Allocation Of Education Funds And Its Impact On Race / Ethnic Groups

Within the United States everyday many people from different races experience discrimination within every aspect of there lives. One aspect is within the school systems that they are having to attend. The funding between the school systems in the United States and in different areas within those states has a large gap. This gap was so large that within the, “The Atlantic” a credible news article wrote about how race within the schools influences how much that school is going to receive funding. In the article called, “ The Data Dre Damaging: How race Influences School Funding” it states, “That means that no matter how rich or poor the district in question, funding gaps existed solely based on the racial composition of the school. Just the increased presence of minority students actually deflated a district’s funding level” (White). If this is true what is to say that every school in America is still doing this kind of discrimination. This kind of discrimination on needs to end immediately. Just because these young children are growing up in the poorer sections of town doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have the same rights as other kids. Every child in America should have the same access to a quality education.

America’s school system and student population remains segregated, by race and class. The inequalities that exist in schools today result from more than just poorly managed schools; they reflect the racial and socioeconomic inequities of society as a whole. Most of the problems of schools boil down to either racism in and outside the school or financial disparity between wealthy and poor school districts. Because schools receive funding through local property taxes, low-income communities start at an economic disadvantage. Less funding means fewer resources, lower quality instruction and curricula, and little to no community involvement. Even when low-income schools manage to find adequate funding, the money doesn’t solve all the school’s

Property tax is the “most common,” “most dependable and stable income base,” for schools. Property tax can be a complicated process and there are difficulties for taxpayers because assessments can be overvalued or undervalued. A property may be worth less and yet the property tax may be higher than the assessed value of that property. This over and under valuing can be frustrating to a taxpayer that lives in a home that they can’t sell for the million dollars that their home’s property tax is assessed at and yet they are paying property taxes for a million dollar home. I would think that in areas where there is less property to be taxed, there would be less income coming in to those school districts, making it less equitable. It could be vastly different from one area to another.

“Education is a major driver of development and is a strong instrument for reducing poverty, improving health, gender equality, peace, and stability” (The World Bank) - so why is it that students are often deprived from an extensive education? In Illinois, education funding has been an ongoing problem. Funding for schools is based on the property taxes where the schools are located, causing those who live in lower socioeconomic areas to receive less educational funding. This is unfair because children who live in lower socioeconomic areas are not able to receive the same opportunities and benefits that are acquired when a quality education is obtained. This is why educational funding in Illinois should be distributed evenly so that every

Charter schools in North Carolina do not receive any funding from the lottery, while public schools do. Teachers complain about how they do not get paid enough. Voters go to the polls and vote for referendums that would hopefully be used for education purposes. Student population is growing, so should the money. Jessica Swencki, spokeswoman for Brunswick County Schools, said “It does not go very far. Brunswick County got about $800,000 last year which went to reroof one of the aging middle schools. The average price on one of those middle school roofing projects is around $1.2 million, so it really pays for about three-fourths of a roof, if you really think about the check that Brunswick County Schools actually receives.” Swencki also stated, “…Whenever the misperception is out there that these dollars are flowing into the public school system may or may not be using them to their fullest extent.” Teachers are starting to go on more strikes to protest for better pay. Schools never received half of the lottery money. Based on poverty concentration, North Carolina received a ‘B’, which was much better than the ‘Fs’ the state received during the early 2000s. North Carolina then cut funding for wealthy districts, but continued to fund for the poorer districts. Well, what followed the cut? Teachers went years without seeing a raise in their salaries. The amount of students in a classroom increased. Countless numbers of teacher assistants were cut from

The gap between the nation’s best and worst public schools continues to grow. Our country is based on freedom and equality for all, yet in practice and in the spectrum of education this is rarely the case. We do not even have to step further than our own city and its public school system, which many media outlets have labeled “dysfunctional” and “in shambles.” At the same time, Montgomery County, located just northwest of the District in suburban Maryland, stands as one of the top school systems in the country. Within each of these systems, there are schools that excel and there are schools that consistently measure below average. Money alone can not erase this gap. While

“Shrinking state and local education budgets matched with the added pressure of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which sets rigid standards in reading and math that schools must achieve in order to receive federal funding, have created a new challenge for districts” (Van Harken).

