Renew New York Issue-in-Brief

Adequate Funding Saving Money or Ruining Education?

Prepared by West Islip High School students, Hallie Carrino and Philip Siconolfi (Teacher: Mr. Aron Chizik) This Issue-in-Brief is part of 2010 Renew New York, sponsored jointly

by Hofstra University, Newsday, and Cablevision. See Renew New York website at http://renew-newyork.com.

Students from 10 high schools used the model of the National Issues Forums in preparing briefs and forums. Hofstra coordinators: Michael D’Innocenzo, Andrea S. Libresco and Bernard Stein (in association with the Hofstra University Center for Civic Engagement, interns: Kayla Rivara and Samantha Rashid)

Introduction Education is critical for the well-being and success of America's youth. During the past few decades, there has been constant debate about how education should be funded. The funding provided now is both inequitable and not used to better the educational experience of the students (www.nasponline.org). Educators, administrators, parents, and students have been demanding that their districts need more revenue than they receive. So, what direction must we take to ensure a proper and fulfilling education? Some believe that the state governments should consolidate districts leading to more efficiently sized schools. Those who support this argument also say that this would democratize funding, thus equalizing educational opportunities. Others propose that school districts should be supported by their local governments with the help of property taxes. There are also proponents of completely privatizing schools. A district like

1

Roosevelt, Long Island shows how inadequate funding has caused a decrease in academic performance. Because there is not enough money being allocated by the state to the district, teachers and staff are unable properly to provide a rewarding education. As a consequence, if the academic standards of the state are not met, districts such as Roosevelt, may be taken over by the state. (Hildebrand, Newsday) Not only can inadequate state funding lead to diminished education, communities that are economically depressed can not generate enough revenue from the tax base to provide for the increasing costs of school budgets. In the end, a district like Roosevelt does not get enough revenue to provide its students with the proper education they deserve.

2

Some Options to Consider Option 1: Consolidate and Centralize School Districts What exactly does this mean?

For school districts, size matters. Between 1930 and 1970, 9 out of every 10 school districts were eliminated through consolidation in the United States. The overall effect of these and related reforms was to transform the small, informal, community controlled schools of the 19th century into centralized, professionally run educational bureaucracies. Advocates of this option argue that it is in a district's best interest to consolidate, to be able to produce more equitably allocated funding to benefit less affluent districts that would be consolidated. Roosevelt had 2,145 students in the district with a tax (income) cost of $303.92 (a) per student compared to Smithtown who had 10,541 students in the district with a tax (income) of $130.25 (a) per student. With the majority of the revenue raised through property taxes, vast differences in property wealth across localities typically result in larger disparities in educational spending. For example the West Islip school district spends $13,148 per student while the Bay Shore school district spends $15,757 per student. However, the extra revenue from areas with wealthier residents can help to balance those that are less wealthy. This would ultimately lead to a democratization of spending amongst everyone. By consolidating and centralizing a district, one is centralizing the authority of that specific public education system. The centralized school districts will be able to share services such as purchasing, warehousing and data processing, as well as the coordination of contractual services for transportation, food and building maintenance. This will in turn cut costs, allowing for more money to be spent on updating facilities and equipment given to students, which would create the environment to encourage student empowerment and lead to a rewarding educational experience. Consolidating and centralizing school districts can help to efficiently size school districts so that funding is allocated effectively and efficiently in order to benefit the students. (www.brookings.edu)

3

What would happen?

Centralizing: A decrease in the amount of school administrators, would cut costs, as well as unify the power of the school district. If there are less people in charge then decisions can be made much easier and faster Consolidation: Multiple districts will be consolidated, or brought together to form a lesser amount of districts possibly even one. By doing so, the city in which the school district is located is responsible for overseeing the education of the whole area. For example, there are twelve different school districts in the town of Islip. They are: West Islip, Central Islip, East Islip, Islip, Bay Shore, Bayport-Bluepoint, Brentwood, Connetquot, Fire Island, Hauppauge, Sachem, and Sayville. The Township of Islip has a total of 58 elementary schools, 18 middle schools and 12 high schools. For some areas like Brightwaters and Fire Island, consolidation has allowed for the prevention of creating extra schools. For example children from Fire Island attend Bay Shore schools when they reach a certain grade level. If these schools were to be consolidated then it would cut costs and more money would be able to be spent towards the education of the children (townofislip-ny.gov).

Those Who Agree Say: •

More equitably allocated funding will benefit less affluent districts. When the majority of local revenue is raised through property taxes, vast differences in property wealth across localities typically result in large disparities in education spending.

