Impact of Inequity It is a well documented fact that school funding affects students' ability to succeed academically. A longitudinal study of 40,000 students by the US Department of Education ("Prospects") found that students attending poor schools, even those students who come from wealthy or middle class families, still score, on average, 2 grade levels lower in mathematics and 4 grade levels lower in reading than do students in wealthy schools. Causes of Inequity A report presented by the US General Accounting Office in 1997 (School Finance) 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. It also found that disparities in funding between school districts depended primarily on three factors: 1. The extent to which the state targeted funding to poor districts 2. The state's share of total funding, regardless of whether the targeting effort was low 3. The local tax effort in poor communities Targeting Efforts Although unequal funding has been ruled unconstitutional in ten states, 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. 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. State Share The GAO found that state share was the single greatest determiner of equity in school funding. Right now state and local funding are more or less equal nationwide, but state share varies a great deal from state to state. For example, in Hawaii the state provides 98% of total funding, while the state of New Hampshire provides only 8.3%. Local Tax Effort Poor districts in 35 states make a greater tax effort than do wealthy districts in the same state (in other words, poor people in those states pay higher property taxes than do wealthy people). In Wyoming, for example, the property tax rate in poor communities is 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 in their states, generally property values in those communities were low enough to prevent a significant impact on funding disparities. Disparities Persist Despite efforts in many states, funding gaps continue to be a serious problem. In 41 of 50 states, poor districts receive less total funding than wealthy districts. In 14 states, including Illinois, the minimum funding per student is less than half of the state average. Racist Policies It is 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. Such 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. The Federal Government and Title I The federal government does little to encourage state's to craft equitable finance systems. The Title I Education Incentive Finance Program would award federal money to states based on their levels of equity, but the program has yet to receive funding. While Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act provides $8.2 billion annually for disadvantaged students in almost every district in the country, it has met with spurious results. Federal funding also represents only 7% of school funding nationwide, with the other 93% being left to the often-antiquated state and local systems. Illinois Illinois has one of the worst funding gaps in the nation. The average funding in Illinois' poorest districts is $4,330 per student while the average funding in the wealthiest districts is $7,249. 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. Until 1997, little effort had been made to equalize school funding in Illinois and efforts since than 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. The bill also set Illinois' first minimum funding level at $4,100 per student. While the minimum set forth in the bill is well above the $3,100 per student that a few of the state's worst funded schools were receiving before the bill was passed, it its actually less than the average per student spending for Illinois' poorest districts. Last spring Governor Edgar (currently ex-Governor) backed a plan that would have dramatically restructured Illinois' property tax based educational system. By imposing a 25% state income tax increase, it would have minimized the school system's dependence on local property taxes. Republicans in the state Senate buried the plan.A More Comprehensive Look ©2000daphne2@nwu.edu back
1. The extent to which the state targeted funding to poor districts 2. The state's share of total funding, regardless of whether the targeting effort was low 3. The local tax effort in poor communities