School Funding Equity
The impact of funding disparities on students’ ability to succeed academically is well documented. Students in under-funded school districts routinely score lower on standardized tests than do students in well-funded districts, regardless of their family income. A longitudinal study of 40,000 students by the US Department of Education (1) found that students in poor schools score, on average, 2 grade levels lower in mathematics and 4 grade levels lower in reading than students in wealthy schools. The achievement gap increases, rather than decreases, with age/education and by the time they reach the seventh grade students in wealthy schools score 50-75% higher in both reading and math. Lower achievement levels and high drop out rates (2) in poor districts virtually guarantee high levels of unemployment/underemployment in poor districts because the majority of students from poor schools are seen as unemployable for all but the least demanding positions. The current funding situation creates a typical catch 22--poor districts cannot afford to fund their schools because of a poverty level that is virtually guaranteed by lack of educational funding. Depriving students in poor communities of their ability to succeed after graduation essentially serves to institutionalize a caste system in the United States—one from which children in impoverished neighborhoods can entertain little hope of escaping.
The fact that disparities in student achievement between poor and wealthy school districts persist across divisions of socioeconomic background, and increase with age, is persuasive evidence of unequal education. If school achievement is not a product of family background, but can be localized to individual schools on the basis of funding, it would seem that funding, at least in part, determines the achievement level of students.
In the majority of states per student funding levels are directly proportional to the wealth (realized through property value) of the community in which a school is located. A report presented by the US General Accounting Office found that, in the United States the average school in a wealthy district receives 24% more funding than the average school in a poor district. (3) This figure is somewhat misleading, however, as funding disparities between wealthy and poor districts vary a great deal from state to state. In Missouri, for example, schools in wealthy districts receive 70% more funding than do schools in poor districts, while in Oklahoma, they receive 6% less funding. (4) This dichotomy, though extreme, is fairly representative of the funding situation in states across the nation. A clear line can be drawn between those states that have actively sought funding equity, and generally come close to achieving it, and those states that have remained ambivalent and have not earnestly tried, much less succeeded, in making a dent in the status quo.
The fact that funding equity is specific to individual states is a clear sign that it is a product of local school finance systems. Although the causes (and remedies) of finance inequity are numerous, the greatest factor is unquestionably the state’s willingness to take responsibility for equitable funding distribution and shift the burden of support away from local tax bases. The GAO found that funding disparities are determined primarily by three factors: (5)
Targeting efforts have become fairly common and have managed to impact significantly the levels of funding equity in those states where they have been implemented, but programs are far from universal and have often been instituted only after litigation necessitated their existence. Although unequal funding has been ruled unconstitutional in ten states, and litigation is pending in many more, only 33 states have targeted poor districts for more funding. Two states—Louisiana and North Dakota—actually provide more state funding for wealthy districts than they do for poor districts. (6) Twenty-five states reported making no changes in their targeting of poor districts or the state’s share in total educational funding during the last decade. (7) When effectively implemented (creating a funding minimum that is equal to the state average) targeting efforts have much the same effect as increased state share in educational expenditures—both implicitly necessitate an increase in state funding and regulation. Targeting is, however, far less likely to be effective. Because funding is left in the hands of wealthy localities, targeting efforts must respond to fluctuations in funding that are essentially beyond the state’s control.
The GAO found that state share was the single greatest determiner of equity in school funding. (8) Total state control of educational finance systems gives states the ability to easily monitor and control the levels of funding equity between various districts in the state. Proponents of increased state share generally do not support finance systems that bolster absolute equity at the expense of the specific needs of individual schools. The GAO found that fair and effective finance systems could be created around the idea of fiscal neutrality (where funding, while not uniform, is not a reflection of the income of a particular locality) rather than universal funding levels. Right now state and local funding are more or less equal nationwide, but state share varies a great deal from state to state. (9) For example, in Hawaii the state provides 98% of total funding, while the state of New Hampshire provides only 8.3%. Generally speaking, those states with the highest share of educational expenditures are also the states with the highest levels of funding equity.
