating funds for class size reduction (LaFortune et al 2016).
How Can You Do This In Your State?
Representative Love figured out what was needed on his own. You do not have to. Our goal in the next section is for you to be able to take inspiration from and incorporate Representative Love’s lessons learned into your own state legislation to recover owed HBCU funds.
Drafting HBCU Funding Legislation: A Primer

Return on Investment for this policy is rated as HIGH due to the evidence showing positive benefits at both the individual and societal levels.
It is a well-established fact that higher spending on education produces positive outcomes for students, schools, and communities. When examined over time, results show returns in the form of higher school completion rates, higher earnings in adulthood, and reductions in adult poverty (Coleman et al., 1966; Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994; Borman & Dowling, 2010). It’s worth noting that much of this research was conducted on systems that had instituted funding reforms to ascertain the impact of improved system funding as a result of the deliberate financial intervention.
Moreover, looking beneath the broad analyses of the effects of increased state-level spending to analyses of school-level expenditures, it is clear that there are huge benefits that derive from increased funding. Across a range of interventions, research finds that the cost-benefit estimates for both students and society consistently show magnitudes of positive returns for both. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy examined 52 different educational interventions and found 45 of the 52 showed a favorable cost-benefit. For those with a favorable estimate, the net benefits range from a low of $162 positive return to a $36,164 return. Their model includes projections for a range of benefits to both society and the individual participant. At the community [society] level, they estimate increased tax revenue as well as savings from reduced criminal justice system expenditures, child welfare, and other systems. At the individual level, they account for increased participant lifetime earnings and participant spending, as well as benefits that accrue to the community (e.g., crime victims).
Research Base

The research base is rated as being HIGH due to the soundness and credibility of the research literature.
The landscape of research on education funding is broad and researchers have probed into the depths of this issue for decades. The topic consistently draws attention from economists in public finance, education researchers, as well as those concerned with issues like human capital and economic development. This research has looked at the geography of education funding, the historical legacy of policy decisions and social institutions, and the intricacies of state funding systems (budget mechanisms). On the whole, the research is both sound and credible, displaying a high level of sophistication and nuance (see Baker 2015 for a review).
Research consistently finds support for the relationship between increased funding and improved outcomes for children (e.g., reducing achievement gaps) and communities. That relationship holds most consistently for low-income students and school districts. Recently, research has turned to assess the true causal effect of additional funding. Moreover, the research indicates that it matters which specific strategies that funding supports because the simple increases in funding do not guarantee benefits will accrue to those students most in need. For example, researchers find that reforming the structure of education finance in a state is more impactful than merely allocating funds for class size reduction (LaFortune et al 2016).
State & Local Ease of Implementation

