Table of Contents
In the United States the subject of public education is multi-faceted, encompassing literally hundreds of issues. Some of these include gifted education, providing needy students with nutritious lunches, merit pay for teachers, mainstreaming students with special needs, and improving national standards and achievement test scores. While the focus of public attention shifts in unpredictable patterns, many of these issues have been debated for a number of years. Currently, attention has centered on school reform and ways to improve the quality of education for all public school students. Public opinion data reporting the average grade that the American public would give local schools and the nation at large, published by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES Table 21), is not very encouraging. Despite the fact that between 1981 and 1994 the public tended to give higher marks to their local school than to the nation at large, public schools in the U.S. rated grades of C to C+. Solutions to improving our schools have focused on the need for a more equitable appropriation of an often limited pool of funds and school choice. Although most agree that something needs to be done about these issues, not everyone agrees on how to best address the heart of the matter. Since 1973 trend data from the General Social Survey has revealed a steady increase in the percentage of people who feel that the government is spending too little on improving the nation's school system.
It is no secret that school quality, access to school offerings, and per student allotments vary from state to state and district to district. One of many fundamental issues concerning school improvement revolves around tax dollar allocations to schools. Funding from taxes is the primary source of income for elementary and high schools. Federal contributions account for approximately 6% of school budgets. At the state level, income, corporate, and sales taxes coupled with fees provide roughly 50% of the total with the final 44% coming from property taxes at the local level. These monies are distributed in relation to the number of students per school in conjunction with type of program offered. (For example special education programs are more costly.) Nationally, per student allocations range from $1,500 to $15,000 annually. A comprehensive study by the U.S. General Accounting Office released by Senator Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois in mid-March, 1997 indicates that in the 1991-92 school year (the most recent year for which comparable data is available) most states had not eliminated the vast disparities between wealthy and poor districts. The study ranked all states based on their attempts to equalize school funding and found, among other things, that Nevada, a state customarily ranked at the bottom of the per student spending scale, was the only state that had managed to adjust its spending to equitable levels across all districts. In 1997 Nevada will have allotted an average of $3,621 per student but will spend nearly twice that amount--$7,084--on 100 students residing in one of the state's poorest rural counties. The study also found that New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Oregon had done the least in terms of equalizing per pupil expenditures. In Oregon there was a 22% spending gap between the poorest ($2,972 per student) and wealthiest ($4,351 per student) districts. Another finding revealed that in Maryland funding disparities between poor and wealthy districts was highly correlated with district wealth. Although the state average in 1991-92 was $6,039, the poorer districts spent $2,353 below that amount whereas the wealthier ones spent $7,728 per student. A 1992 Harris Poll of a national cross section of U.S. adults 18 and older reported by the Institute for Research in Social Science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found that almost 80% of those asked responded that they would be in favor of the government spending more money on improving public school education if it meant their taxes would be increased to pay for it.
State spending inequities have made the subject of school funding a constitutional one. Beginning in California in the 1970's court cases such as Serrano v. Priest have brought this issue onto the national stage. The outcome of this case and others like it is twofold. First, the responsibility for all education spending lies with the state and second, the state should not permit inequitable spending from district to district. In Serrano the state court held that California's public school financing plan, which based school revenues on district wealth, violated equal protection laws. The ruling was such that school districts receiving a larger share of revenue due to greater property taxes would receive less money from the state than poorer districts.
While numerous states have fought lawsuits on this issue one state with notable legislation that addresses this matter is Kentucky. The Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA) passed in 1990 stipulates that tax funds are to be distributed in such a way as to ensure equally accessible educational opportunities for all Kentucky students. This system benefits schools in those areas unable to generate sufficient funds due to limited resources. So far the results have been positive. In the first three years since the act was passed the disparity between the wealthiest and poorest one-fifth of Kentucky's districts has decreased by approximately one-half. There is a six to eight year goal to completely eliminate the gap.