It would seem as if strong local tax effort stands alone as a remedy for inequitable school finance that does not invite bureaucracy and state regulation. Unfortunately, this perception is not entirely accurate. It is abundantly clear that local tax efforts alone cannot cure funding inequity. For one thing, poor communities across the nation already do over-tax themselves, and still inequity persists. In 1992, poor districts in 35 states made a greater tax effort than did wealthy districts in the same state (in other words, poor people in those states paid higher property taxes than rich people did). (10) In Wyoming, for example, the property tax rate in poor communities was more than 400% higher than the rate in wealthy communities. While poor communities that taxed themselves more than their wealthy counterparts did manage to lessen the funding gap slightly, usually property values in those communities were low enough as to prevent a significant impact on funding disparities. In general, communities with low property values have low per student funding levels despite high tax rates and communities with high property values have high per student spending levels despite low property tax rates. (11) Even if local taxes could level the playing field, it is unreasonable to suspect that, in light of increased equity due to local tax efforts in poor communities, wealthy communities would not increase their own tax burden in order to maintain the competitive edge awarded their children through superior education. It is an unavoidable fact that wealthy communities will always have more economic resources at their disposal than do poor communities.
Despite efforts to create equitable finance systems in many states, and enormous local tax efforts in many poor communities, funding gaps continue to be a serious problem. In 41 of 50 states, poor districts receive less total funding than wealthy districts. (12) In 14 states, including Illinois, the minimum funding per student is less than half of the state average. (13) Localized equity initiatives clearly do impact funding disparities, but most states have been ambivalent (at best) towards finance reform. Many of those states that have implemented strategies designed to attain funding equity have done so under legal or political duress. Suburban voters, whose children tend to benefit from inequitable school finance, represent a majority of voters in this country—more than urban and rural voters combined. Without overt political or legal pressure legislators will certainly continue to cater to their largest constituency.
It is also abundantly clear that the funding disparity is a racial issue as well as an economic one. African American and Latino students are consistently over-represented in those districts that lack adequate funding for education, as is the case in Illinois. Although African Americans represent 14.8% of Illinois’ total population, they make up only 2.1% of the population in the state’s wealthiest county, while Illinois’ poorest county is 34.7% African American. (14) Of the nine states that have attained school funding equity, only two (Mississippi and Texas) have significant African American populations. This racial bias in educational resources can help to explain, amongst other things, lower SAT scores, grade point averages, and college achievement, as well as higher rates of remedial education amongst African American and other students of color. (15)
The federal government does little to encourage states to craft equitable finance systems. The Title 1 Education Finance Incentive Program would award federal money to states based on their levels of equity, but the program has yet to receive funding. (16) While Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides $8.2 billion annually (17) for over 6 million disadvantaged students from almost every district in the country, it has met with spurious results primarily because it is designed to offer supplemental education rather than whole-school reform. Federal funding also represents only 7% of school funding nationwide, with the other 93% being left to the often-antiquated state and local systems. (18)
Illinois has the second largest funding gap in the nation (after Missouri). The average funding of Illinois’ poorest (19) districts is $4,330 per student. The average funding for the wealthiest districts is $7,249. (20) That translates to a funding gap of 67%, almost three times the national average. The state provides only 33% of total educational funding and targeting efforts are low. (21) Illinois’ implicit foundation level ($1,652) is one of the lowest in the country, (22) particularly when adjusted for the relative cost of education in the state. Local tax efforts in poor communities are high (143% of the property tax rates in wealthy communities), (23) but not high enough to counteract the belligerence of many state officials towards the call for funding equity.
