k12

There are many external influences that impact public education. In this series the top four will be reviewed including the influence of professional education organizations, the involvement of parents, the businesses, and the federal government and court systems. For this part the influence of businesses will be discussed to reveal their direct impact on public education.

Since the 1980s, large corporations have formed the vanguard in improving public education, a movement stemming ostensibly from a concern that schools are not graduating students with the skills and knowledge necessary to be effective members of the workforce. This has led to the formation of more than 100,000 business/educational partnerships since 1983, with companies becoming both the strongest supporters and the greatest critics of the educational system. The CEOs of several large corporations, including the giants IBM, Apple, and Coca-Cola, have advocated for educational improvement at the highest levels of government and since the early 1980s have donated millions of dollars to revamp public education.

The Business Roundtable is one example of the corporate world’s attempts to reform education. The Roundtable is an association of CEOs from several major companies who advocate improvements in education that will raise the standards, skills, and knowledge of basic education, to ensure that education will meet the requirements of the burgeoning workforce.

Some have criticized businesses’ intrusion into education, fearing that schools and students may be intentionally molded to meet certain business requirements, while being subjected to the unbridled influence of corporate advertising. Business leaders refute these claims, stating that they are compelled to spend billions of dollars annually on remedial education for their workers, in order to bring their workforce up to standard and to maintain their competitive edge in the world’s markets. They argue that channeling funds into the education system may lessen the need for corrective education later in life. Some opponents of businesses’ involvement in schools point out that the purchasing power of school-age children, estimated to be in the range of $500 billion per year, is the incentive that drives businesses to approach schools by offering gifts of products or services to teachers and students. Others are opposed to the exclusive contracts that some companies, such as Pepsi or Coca-Cola, impose on schools. To receive extra funds from the business provider, schools agree to sell the businesses’ product exclusively, which in effect promotes brand loyalty in young consumers.

Businesses have also influenced education by promoting the privatization of public schools, whereby certain schools are no longer administered by the local school board but are under the management of private enterprise. Some school districts have hired companies, such as Edison Schools or Sylvan Learning, Inc., to administer schools, with the expectation that student grades will improve on assessment measures. Some claim that private corporations can more efficiently and effectively manage school administration, at a lower cost. Opponents of this design, most notably teacher’s associations, claim that the welfare of students, often evidenced by the hiring of inexperienced or nonlicensed teachers, may be secondary to the company’s desire to make a profit. In reality, the privatization movement has led to smaller teacher–student ratios and to greater access to various materials and devices, although definitive results about improvement in academic achievement remain unproven.
Businesses influence what occurs in the classroom, in ways that are, at times, less than subtle. The role of businesses in education should never be underestimated. Just as education is important to the local community, businesses near the school district are also beneficial to the success of students and community. Businesses are only one type of influence, hence continue to read about the top four influences on public education.

There are many external influences that impact public education. In this series the top four groups will be reviewed including the influence of professional education organizations, the involvement of parents, the businesses, and the federal government and court systems. For this part the influence of the federal government and federal courts will be discussed to reveal their impact on public education.

Even though the federal government has no direct control over education, federal authority does have a far-reaching influence over educational matters. Laws passed at the federal level impact schools and their administration. Also, federal courts make rulings that necessitate change in education on multiple levels, while the U.S. Department of Education leaves an indelible mark on the educational system.

The federal government’s interest in education shifts depending on the politics of the political party in power. Traditionally, Republican administrations seek to withdraw federal influence from education, leaving education as a matter for individual states to address. Democrats, on the other hand, generally tend to be more interested in improving the state of education across the country.

Many court decisions have shaped education nationwide, affecting the responsibilities and accountability of school officers in areas as diverse as desegregation, school finance, prayer in the schools, and the rights of individual students. Some oppose the federal court’s involvement in what they consider to be a state matter, whereas others feel that the involvement in education at the federal level ensures that education is brought into alignment with the principles of democracy, guaranteeing that education is truly accessible to everyone.

The influence of the federal government and federal courts are beneficial to understand when reviewing external groups that impact public education. Make sure you are aware of the changes in these groups because they can impact your school district. Remember this is only one type of influence, therefore continue to read about the top four influences on public education.

Educational funding is necessary for the development of any school including the availability of resources for students and teachers. However, do some school receive more funding than others? If so, who and what determines which schools are adequately funded? This articles answers both questions and discusses the controversy of issues within educational funding that are steered due to ethnicity in school systems resulting in what appears to be inequality.

Minority groups tend to live in poverty in proportions that exceed their representation in society.
Communities of specific racial minorities tend to be areas with a lower tax base. In poorer communities, a lower tax base results in less funding for the schools in those areas.

Running schools costs money. Paying teachers and the school staff; purchasing textbooks, equipment, and computers; and the upkeep of buildings and school grounds all need to be paid for. Because wealthier communities generally have more funds, it makes sense that their schools have a funding advantage. The question then becomes, where does that leave schools attended by racial minorities who live in poverty?

The inaccessibility to resources by specific groups is tantamount to social and economic injustice. One of the most fundamental bases for these injustices also appears to be ethnicity. Social injustices against ethnic minority groups continue to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Some laws and policies, unfortunately, continue to encourage advantages of particular ethnic groups and disadvantages for others. While universal declarations of human rights were designed to protect the rights of all human beings and limit oppression, oppression by ethnicity and class continue to permeate American culture.