This policy is rated as having a HARD level of implementation difficulty due to the need for coordination across multiple levels of governance, the need for new finance structures/mechanisms, and the high level of political barriers.
Major Policy Implementation Steps
Commission a report or gather evidence of the disparities in your community, particularly educational disparities in communities of color and low wealth communities. An equity assessment should be a component of that review. The Colorado Department of Education has a model assessment that features some great elements. Voices for Racial Justice offers a number of education data elements that can inform that process.
Gain an understanding of the funding landscape and history in your state/community and its history. EdTrust is a good place to start in that it provides an analysis of educational funding equity for all 50 states. Additionally, the Alliance for Resource Equity provides a useful framework for examining funding equity.
Gain an understanding of the connections between educational investments, human capital development, and economic development. Enlist stakeholders from a range of sectors including private sector, secondary education, workforce/economic development, community leaders, legal experts, and higher education. You can find a great toolkit available from the American Institute for Research on stakeholder engagement, specifically focused on equity.
Given that the majority of the educational reforms that have been implemented have occurred through court action, it is imperative to understand the both the constitutional guarantees and legal history of education in your community.
Innovations Across America
Ohio | Ohio Fair School Funding Plan
Action Space: State and Local
Cost: $12.4 billion. However, prior to 2018, no state allocation existed. The new formula blends state and local funding
Mechanism: Court Action and Enabling Legislation 2020 HB 305
The Fair School Funding Plan allocates funding to local communities and makes significant changes to school funding.
- The plan calculates the equitable portion of the state and local share to fund public education in each community and disrupts the historical over-reliance on local taxes. The plan also calculates the actual base cost to adequately educate each child, as well as the cost to adequately educate students with different needs (economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, gifted students, etc.)
- The plan allows for greater local control and more predictability in state allocations to local communities.
New Jersey | 2018 School Funding Modernization Plan
Action Space: State Level
Cost: Varies by year
Mechanism: Enabling Legislation 2018-19 SB2
New Jersey adopted an equalization formula in 2018 that considers a school district’s property wealth and aggregate income to determine the state’s share of school district budgets. The policy aims to correct prior inequities by decreasing funding to overfunded districts while increasing funding to underfunded districts to achieve their appropriate levels of assistance under the formula contained in the School Funding Reform Act
- The formula adjusts funding based on the number of at-risk students in a district (% of free and reduced-price lunch students). Additionally, in the highest poverty districts, funding is provided for high-quality full-day pre-k programs for 3- and 4-year-olds.
- Additionally, the bill allows municipalities of populations greater than 200K to levy a payroll tax for school costs.
Major Policy Implementation Steps
Commission a report or gather evidence of the disparities in your community, particularly educational disparities in communities of color and low wealth communities. An equity assessment should be a component of that review. The Colorado Department of Education has a model assessment that features some great elements. Voices for Racial Justice offers a number of education data elements that can inform that process.
Gain an understanding of the funding landscape and history in your state/community and its history. EdTrust is a good place to start in that it provides an analysis of educational funding equity for all 50 states. Additionally, the Alliance for Resource Equity provides a useful framework for examining funding equity.
Gain an understanding of the connections between educational investments, human capital development, and economic development. Enlist stakeholders from a range of sectors including private sector, secondary education, workforce/economic development, community leaders, legal experts, and higher education. You can find a great toolkit available from the American Institute for Research on stakeholder engagement, specifically focused on equity.
Given that the majority of the educational reforms that have been implemented have occurred through court action, it is imperative to understand the both the constitutional guarantees and legal history of education in your community.
Innovations Across America
Ohio | Ohio Fair School Funding Plan
Action Space: State and Local
Cost: $12.4 billion. However, prior to 2018, no state allocation existed. The new formula blends state and local funding
Mechanism: Court Action and Enabling Legislation 2020 HB 305
The Fair School Funding Plan allocates funding to local communities and makes significant changes to school funding.
- The plan calculates the equitable portion of the state and local share to fund public education in each community and disrupts the historical over-reliance on local taxes. The plan also calculates the actual base cost to adequately educate each child, as well as the cost to adequately educate students with different needs (economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, gifted students, etc.)
- The plan allows for greater local control and more predictability in state allocations to local communities.
New Jersey | 2018 School Funding Modernization Plan
Action Space: State Level
Cost: Varies by year
Mechanism: Enabling Legislation 2018-19 SB2
New Jersey adopted an equalization formula in 2018 that considers a school district’s property wealth and aggregate income to determine the state’s share of school district budgets. The policy aims to correct prior inequities by decreasing funding to overfunded districts while increasing funding to underfunded districts to achieve their appropriate levels of assistance under the formula contained in the School Funding Reform Act
- The formula adjusts funding based on the number of at-risk students in a district (% of free and reduced-price lunch students). Additionally, in the highest poverty districts, funding is provided for high-quality full-day pre-k programs for 3- and 4-year-olds.
- Additionally, the bill allows municipalities of populations greater than 200K to levy a payroll tax for school costs.
Houston, D. 2018. Public School Funding and Postsecondary Outcomes in Illinois: What is Reasonable to Expect from Illinois’ School Funding Reforms? Illinois Education Resource Council.
Edbuild. 2019. $23 Billion. Accessed April 8, 2021.
Baker, B. 2015. School Finance 101: On School Finance Equity & Money Matters: A Primer. National Education Policy Center.
Coleman, J., Campbell, E. Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A, Weinfeld, F., & York, R. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity: Summary report. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. (Vol. 2).
Hanushek, E. A, Rivkin, S. G., & Taylor, L. L. (1996). The identification of school resource effects. Education Economics, 4(2), 105–125.
Borman, G., & Dowling, M. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1201-1246.
Hedges, L. V., Laine, R., & Greenwald, R. 1994. Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5–14.
Lafortune, J., Rothstein, J., Whitmore D. 2016. “Can school finance reforms improve student achievement? Washington: Washington Center for Equitable Growth