It is estimated that Illinois would need to increase state funding in poor districts by at least 35% for school funding to be equalized. (24) Until two years ago, little effort had been made to equalize school funding in Illinois, and efforts since last year have met with mixed results. In December of 1997, the General Assembly passed a bill that will increase school spending by $1.6 billion over three years. (25) The bill also set Illinois’ first minimum funding level at $4100 per student. While the minimum set forth in the bill was well above the $3100 per student that a few of the state’s worst funded schools were receiving before the bill was passed, it is actually less than the average per student spending for Illinois’ poorest districts.
Last Spring Governor Edgar backed a plan that would have dramatically restructured Illinois’ property tax based educational system. (26) By imposing a 25% income tax increase (from 3% to 3.75%) and a 28% decrease in property tax, it would have raised $1.8 billion for schools and minimized the school system’s dependence on local property taxes. Unfortunately, Republicans in the state Senate buried the plan. (27)
The fact that school funding equity is so highly dependent on the directives of state government, a body exceptionally responsive to political pressure, means that diffusion of information and public education are particularly effective mechanisms for addressing the problem. Although it is, to a certain extent, reliant on pre-existing public interest, the Internet would seem an ideal vehicle for this type of direct advocacy. As with any attempt to garner support for a political issue with more than one side, success is directly related to the persuasiveness of the argument in favor of funding equity. If people do not see funding disparities as unjust, despite the facts, then continued indifference becomes a forgone conclusion. Effectiveness, in any case, can only be gauged in relation to future public response.
Notes
(1) April 4, 1997
(2) GAO Report, Letter
(3) GAO Report, Letter:1
(4) GAO Report, Table III.2
(5) GAO Report, Letter:4
(6) Both statistics from GAO Report, Letter:4.1
(7) GAO Report, Letter:8
(8) GAO Report, Letter:4.2
(9) GAO Report, Letter:2.1
(10) GAO Report, Letter: 4.3
(11) GAo Report, Letter: 2.1
(12) The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
(13) GAO Report, Letter:1
(14) The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
(15) The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education
(16) Johnston
(17) Hoff, April 16, 1997. Figure for the 1998-99 school year.
(18) GAO Report, Letter:2.1
(19) In all cases, "poorest" and "wealthiest" refer to the top fifth and the bottom fifth, respectively.
(20) GAO Report, Table III.2
(21) GAO Report, Table III.6
(22) The implicit foundation level is the minimum per student funding allowed by the state. Generally, it is seen as an indicator of state targeting levels. See GAO Report, Table V.3.
(23) GAO Report, Table III.8
(24) GAO Report, Letter:7
(25) APC News
(26) White
(27) APC News
Bibliography
Harrison, Donna "The Real Class Divide" New York Times; September 24, 1997.
Hoff, David J. "Chapter 1 Study Documents Impact of Poverty" Education Week; April 16, 1997. "Chapter 1 Aid Failed to Close Learning Gap" Education Week; April 2, 1997.
_____. "Inequities in Access to Technology Documented" Education Week; May 21, 1997.
Johnston, Robert C. "Report Finds No Easy Solutions for Disparities in School Funding" Education Week; June 24, 1998.
_____. "Ranking the States in Their Educational Expenditures to Prepare Black Students for College" The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education; Summer, 1997; p.30.
_____. "School Funding Moved to Back Burner in Illinois" APC News Service; October 1, 1998.
Slavin, Robert E. "How Title I Can (Still) Save America's Children" Education Week; May 21, 1997.
US Department of Education "Mapping Out the National Assessment of Title I" Official Report; 1996.
US Department of Education "Prospects: The Congressionally Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity" Official Report; April 4, 1997.
US Department of Education "School Poverty and Academic Performance: NAEP Achievement in High-Poverty Schools" Official Report; September, 1998.
US General Accounting Office "School Finance: State Efforts to Reduce Funding Gaps Between Poor and Wealthy Districts" Letter Report; February 5, 1997.
Viadero, Debra "Test Data Show Disadvantaged Pupils Lag Behind More Affluent Counterparts" Education Week; September 16, 1998.
White, Kerry A. "Edgar Renews Call for School Finance Reform" Education Week; February 4, 1998.