school finance

Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

Economy Improves, School Spending Continue to Fall – So What Gives?

As the news headlines regarding the current U.S. economy continue to improve, there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school spending. A report this month from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.

In practical terms, these findings make sense. Property taxes pay much of public education costs and that revenue source is still low. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before. Furthering the problem is the fact that while states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees.

Loss of federal aid to states is also a problem. Even if a state does not need emergency federal funds for specific education needs, they must use school money to cover the cost of natural disasters or other projects that are no longer receiving aid from the federal government.

In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas. Take a look at some of the most-telling numbers from the CBPP report on school spending:

14. This is the number of consecutive quarters state revenues have increased, despite stagnant or reduced school spending.

1.3. This is the percent that state funding fell for elementary and secondary schools from last school year.

20. This is the percent that Oklahoma and Alabama have sliced on student spending since the recession began in 2008.

13. This is the number of states, including Wisconsin and California, that have cut school spending budgets by more than 10 percent since the recession began.

15. This represents the number of states that have lower school spending budgets than they did one year ago.

72. This is the amount in dollars that New Mexico increased its per student spending for the current school year. It may seem like a bright spot, but barely dents the $960+ the state has cut per student in just the past five years alone.

20,100. This is the number of teaching jobs that were added in August – but that figure is still over 320,000 less than education jobs in 2008.

12. This is the percent that funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010, from $17 billion to $15 billion.

11. This is the percent that special education funding has been slashed since 2010, from $13.5 billion to $12 billion.

57. This is the amount of administrators that believe they will need to reduce class sizes this school year to offset budget cuts.

16. This is the number of states that cut pre-K educational per student funding in the 2011 – 2012 school year and 27 had to reduce enrollment numbers.

What do the numbers all mean?

The fact that state revenues are on the upswing but K-12 spending is still at recession-levels is disheartening. It seems that a reprioritization needs to take place in the 34 states that are still in the red when it comes to per student spending today as opposed to 2008. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.

If we cannot find the funding for our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

Why do you think that per student spending is still falling?

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

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Equity, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

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.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform, Teachers, Uncategorized

3 Tips to Keeping Teacher Jobs in the Midst of School Reform

School reform is never easy. When sweeping changes are decided upon and implemented, everyone must fully participate in order for students to benefit from the changes and certainly not to suffer during the transition. Part of providing that stability for students is through a strong front of teachers that remain at the school during the sometimes turbulent reform process.

Here are some useful tips that will help you preserve teaching jobs while reforming schools:

  1. Remember – a high teacher turnover is expensive. It is a simple fact of life that high staff turnover can create instability and have a negative impact on efforts to establish a consistent learning environment for students. High staff turnover is also quite costly, particularly when the recruitment of teachers, and then the training of new teachers in the intricacies of the reform effort are considered.
  2. Pay attention to who you hire so that you can reduce teacher attrition. More effort and support needs to be given to the recruitment process for teachers at the outset as schools and districts initiate reform efforts. Hiring teachers who “fit” reform goals will likely reduce teacher attrition.  Still, more support needs to be available for new teachers. Even teachers who ostensibly have the skills and attitudes that align with reform goals will need mentoring and other supports as they begin their jobs. Every attempt must be made to reduce the debilitating rate of turnover.
  3. Become creative with spending on new resources. Inevitably, a major factor for sustaining reform is having the money to do so. Most efforts now are centered on how to make the most of current funding and utilizing money effectively in order to maximize the positive impact of reforms, rather than how to access untapped resources. Despite the dearth of new money, it is possible to free up cash through alternative means of spending.

An extreme proposal to accomplish this is to reduce staffing to the absolute minimum. For example, a school with 500 students would have 20 teachers and 1 principal. Approximately $1 million could become available, depending on how many education specialists (regular and categorical) and instructional aides worked within the school. This is radical option, and there are other, less extreme ways to change the way money is spent, to include increasing class sizes, spending less on upgrading technology, and eliminating some programs.

