Week 6 - Financing and Governing Schools

Why do you need to know about finance and governance?  Isn''t it just enough to be able to handle your content area, get students to successfully learn your material while juggling other duties as a teacher in the school? 

 In another developed country, another world, perhaps this would be a mute discussion.  However, given the history of schools as they developed in this country as locally controlled entities, perhapss the forefathers did not have the insight as to how schools would evolve as they have today.  How could they predict that so many people from the federal level on down to the local level would be interested in the business of education?  Then, it was not even a thought of inclusion in federal laws, not something that the creators of the constitution thought would be a national concern.  Then, it was decided that education should be a local concern, a concern of families' rights to say how their children would be reared.  Education and religion were almost one and the same in the founding days of this country.  Local people saw the education of their children as being reared according to their religious beliefs and therefore provided the financial support in their communities to do so.  For example, the early public schools in Baltimore were financed by tuition.  Schools were also financed by local property taxes.
Nowadays, schools continue to be financed by local control, mainly local property taxes, along with state funds and minimal federal funds, however without much input from teachers. Teachers are not a part of the input on how schools should operate, although more and more they are left with the burden of implementing program after program to make students state test stars, for example.  At least in the early days, even though the local communities set up their own schools and financed them as well, these families participated in the selection of who their childrens' teachers would be.  Today, local communities bear the responsibility of funding schools, but with very little input as to who is teaching the children.  That is usually left up to school superintendents. 
Have we outlived our funding measures?  What about local communities whose property tax is not enough to support what schools needs in order to stay competitive with the rich property district next door?  Is it fair or equitable for students who are from poor property families to have to mandatorily attend [all states have compulsory school attendance laws] schools that are run down, old and antiquated, without uptodate resources, textbooks as opposed to those who are born to middle to upper class families who attend well-lit, well-built, updated 21st century schools?
Currently, states are grappling with trying to equalize financing schools, but not nearly it seems at a pace of urgency that this phenomenon demands.  Some argue that money would not make a difference in whether students would increase learning, especially demonstrating that by successfully passing state tests.  However, what about the flip side of this argument?  Would the schools that are updated, resource-ready be willing to trade places, that is, down-date?  Oprah Winfrey brought light to the disparities that exist between districts in Illiinois when two schools, one from a property-poor district and the other a wealthy suburb, allowed cameras to follow students from each school who traded for a day or so, attending each others' schools.  The students from the wealthy suburb were not impressed, at all.  The primary source of local school funding in the state of Louisiana is the Minimum Foundation Program.

What about the Federal government's role in leveling these disparities?  The government has been involved with the issuance of categorical grants especially designed to target poor schools, poor children, but now the pendulum has swung in the direction of awarding block grants instead, which give states more say-so in how and where this money is spent.  Will the states put the money in the poor district schools?
Current trends in education such as choice school programs (voucher, charter bearing schools) are slowly taking hold as one solution.  Perhaps introducing competition among schools for students' attendance.  Perhaps allowing parents once again to have more control over where their children attend schools, to choose the best schools with the monies already allocated to each child by the state and local funds.  Perhaps allowing teachers more say, control over the curriculum and selction of other teachers for their school.  Perhaps paying teachers according to their knowledge, input in providing the best education for students.  Perhaps catching up with new paradigms in financing [and governance] for 21st century education.

Alternative Readings:
Serrano v. Priest – Key California case in school funding. The case helped to develop equality in educational funding. http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/129939.html#Scene_1  
The break-down of school funding among states. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/backgrounders/school_funding.html
 America’s Newest Class War discusses the problems of funding discrepancies in schools. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/09/goodman.html

==============================================================
Go back to CourseCompass MEDG 551 and post to the Discussion Board as outlined below:

Is Financing Schools an Equity or Disparity?  Is it desirable to equalize educational spending among school districts within a state or across the nation?
Which position are you supporting? 
Position 1:  For Justice in Educational Finance.  Position 2:  Against Centralization in Educational Finance  
Read the positions below, chapter nine and the alternative readings websites in Course Documents for Week 6 to find out what are the benefits, drawbacks, concerns for each of these positions. 
Post a 400 word response in favor of position 1 or 2 by Saturday, March 12, 2011.

------------------------------------------------------
Position 1: For justice in educational finance. Position 1 is focused on the inequalities of school financing, how lower income areas that have lower income property taxes suffer because there is not an equal allocation of funds. Because higher income areas have higher property taxes and their money is going into their schools, their schools continue to improve and provide better resources for their students while lower income schools continue to suffer and lack important resources. Position 1 suggests that all funding should be equally allocated from a state or federal level to ensure that all schools and students are equally financed. With approximately 50% of school funding coming from property taxes it comes as no surprise that funding through the state or federal level would ensure a more equal distribution of funds. (Custer, 2006)

Position 2: Against centralization in educational financing. Position 2 argues that regardless of funding in the schools lower income students will continue to perform poorly, while the schools in higher income areas will be punished because they have been successful. Position 2 also argues that most federal and state funding is somehow ‘corrupt’ and the funds are rarely equally distributed due to kickbacks and politically undermined placement. (Custer, 2006)


Dr. Herring