While the federal government contributes relatively little to the schools, more and more state generated revenues are being directed toward these schools. In some states, the state government contributes as little as 20% to schools in local communities, and in others, the state contributes as much as 80%. This can still leave a wide gap between funding for schools in the poorer communities, versus funding for schools in wealthier communities.

Is this method of financing schools discriminatory? Many think so, including the California
Supreme Court, who ruled in the case of Serrano v. Priest in 1971 that a system of financing a school that is based on the wealth of the community is discriminatory and violates the state constitution. It might be fair to say that it violates the U.S. Constitution by denying children equal access to education, but not everyone feels this way. In fact, in the 1973 Texas case of the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the ruling was five to four that disproportionate school financing based on discrepancies in property taxes could not be challenged. Justice Lewis Powell was instrumental in this ruling, providing the following arguments: as long as everyone is getting a basic education, the differences are not unfair; whether or not the amount of money affects the quality of education is not clear; and education is not a right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

Those who have disagreed with Powell suggested that despite the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the educational rights of children, the constitutions of most states do. At this point, educational rights are not an issue likely to get voters’ attention, however, due to the fact that a majority of voters are Americans of European descent and are generally wealthier individuals whose children have access to the best schools. As a result, school quality often differs, even within the same metropolitan area, and between cities and suburbs.

It has been pointed out that equalization of per-student spending is only a part of a total solution for ensuring quality schools for all children, particularly when the amount of money available for all the schools has decreased. This may be the case, but in many states there is obvious bias. Consider the state of Connecticut, which is near the top of the list in the amount of money spent on students. In the 1990s, the average amount spent across the state on books and other learning materials was $147.68 per student. In Hartford, however, where the student population was more than 92% minority, the funding for instructional materials was $77 per student. This was a mere 52% of the state average. A clear message was sent that these students were not as important as other students in the state.

It’s not uncommon for parents and educators to seek political allies on school boards and legislative support to ensure that better funding for schools is found and delivered. Parents and educators often look for adequacy in school funding rather than equality in school funding.
Basically, they want each school to receive the minimum level of funding that is adequate to fully meet the needs of students. This adequate amount was defined in New Jersey as the average amount spent on education by the 130 wealthiest districts in the state. Once school funding in New Jersey was adjusted based on adequacy, and extra funds were added to schools in poorer areas, the results were perceptible. Younger children gained access to high-quality prekindergarten and kindergarten programs, and the gap between math and language arts test scores of urban and suburban students decreased by 50%. New Jersey also has the highest high school graduation rate in the country, and this distinction includes students from minority groups. The difference this funding has made is certainly measurable.

Although more work needs to be done in the area of school funding, the New Jersey example provides a model for states interested in using funds directed toward education to ensure quality educational experiences for all students. A possible next area of focus is not the amount of money spent, but how that money is being spent, with a focus on ensuring it is applied in ways that will create programs that benefit all students.

In closing, do believe that educational funding has hidden issues of inequality when it comes to providing funding? What can you do as an individual to rectify this problem in your jurisdiction?

Are you aware of the governing educational structure of your state? Many components of this structure are affected by regulations while still enabling academic freedoms. In this article the basic state structure of K-12 school systems in the United States will be observed.

The educational system in the United States can best be described as extensive (due to the large size of the country), decentralized (determined by the individual states or even, at times, local areas), and diverse (the children to be educated come from a variety of ethnic and cultural backgrounds). In 2007–2008, approximately 49 million children were enrolled in K–12 schools, while 6.9 million teachers worked in the nation’s 99,000 public elementary, middle, and secondary schools.

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individual states control over education within their boundaries, and many state constitutions state that all children have a right to minimally adequate education or include similarly worded clauses. States have the right to determine policy, to set curriculum, and to decide how to spend the majority of funds allocated to education. Furthermore, states are responsible for setting the minimum requirements that a student needs to meet in order to graduate high school. Slightly more than half of the states (26) require students to complete state-regulated exit exams, although these may not be considered particularly rigorous because they contain knowledge and skill levels comparable to proficiency at the eighth- or ninth-grade levels. Finally, states are ultimately responsible for the selection and the evaluation of educational personnel. Chief educational officers or state commissioners of education may be appointed or elected. When elected by the voting public, the chief educational officer is wholly responsible to the public for his or her decisions and policies.

The governance structure can vary from state to state; the governor is typically the head of education, although the members of the state legislature are equally as powerful when it comes to setting statewide policies and regulations. Many states have a state board of education (SBE), which is either appointed, elected, or a combination of both, with some members appointed and others elected. Certain other states, such as New Mexico, Minnesota, and Oregon, have alternate bodies. Check the National Association of State Boards of Education Web site to see what entity exists in your state. Many states have a chief state school officer, who is directly responsible to the SBE and normally serves as the head of a state department of education. At the local level, school districts are governed by school boards. School board members may be elected or appointed. School boards are normally responsible for hiring a school district superintendent, who is responsible for implementing educational policies at the local level. The superintendent is also responsible for managing principals and schools located within the district. Principals are the onsite authority for education in their buildings. Teachers are directly responsible to principals.

Since each state has some leniency with the governance structure it is important to understand your individual school system. Know thing proper protocol will enable you to stay involved and in communication with your local district leaders and provide the appropriate method for addressing concerning about your school system.