School Funding

Matthew Lynch published in Policy & Reform, Teachers

What You Need to Know About the Conditions of Local Funding

It is important for educators and parents/guardians to understand the funding conditions of their local school district(s) because each condition impacts the amount and continual financial support provided to each school. In this blog the details of local funding conditions will be observed in order to bring awareness for the type of education your students may be receiving within their school.

Many states label schools under their jurisdiction and allot either descriptors or grades to them. Thus, schools can be characterized as “Excellent,” “Above Average,” “Fair,” “Poor,” or “Unacceptable,” receive a letter grade such as “A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” or “F,” or be labeled using other types of systems. To meet its responsibility for openness and transparency, the state has an obligation to publish all such designations, whether in local or statewide news sources.

Schools that consistently receive poor or failing grades can be taken over by the state department of education. In some instances, state control of schools results in dismissal or reassignment of both administrators and teachers. Clearly, teachers are being held directly accountable for the achievement (or nonachievement) of the students in their charge. Student performance is looked at as a reflection of both the teacher’s and the school’s effectiveness. When choosing a school for their child, parents can use the schools’ designation (e.g., “Excellent” or “Fair”) as part of their decision. The potential enrollment of schools is impacted by the publication of the schools’ grade, and school funding can also be affected because enrollment is one of the measures used to determine the funds a school can receive.

Differences in the amount of money for education gained through property taxes mean the difference between getting a good education that enables students to become productive members of society and failing to do so. For parents and teachers alike, this can be a source of frustration. Teachers sometimes can’t obtain required materials, have to teach in buildings where the environmental conditions are not conducive to learning, and have to deal with social issues that are more prevalent in less-affluent areas, such as crime, violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and the presence of gangs.

On the other hand, it can be very difficult to redistribute and reallocate funds for education, because wealthier areas may not be happy with their funds being taken away from their schools to finance schools in poorer districts. This approach has been termed the Robin Hood effect, where money is taken from wealthier areas and reallocated for spending in poorer areas of the state. The objective is to allow all students to receive the same access to education, thereby bringing about equity in the education received by all students in the state. This does not, however, always have the desired effect.

Redistribution of funds from wealthier areas may, for various reasons, cause a decline in the quality of education, teaching, or access to resources in the wealthier areas without bringing about a similar increase in the same factors at the recipient school in the poorer area. This creates an overall decrease in the quality of education offered to all students in the district. Several states, including Arizona and New Mexico, have a system in which all taxes go into a central fund and are then reallocated according to a complex “equalization formula.”

Some groups argue that instead of focusing on educational equity, districts and local administration should be focusing on educational adequacy. Unfortunately, adequacy is a term that is ill-defined because there are no prescribed criteria to define how you determine whether or not education is adequate. It could mean that you expect that all high school graduates are capable of attending university-level instruction, whether they choose to or not.

It could also mean that you expect that high school graduates are competent in handling life outside of the school environment, which may not focus on higher education at all. Alternatively, it could simply mean that all students are required to pass all standardized, state-level testing requirements, without placing any focus on future objectives. It is unlikely that, without a clear definition of educational adequacy, any further remediation of funding disparities between wealthy and poorer areas will lead to a solution that is beneficial to all.

It’s essential that schools adapt within a fast-changing economy, but our system still arranges funding in an inequitable manner. Those realities severely limit our educational system’s ability to effectively and accountably use resources in planned ways. Critics of increased spending on education routinely highlight nationwide cases of misspending of major increases in funding that provided little or no positive outcomes for student learning. Without adjustments in the distribution of resources, their use, and accountability, Americans may end up with a more expensive, though not necessarily more efficient, public education system.

Our children require and deserve a proper education, and we must strive to provide them with the type of education that they deserve. The money available for schools must be used in the most effective manner possible. And most important, we must understand the deficiencies in our educational funding system and strictly forbid placing blame—which rarely serves to encourage cooperation. Rather, we must demonstrate accountability for our situation and fulfill our responsibility to our children.

Funding is crucial for the support, survival, and overall level of success for school districts. Therefore take time to review your jurisdiction and the functionality of funding.

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

New Models and Trends in Resource Allocation

Many investigators have requested new methods to determine spending to gain a better understanding of priorities, organizational investments, proposed strategies, and to measure the distribution of resources . Completely new expenditure models have been pioneered by manufacturing theorists, including activity and program-based costs, which help form fiscal data to make it easier to compare to strategic decision-making. In education, several reports have demanded new methods of expense record-keeping as a way to modify district strategy; mostly to verify the real expenses involved in individual schools, programs, or services.

Though the models demonstrate some differences regarding the terms of the categories used, all of them propose assigning a larger percentage of costs to specific types of students and schools. For those interested in resource data in relation to the context of educating students, it makes sense to review central and indirect costs associated with joint district resources, as well as resources that are typically school-based. Less important costs are associated with district leadership, other operations, and non-educational services like transportation, food services, school facilities, and maintenance systems.