The key however is to look in detail at all financial outlays, measure them according to the extent to which they contribute to the goals of the school reform, and rank them according to how well they do this. This will enable schools to break down spending into its core components and work out what is necessary and what can be cut during the process of change in order to better implement their improvement strategy. This is particularly important in times of austerity, when elements that are not essential may have to be reduced or cut in order to help drive reform, no matter how popular or long-standing they may be.

Spending money on non-essential areas does support school reform efforts. Prioritizing what money is spent on does not automatically mean cutting all non-academic projects. What gets cut will depend on the goals of individual schools. This should be a workable situation, as long as the school is still accountable to the state and the district for shifts in expenditures. An understanding that cutting teaching jobs can actually be detrimental to reform is important though, instead of just looking at the numbers on a piece of paper.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in list, Matthew Lynch, Policy & Reform

5 Quick Facts You Should Know About Poverty and School Funding

The current U.S. economy continues to improve, but there is one area that is still feeling the squeeze from the recession years: K-12 public school funding. Recently, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that 34 states are contributing less funding on a per student basis than they did prior to the recession years. Since states are responsible for 44 percent of total education funding in the U.S., these dismal numbers mean a continued crack down on school budgets despite an improving economy.  In extreme cases, like in Philadelphia and Chicago, individual districts have had to tap into other money and reserves to cover the basics of public education in their areas.

These budget cuts have hit low-income schools the hardest. Here are five facts you should know about how the decrease in funding has affected low-income schools.

  1. 1. Funding to low-income Title I schools has decreased since 2010. A number of states have cut pre-K educational per student funding in recent years and many have even had to reduce enrollment numbers.
  2. Overall, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that districts collected just over 2 percent lower on property taxes ending in March than in the year before.

As we know, property taxes pay much of public education costs. While states have been cut throat in reducing spending, they have not been as vigilant in raising revenue sources through taxes and fees. This makes a dire problem even worse.

  1. In 23 states, state and local governments together spend less per student in the poorest districts than those that are more affluent, according to 2012 federal data and reported in The Washington Post.

The differences in funding are severe in some states. Pennsylvania spends 33 percent less on the poorest school districts per-pupil than on the wealthiest. In Missouri, the differential is 17 percent.

Across the United States, states and localities spend 15 percent less on average per pupil in the poorest districts than in the most affluent, according to the Washington Post.

  1. Poverty makes it more difficult for children to succeed in school. These students tend to have more needs than their middle-class and well-off peers.

Consider that children from poor families also are behind their counterparts on nearly every measure of academic achievement. Then look even deeper and note that children living in poverty often come to school without having had enough sleep, and without having had breakfast.  They often experience family violence, abuse, secondhand smoke, neglect, poor clothing and shoes.  Even though they have limited experiences in the world, they may not be able to pay for field trips and cannot pay for extracurricular activities of any kind, which could actually expand their experience base.  This is the frightening reality for millions of children, and teachers are very likely to have impoverished students in their class.

  1. Less state spending on education certainly affects the learning experience but it also impacts other areas of the economy. Unemployed teachers and administrators have less to pump back into the economy and the viscous cycle of K-12 underfunding is furthered.  While unemployment is a factor in poverty for some, there are many who are employed and still live below the poverty line. A higher level of education is needed for high paying jobs that can support a family.  It is difficult to support a family with a minimum wage job, even when working full-time.  The conundrum is furthered when school funding is diminishing—removing one more source of hope for ending the cycle.

If we cannot fully fund our public schools how can we expect things like the achievement gap to close or high school graduation rates to rise? It was understandable that budgets had to be slashed when the bottom dropped out of the economy but now that we are in a more stable place, it is time to get back to funding what matters most: the education of our K-12 students.

How do you think we can address the intersecting issues of poverty and school funding in our public school system?

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

  • no reactions
0
Share