On the national level a model proposed by Congress in 1990 (although yet to be passed) that can be used as a framework for a national school finance legislation is the Fair Chance Bill, 3850. Its aim is to offer all children equal access to quality education by eliminating funding disparities not only within districts but between states as well. The bill calls for the following: 1) the Secretary of Education would be required to evaluate each state's educational finance system in terms of spending equitability to determine whether or not it is eligible to receive federal funds; 2) each state should include, as products of equalization, educational processes and outcome; 3) states that do not comply would be given the opportunity to do so within a reasonable period of time; 4) federal funds would go directly to local educational agencies in those states that do not comply with equitability guidelines; 5) allow the distribution of federal funds in such a way as to ensure equal opportunity to quality education for all children; 6) allow the Secretary of Education to calculate the per state funding formula in order to increase funding for states in greatest need while ensuring more funds to states that provide special programs for those that need them and reward states that have shown initiative in increasing tax-efforts on their own.
Another school reform proposal under scrutiny is the use of vouchers. This strategy combines the issues of school funding, school choice, and improved quality of education. This program, like many others, has strong advocates on both sides of the debate. Under this plan parents can directly apply tax dollars (in the form of a subsidy) normally allotted to public schools, toward a private school of their choice. The monetary value of the voucher would vary from state to state depending upon the average state expenditure per student. [See State by state legislative activities regarding choice.]
Proponents of this plan argue that vouchers would spark a revitalization of the public school system through competition. It would place the better public schools in direct competition with private ones while forcing inferior schools to either improve or risk having to close altogether. In addition, some supporters feel that vouchers are the only means by which parents can have genuine opportunities to make educational choices for their children. This would be particularly beneficial for low-income families. Voucher proponents have voiced concern that government intervention and bureaucratic restrictions, already a problem for public schools, will be imposed on the private schools that accept students using vouchers.
Those opposing vouchers have a number of assertions as well. They claim that voucher supporters are merely advocating the use of vouchers for the poor as a smokescreen to benefit the wealthy. The poor, who generally have fewer options, compounded by limited access to transportation, would have no choice but to remain in schools with limited resources. Another criticism of vouchers is that public schools can not compete on equal footing with private ones because private schools have the authority to follow their own rules and recommendations. Initially there was concern that vouchers would bring back racial segregation in the schools. As it stands now parochial schools, which account for 80% of all private alternatives to public education in most urban areas, are more integrated than public schools.
Although the majority of the public is opposed to vouchers, public sentiment appears to be shifting. According to the 28th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitude Toward the Public Schools (1996), 61% of respondents were opposed to allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at the public's expense, a 13% decrease from 1993. A finding unique to last year's study is that 70% of non-public school parents and 55% of Catholics favor the idea. In another question respondents were asked where they would enroll their oldest child if they were given a $3,500 voucher. Of public school parents 54% stated they would keep their child in the same public school, 6% would enroll their child in another public school, 18% would choose a private school, and 19% would send their child to a church related school.
With all the opinions and theories under consideration not much concrete evidence exists to support either side. Preliminary answers, although not by any means conclusive, can be found in the Midwest in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). Enacted in 1990, this program is aimed at low-income families whose children were not enrolled in private schools in the previous year. Only non-religious private schools in the city were eligible to participate. Initially about 1500 spaces per year were allotted for the program with the stipulation that total per school enrollment was not to exceed 65% of the student body. In Milwaukee the family demographics of those enrolled in MCPC are different from families whose children attend private schools. Generally, a "Choice" pupil is non-White and from a low-income, single-parent household that is highly likely to be on public assistance. The average private school student is White, from a two-parent family with a higher than average income. These students are from families that have a very low likelihood of being on public assistance.
John Witte, Wisconsin's state appointed evaluator, tracked the program for three years after its inception. While the results of his research have provided some answers, the findings are insufficient to predict the success or failure of using vouchers elsewhere. Some reasons include the following: 1) the sample size was too small; 2) it is unlikely that vouchers users across the country would resemble those enrolled in the Milwaukee program in terms of demographic characteristics; 3) student outcomes are not only effected by the component of choice, but by numerous, often intricately correlated variables; and 4) student evaluations were inconclusive due to the varying degrees of parental involvement.