Reforms related to accountability have placed a focus on performance inequalities between white students and students from minority group backgrounds, and also between students having needs that result from disability, poverty, or limitation in English proficiency. Many policymakers stress that the first stage in tackling these achievement gaps is to align fiscal policy with student needs. But as policymakers change their established funding formulas to fulfill the needs of different students, they do so without evidence. In the first instance, there is little explanation of the way resources are currently allotted to different subgroups.

Basically, for a state policymaker attempting to allocate funds to particular student types, no baseline data exists on current expenditure to each type of student within their own districts, or schools within other districts. School districts in most states do not fully track costs by student type or to the school level. Even where these data are tracked, they are not published for policymakers trying to pin answers down.

There is also difficulty in accessing comparisons from other states regarding spending. Accurate ways of defining or reporting expenses influenced by student needs are not available, which makes it impossible to compare data between states. Furthermore, policymakers have not determined how to flow funds from one level of government to the next. For example, funds may be designated by the federal government for students living in poverty, with the goal of enhancing resources at schools having high concentrations of poverty.

However, by the time funds are dispersed through state and local streams, they may not reach their intended target. Finally, only limited documentation exists on different decisions for assigning funds, and the way those decisions relate to policy goals. Allocations meant for students with limited English proficiency (LEP) might be realized as a fixed dollar amount per LEP student, reimbursements for spending on bilingual education services, distribution of staff full-time equivalents (FTEs) to high-needs schools, or as funds for other areas. Research has not yet described the ways these different decisions influence either what is finally spent per pupil, or how efficiently that funding reaches the intended students. It is obvious that a more efficient system is needed for tracking funds after they reach their intended destination. With thorough record keeping and well-defined guidelines for how money should be spent, this murky territory will become much clearer.

 

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

 

  • 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
Matthew Lynch published in OpEducation, Policy & Reform

Can Schools Succeed without Enough Money?

Free, public education in this country comes at a price. When the country hits turbulent financial times, like the recent recession years, it takes its toll on the quality of education available in our K-12 schools, and it can even take decades for the true deficiencies to show.

When town and city administrators are forced to curtail the hiring of new teachers, or force the retirement of older teachers, class sizes then increase.  The teacher-to-student ratio expands accordingly meaning less face time per student, reducing the overall effectiveness of educational institutions.

An economic crisis does not just affect the schools in terms of budgets.  Financial difficulties within students’ families also play a huge role in the educational problems of the United States.  With more parents scrambling to make ends meet, there is less parental involvement with their children.  As a result, students may become unmotivated and slack off on assignments.  They may become problematic at school, meaning more time and effort from school administrators, leaving less time to improve their various systems.

Most American homes are dual-income, with both parents working one or more jobs to try to meet their financial obligations. There are also many single parent families, where the time for work and domestic tasks takes away from one-on-one educational work with children. In nearly every family situation, the time parents have to give their children any type of grounding in basic knowledge is severely limited.  The result is children starting school without much of the very basic knowledge children had in generations past.  Without that early foundation on which to build, children find themselves forever running at a deficit.

Furthermore, testing regimens for our children are anything but uniform. Some children are over-tested to an extreme; States like Massachusetts may be venerated for their stringent policies and standardized testing, but that level of stringency does not necessarily carry over to other states. In fact, many other states are not nearly as rigorous in their own testing procedures, preferring to do only what is required to ensure that they receive federal education funds, and nothing more.

This level of inconsistency then becomes yet another problem for students.  Given the economic climate of the nation, many students may find themselves moving from state-to-state as their parents pursue employment or better jobs.  Inconsistency among state’ standardized testing procedures may result in students who have relocated suddenly finding themselves under a lot of pressure to do better than what was required in their previous school.

The Difference between Then and Now

In generations past, children starting school came into the system with far more knowledge already in hand.  They knew their letters, they knew how to count, and some of them already knew the fundamentals of reading.  This, of course, stems from the fact that most families had a parent who stayed home during the day and was therefore able to spend more time with the child. There were also less electronic distractions from the basics of reading.

Teacher retention is also difficult, stemming from economic factors. A number of the accelerated teacher certification programs, such as weekend and online programs, have good intentions but are turning out teachers that are unprepared to the meet the challenges that they soon will face in troubled classrooms.

Although these teachers are inexpensive since they are brand new and have not worked their way up to better pay scales and benefits, they are more likely to jump ship and leave the school system instead of staying to nurture their profession. Of course, the next group of teachers to replace them is new and inexperienced, too, but provides fresh bodies in the classrooms at an inexpensive level – so the cycle repeats itself. This is good for the budget, but not so good for long-term performance, morale, and achievement.

Certainly, the economic situation affects the task of balancing budgets, by the school system, government entities, and parents. Conversely, more money does not necessarily mean more improvement – but not enough causes a host of its own problems too.

America spends more per student than any other nation in the world, and yet we see meager results. With this kind of money being pumped into the system, why are our school systems in the state that they are? There’s no arguing that our schools need to be well funded in order for our children to succeed, but clearly our schools need to do a better job utilizing the funds that they already receive too.

How can public schools continue to thrive, even in difficult economic times?

photo credit: horizontal.integration via photopin cc

 

 

  • no reactions
0
Share