More than 600 Texas school districts were left disappointed and confounded with the recent ruling of the Texas Supreme Court, which upheld the state’s public school funding system as constitutional, while also advising state legislature that the system is indeed flawed and in need of thorough reformation.

This meaning that the poorer the people within the neighbor the poorer the school districts will be. Although this case shed some light, it failed under the federal Equal Protection analysis because education was not a “fundamental right” recognized by the Constitution and because the educationally disadvantaged poor did not constitute a “suspect classification.” The Court refused to overturn the school finance system on grounds of inequality. Equally notable, this case “virtually abdicated any role for the federal courts in guaranteeing educational rights under the Federal Constitution,” leaving future plaintiffs “to state courts and constitutions for the change they seek (www.schoolfunding.com).”

Starting in the 1960s as the turmoil surrounding Brown V. Board of education died down, parents and taxpayers began to bring lawsuits against state funding systems arguing that these systems violated either state or federal constitutions (Augenblick, Myers & Anderson, 1997). Thus far, federal claims have all failed. In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the San Antonio independent School

When determining equity and adequacy fixes for funding public schools in New Jersey and Ohio a framework for assessing must be determined. Starting with equity, both states have a history of litigation that determines the educational objects for the framework. Since the mid-90’s to this decade the most influential New Jersey court decisions are the Abbott v. Burke decisions. The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the state to bring per-pupil revenues in the low-income Abbott districts up to the per-pupil expenditures of successful suburban districts (National Education Access Network, 2016). In Ohio the DeRolph v. State

The graduation rates of nonwhites is significantly lower than whites. Focus on this problem has mainly centered on students who live in urban centers. This higher dropout rate exists in rural areas too. However, graduation rates for rural areas are higher (87%) than in urban (83%; Grierson, 2018). In rural areas, only 77% of nonwhites graduate in four years and in some states like Alaska, graduation rates are half than of the national average. Those who are able to get a high school diploma, only 53% go to college. Again, this rate is similar to the rate of nonwhites in urban centers. The national average of graduation is 69% and upper class students from schools which predominately white attend college at a 72% rate. Further, 48% of young people (ages 18 to 24) from urban areas attend college as compared to 29% from rural populations.

Funding for public school systems is a complicated and multifaceted topic. Funding for public schools comes from federal, state, and local tax dollars, but the percentage from each category differs from state to state. In this paper I will discuss how the Commonwealth of Virginia establishes the Standards of Quality (SOQ) for education, funded positions within school systems, how Virginia determines the amount of state financial support using the Local Composite Index (LCI), and give recommendations to fix funding shortfalls.

Cory Turner of National Public Radio, writer of Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem, has the answer; “…45 percent local money, 45 percent from the state and 10 percent federal…why is it that one Chicago-area district has $9,794 to spend on each of its students, while another, nearby district has three times that? Two words: property tax,” (Turner 2). The authors of Equity Is the Key to Better School Funding, Marin Gjaja, J. Puckett, and Matt Ryder, say, “Giving kids in high-poverty areas an equal opportunity to succeed requires spending more money on those students,” suggesting that in those low-income areas, local and state government regulations alone and predominately will not be beneficial (Gjaja, Puckett, and Ryder 1). Property taxes when associated with funding for education are insufficient in low income areas, and in return are insufficient for the school. Leaving local and state governments with the responsibility of fulfilling a majority of education costs is a concept we should correct. Turner also mentions that one Arizona school has four-day weeks to save money from electricity bills, as a result of poor rates of property taxes. Budget cuts also contribute to the impairment of districts with lower property taxes and lower income families, an implied point from Michael Leachman’s article, Most States have Cut School Funding, and Some

Schools have a number of various sources. The primary sources are federal, state, and local funding. The majority of funding comes from state and local sources; whereas a small percent (usually 9-12%) comes from the federal level. The method by which schools receive funding is through the taxation process. At the state level, taxes are levied from taxpayers, both corporate and citizens via sales and income tax. At the local level, school funding comes from property taxes. Let’s explore the how the various sources of school funding. “According to the National Center for Education Statistics, state and local funding accounts for approximately 93 percent of education expenditures” (Woodruff, 2008, ¶ 2). Let’s examine these various sources of revenue and funding and different formulas for allocation along with their pros and cons.