Another fundamental concern raised with the use of vouchers is the constitutionality of funneling tax payer dollars into religious organizations. Since many non-public schools are run by these organizations, this question reverberates all the way to the Supreme Court. In its 1971 decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the court ruled that reimbursing private schools for teacher salaries, text books, and instructional materials, even if used in secular courses, is unconstitutional. In Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist, 1973, the court ruled that it is unconstitutional to provide tax credits or tax deductions for parents who send their children to private schools, and in Sloan v. Lemon, 1973, the court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to reimburse parents for tuition paid to private schools. This issue was again before the courts on August 12, 1996 when an Ohio Court of Appeals turned down a request for an injunction that would prevent the state-financed voucher program allowing vouchers to be used for religious schools from taking effect. Although this ruling is being appealed by voucher opponents, currently in Ohio over 1,700 low-income students are enrolled in 49 private and religious schools under the state's voucher plan. Unlike the Ohio court, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court voted to issue an injunction on the same matter.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics' 1993 Use of School Choice study, nationally, 20% of children in grades 3-12 were enrolled in schools (either public or private) selected by their families. Of these, 11% were attending public schools and 9% were in private ones. Black families (23%) were more likely than their White counterparts (19%) to utilize their choice option by sending their children to schools other than their designated local school. However, Black and Hispanic children are more likely than White children to attend a chosen public school while White students are more likely to attend a chosen private one. Of the all the parents in the study who chose public schools for their children, the following were among the reasons for doing so--a better academic environment and special academic courses. In addition, school convenience, was more likely to be cited by families with low socio-economic status than those with higher economic status.
Another variation on school reform, sometimes referred to as the cousin of the voucher plan, is charter schools. Seen as a favorable option by both Democrats and Republicans, legislation authorizing charter schools began in 1991. By 1992 the City Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota, founded from the ground up by two teachers, was the first charter school in the country to open. California followed and the numbers have increased steadily. Ordinarily charter schools, funded through the public school system, are established through a binding agreement between individuals (parents, teachers, etc.), institutions (existing public or private schools) or profit or not-for-profit organizations and a sponsor. The actual charter, the aim of which is deregulation and decentralization, is created by state legislators. These schools are given leeway to create new models for education by developing innovative curricula, encouraging parental involvement, and increasing professionalism among teaching staff. Although charter schools are encouraged to be flexible there is the stipulation that students must attain certain levels of achievement which are measured by state approved tests. To encourage the creation of charter schools the state offers incentives including exemptions from state and district codes covering curriculum, instruction, budget, and personnel.
Like supporters of vouchers, those in favor of charter schools see them as a way to increase competition while providing more choices for families. They are seen as positive testing grounds for school reform because they have the freedom to create innovative models and set new standards for education without state regulation and code restrictions. Among the criteria for measuring the success of charter schools is performance and student achievement rather than process. For some this is what truly counts. These schools are carefully monitored by local school boards and if they do not have sufficient enrollment, fail to meet accountability standards, or are financially mismanaged their charters can be revoked.
Charter schools, like any new venture, require capital and poorly invested capital is one concern for some critics. They do not like the idea of siphoning tax dollars from public schools before concrete evidence of their success is measured. Another initial concern was voiced by teachers' unions and local school boards. Among teachers was the notion that many long fought for gains would be lost if charter proposals were not required to include collective bargaining agreements. Among school boards the issue revolved around the potential loss of authority. They did not take kindly to the idea of losing control of any school under their jurisdiction. School boards reasoned that if schools are hindered by restrictive regulations, those regulations should be examined and modified for all schools rather than allowing exemptions only for charter schools. In other words change the regulations rather than removing schools from school board authority because regulations are restrictive. There was also fear that unless specified under the charter, students with special needs would not receive equal treatment or the funding their programs need. An additional concern was that continuity of education would be disrupted if for some reason a charter did not get renewed.
