Education Parity and the Ax Approach
The Link Between Local Revenue Levels and Access to Quality Public Education
By: Ricardo Infante, LULAC Education Policy Research Fellow
As research findings from numerous sources demonstrate, pervasive inequality in the finances of public school systems continues to undermine the education and indeed the future of thousands of low income and special needs students. The implications of much lower public school funding at the state and federal levels by large extent mean a considerable percentage of all students, most of these stuck in underfunded schools are denied access to quality educational resources. Consequently, low-income and special needs students, including English Language Learners (ELL) are less prepared and
less skilled, even upon graduation, to join successfully the global market at a time when educational competitiveness is fundamental to economic success.[1] Instead of comprehensive measures that include both cuts in public services and tax increases, states have resorted to the “ax” (sequester) approach to fix their budget deficits which compels widespread reductions in education and health care expenditures.[1] States assess a district’s ability and willingness
to raise tax dollars for its own schools as criteria prior to allocating local revenues.[2] To the extent that taxable wealth — for example, property or income — is lower in high-poverty districts, poor districts will tend to collect fewer education funds than wealthier ones for any given level of tax effort.[2] Research reveals evidence of the “regressive” school funding allocation in several states, namely those states where combined state and local revenues are systematically lower in higher- poverty districts.[2]
When money from federal stimulus programs that ensued the 2008 recession ran out, states chose austere cuts to stabilize their budgets. Indeed, property tax collections were 2.1 percent lower in the 12-month period ending in March 2013 than in the previous 12 months, after adjusting for inflation.[1] Moreover, figures from the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities as of March 2013 show that in 15 states, per-student funding is lower in the current fiscal year (2014), than it was in 2013, after adjusting for inflation.
On the other hand, states have shown an unwillingness to raise taxes even after a severe fall in federal aid at the end of 2011. Likewise, these states stand out because children attending school in poorer districts still have substantially less access to state and local revenue than children attending school in wealthier districts.[2] The majority of U.S. states (34 of 48 states examined) spend much less per student in grades K through 12 than they did prior to the most recent recession six years ago.[1] In fact, 13 of 48 states per pupil funding has declined by more than 10 percent as compared
to pre-recession levels.[1] Yet the harm such drastic cuts in school services – services such as severe freezes in teacher employment, salary cuts as well as cancellation of contracts with other businesses provided – gets compounded in overwhelming ways when it comes to minority and special needs students who tend to reside in lower income school districts.[1] Indeed, widespread cuts by Congress in ongoing federal funding under the Budget Control Act of 2011 have resulted in a decrease of 12 percent in federal outlays under Title 1, the main federal law allowing for greater public resources in higher-poverty schools and a fall of 11 percent in the federal funding for disabled education.[1] Such pervasive slashing of education budgets threatens substantial education policy improvements including the hiring of more qualified teachers, minimizing burgeoning class sizes, extending class schedules as well as preschool and after school programs, in addition to high-quality early education (pre-kindergarten).[1] In fact, sixteen states cut enrollment in
pre-kindergarten programs.[1] The budget cuts may balance state finances in the short to medium term but the devastating costs of these funding reductions could last long beyond that, years or decades, because they take educational programs and services, including Head Start and Women, Infant, and Children Food and Nutrition Service (WIC), away from lower-income and special needs children.
Certainly when it comes to minority and special education children, across-the-board cuts in education budgets mean fewer teachers to lead them in larger classes; fewer opportunities to participate in school-related extracurricular activities such as academic competitions, language clubs, band groups, and student government; and less faculty and administrative support if they have any academic or personal challenges, among others.[1]
Effective Solutions
A more effective way to achieve educational equity requires states to make student need in districts with high-poverty settings a fundamental criterion when allocating resources for the state education budget.[2] As figures show, radical cuts to spending on education can halt or constrain education reform efforts by allocating funds generally available to improve schools for other purposes and by eliminating specific reform initiatives.[1] Among the most pressing measures required to reverse ubiquitous funding disparities in the U.S. public school system, LULAC urges the passage of an Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The legislation would provide more adequate and equitable funding to school districts as well as undo the multiplicity in systems of accountability and improvement that deviate greatly from the standards mandated under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, cited in the Campaign for High School Equity (CHSE) white paper entitled, “Maintaining a Focus on Subgroups in an Era of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Waivers.” In this regard, LULAC seeks to ensure that ESEA waivers do not become technical procedures of grouping pupils into “super subgroups,” the lowest 25 or 30 percent of lowest performing students, thus holding back the highest possible educational achievement of students of Latino, African American, and Native American origin, as well as other English Language Learners (ELLs) and low-income students. Just as important, greater efforts of outreach, engagement, and input of Hispanic and African American parents must be undertaken in the management of different school districts across the country. Undoubtedly, Congress needs to realize that failure at the local, state, and federal levels to balance out school funding by all appropriate responsible means can no longer be tolerated given the future of America is at stake and demands integral, immediate, and strong action from the legislative and educational leaders.
Footnotes
1 Oliff, P., Leacham, M., & Mae, Christine. Most states funding school less than in Recession. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved on October 15, 2013 from http://www.cbpp.org/ cms/?fa=view&id=3825 (4 September, 2013).
2 Baker, B.D., & Corcoran, S.P. The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State and Local School Finance Systems Per- petuate Inequitable Student Spending. Center for American Progress. Retrieved on September 6, 2013 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED535555.pdf (September 2012).