The Education Commission of the States, a national, non-partisan organization whose goal is to advance policies aimed at improving the quality of education for all citizens, has gathered information on charter schools as well as numerous other education-related issues. As of November, 1996 their statistics on charter schools show that sixteen states and the District of Columbia have a combined total of 481 charter schools. Serving over 105,000 students, Arizona leads the way with 164 schools. While nine additional states have adopted charter legislation they have not yet opened any charter schools.
Preliminary charter school research has been conducted by Chester Finn, Bruno Manno and Louann Bierlein of the Hudson Institute, Educational Excellence Network in Washington, D.C. This not-for-profit research organization analyzes and offers advice regarding public policy for business and government leaders and for the public good. Presented in July, 1996, the study has revealed a body of positive data. For the most part parents, teachers, and students are very satisfied with their schools. Parents cite that they feel welcome in their child's school and that the teaching staff and directors listen and respond to their concerns. They also like the high standards placed on their children, the intelligible curriculum, the familial-like atmosphere, and the highly dedicated teachers. Teacher satisfaction was expressed in a number of areas including autonomy in the classroom, working with other similarly dedicated teachers, and sagacious management decisions. Along with parents and teachers, students also said they liked the family-like atmosphere, dedicated teachers, individualized teaching, and that they felt safe in school. These claims have generated positive publicity for the schools reflected in the fact that almost all the schools in this study have student waiting lists.
The problems mentioned in the study were not classroom related but rather problems associated with initial school start up, including lack of sufficient capital, uneven cash flow and burdensome paperwork. Unforeseen laws and regulations, the intricacies of the charter laws themselves, as well as political hurdles imposed by those opposing charter schools also contributed to initial problems. Although only a problem for some schools, poor board-staff relations were cited as one source of major difficulties. Because the demands of leadership depend on the talents and skills of several individuals it was sometimes difficult to find the right combination of personalities. In more than half the schools there were preliminary obstacles with children because large numbers of them were considered at-risk students. But one asset of charter schools is that they adapt well to the needs of these children and were able to bring the problem under control.
The Hudson Institute study included thirty-five schools across seven states. These schools were representative of the approximately 225 charter schools operating in 1995-96. Of the almost 8,400 students in the sample, 63% were from minority groups. The sexes were almost equally represented with 81% of the students coming from public schools, 8% from private schools, 4% were drop outs and 2% were previously home-schooled.
Since his first presidential campaign President Clinton has been a vocal advocate for school reform. He is in favor of states and local school districts providing parents with meaningful school options for their children. Although he supports vouchers he is opposed to any plan that would transfer tax dollars to private schools. He also endorses solid charter laws that would facilitate and provide flexibility for the initial start-up costs and operations of new public charter schools. In an effort to encourage people to open charter schools his administration has proposed increasing the charter school start-up grant program, which was initiated in 1994, to $100 million in the 1998 fiscal year. It is expected that these funds will be sufficient to aid over 3,000 schools over the next several years. The current administration is so enthusiastic about charter schools that it is prepared to lend additional support by offering helpful guide books and a World Wide Web site with charter school assistance information.
Another school improvement plan is the concept of privatization. This means that a private sponsor, rather than the local bureaucracy, would run the daily operations of a school. Advocates of privatization see it as a way to utilize business expertise in the areas of cost reduction and efficiency while simultaneously increasing production. The commodity in this context is student achievement. Proponents claim that consumers would benefit from the joint efforts of government and private business. Opponents however, fear that under privatization schools would loose sight of the goal of education (student achievement) in pursuit of profits. They are particularly concerned that the high cost of special needs programs will be overshadowed by the needs of corporate shareholders. Other concerns voiced by opponents are that the hard won rights of union members will be pushed by the wayside and that local districts will not sufficiently look after companies' performance. Incompetency they claim, is not only limited to government.
Across the country there are several private companies presently under contract to manage public schools. The Edison Project in New York City has received national attention. The goal of the Edison Project, which recently announced a 3.5 million dollar financing plan to increase the number of school partnerships, is to improve the quality of education by offering higher teacher salaries, increasing the number of school hours per day as well as days per year, and offering a demanding curriculum to their students. Under contract with Edison, schools retain their public school status and tax dollar funding. There are no additional costs to families whose children attend Edison partnership schools. Early evaluations, from two of four Edison schools (interpreted by Robert J. Mislevy of the Educational Testing Service of Princeton, N. J.), although limited, are promising. Using control groups as a basis for comparison, reading scores for the school year ending in 1996 increased for kindergartners and first graders at the Dodge-Edison School in Wichita, Kansas and at another Edison school in Mount Clemens, Michigan. The findings for second graders were statistically insignificant. Evaluation results from the Boston Renaissance Charter School in Massachusetts and the Washington-Edison School in Sherman, Texas were inconclusive because the Boston school had no comparable control group and the Texas school had an inadequately matched one.
Reforming public schools and the educational system in this country is a huge undertaking and the restructuring of school financing is just one of a number of issues that need to be addressed. Some feel that a resolution of monetary matters will eliminate a number of other problems as well. With all the possible solutions under consideration there is no one plan that can solve the all problems of our public schools but despite the fact that experts and non-experts do not agree on which of the numerous financial solutions best addresses the issue of education reform, they do agree that improvements are necessary.
References
"Choice: Open Enrollment"
Url: http://www.ecs.org/ecs/2162.htm
"Choice and Vouchers"
Url: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/choice.htm
"Charter Schools"
Url: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/charter.htm
"Charter Schools: Statistics"
Url: http://www.ecs.org/ecs/249a.htm
"The Edison Project Receives $30.5 Million from Investor Group"
Url: http://www.edisonproject.com/New.html
Dale, Angela H. "Charter Schools: The New Neighborhood Schools." September, 1995.
Url: http://edreform.com/pubs/charti.htm
Elam, Stanley M., Rose, Lowell C., and Gallup, Alec M. "The 28th Annual Phi Delta
Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools." September,
1996.
Url: http://pdkintl.org/kpoll282.htm
Finn, Jr., Chester E., Manno, Bruno V., and Bierlein, Louann A. "Charter Schools in
Action: What Have Learned?" July, 1996.
Url: http://www.a1.com/hudson/charters/execsumm.html
Johnston, Robert C. "Study Reveals Funding Gaps Across States."
Url: http://www.edweek.org/htbin/fastweb?getd
6%28Michigan%26and%26property%26taxes%29
"Privatization of Public Education"
Url: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/private.htm
"Public School Choice and Accountability in Public Education"
Url: http://www.ed.gov/updates/PresEDPlan/part6.html
"School Finance"
Url: http://www.nwrel.org/cnorse/booklets/educate/7.html
"School Finance"
Url: http://www.edweek.org/context/topics/finance.htm
Shanker, Albert. "Where We Stand." September, 1996.
Url: http://www.aft.org/wws/wws9016.htm
"Use of School Choice." June, 1996.
Url: http://www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/95742r.html
Walsh, Mark. "Cautious Analysis of Edison Test Data Urged." October, 1996.
Url: http://www.edweek.org:80/ew/vol-16/07edison.h16
Walsh, Mark. "For First Time, Students Use Vouchers for Religious Schools."
September, 1996.
Url: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-16/01vouch.h16
Witte, John F., Thorn, Christopher A., and Pritchard, Kim A. "The Milwaukee Parental
Choice Program Private and Public Education on Wisconsin: Implications for the
Choice Debate." 1995.
Url: http://dpls.dacc.wisc.edu/choice/choice_implications.html
Yamashiro, Kyo and Carlos, Lisa. "More on Charter Schools" January, 1996.
Url: http://www.fwl.org/policy/pb_chart.htm
Yamashiro, Kyo and Carlos, Lisa. "Private School Vouchers" December, 1995.
Url: http://www.fwl.org/policy/pb_vouch.htm