•

Price discounts for supplies, equipment, and other materials the schools need by buying in bulk

•

Upgrade on facilities and equipment, in order to give the student the ability to learn better in their school environment or perform better in athletics. Upgraded facilities are

4

guaranteed because if you decrease the amount of schools, you decrease the amount of maintenance, so therefore schools can be kept in tip-top shape because there is less to worry about.

•

Greater specialization of teachers and classrooms for specific subjects. Specialized teachers contribute more knowledge to the subjects they teach.

•

Enhanced per pupil spending. If schools were centralized then the cost savings would allow more revenue to be spent on a greater range of student needs.

•

Provide a wider range of educational programs and opportunities for students.

•

Large property value creates a larger tax base, thus raising more revenue for the school and in turn, increasing property values and the desirability of the neighborhood.

Those Who Disagree Say: •

Communities feel as though consolidation causes a loss of their identity

•

Fear of higher costs and increases in property taxes for everyone

•

Communities resistant to change; impact of tradition

•

More time and more cost for transportation of students

•

If consolidation means larger schools, then often leads to less student and staff motivation/productivity and less parental involvement

•

Wealthier districts would be subsidizing poorer ones. (This is unfair).

Trade-offs: •

It is worth the financial benefits of consolidation provided that the centralized schools are kept small enough to foster effective teaching and learning.

•

Without direct accounting to a local community school board, it becomes critically important for centralized school leaders to establish and maintain contact and input from various areas of the expanded district.

Option 2: Local Funding (vs. Federal or State funding) New York Schools are primarily funded locally. This local revenue mostly comes from taxes on the property of the people living in the district. A property tax is a type of tax issued by a city or

5

county that is reflected by the property value of a certain piece of land. The tax is paid by the individual, party, or company that owns the specific piece of property. For some areas in the United States, this system also acts as direct funding for local governments as well as school districts. A district that is funded by property taxes reflects the wants and needs of those residing there. Their taxes are highly likely to reflect the intended values for education funding. Because of local funding, residents of the district are able to have more say in what actions are being taken in their local school districts. For example Roosevelt has almost no commercial base for taxes in contrast to an affluent community like Sea Cliff that over decades got big school tax money from LILCO.

Roosevelt School District

North Shore School District (Sea Cliff)

Those who agree say: •

Incentive is given to residents to maintain efficient schools. Your property tax is being put towards the school to improve it on your behalf. Even if you didn't have children who were attending the schools in that district, the influx of families interested in the district would allow for home prices to rise, thus benefiting other residents as well.

•

Incentive is also given to those working in the schools. Each year, districts showing school needs propose a new budget. This budget would be composed of revenue from

6

local property taxes. If the schools in the district excel, then property values will rise. The revenue put towards the school may help to better the educational environment, provide more supplies, and even help to raise the quality of teachers. Teachers want to share their skills in districts where those living there care about the education that is being offered.

Additionally, school districts that invest heavily in education will be able to attract the best and brightest teachers by paying higher salaries.

Those who disagree say: •

We’re paying what we shouldn't be paying. No matter where you live, you are required to pay a property tax that is put toward projects in your community. This may be beautification, sanitation, or the maintenance of the schools in that community. For a community that has its schools locally funded, the property taxes in that area are relatively high. Thus, residents who don’t have children attending a school in the district are asked to pay a heavy tax for something that doesn’t completely benefit them.

Essentially those who no longer have children in the district are still required to help fund the school because they live in that area. In New York the schools share of overall property taxes rose from 55% in 1993 to 62% in 2005 (www.albany.edu).

•

It can be unfair for taxpayers in poorer districts and in affluent districts to have the same level of taxes. For some it may be easy to pay while others may struggle. Each district should obtain an equal amount of money to compensate for the fact that poorer districts may not be bringing in enough revenue for the school district. In 2008 the Chicago Urban League brought a legal suit against the state. It argued that the funding inequalities violated the civil rights of minority students. The Urban League’s suit is pending. There has been a legal judgment in New York State calling for more equitable funding of schools in urban areas; making payments to compensate for past inequities remains a troubling matter in a time of financial state deficits. Also, some communities do not have an adequate amount of businesses that would also help fund the district by property taxes.

This tends to occur in less affluent communities, those that need the most funding to succeed. Businesses are an extra source of revenue for communities to obtain the funding needed for that specific school district. In those communities that lack a proper business involvement, any school budget increases will be entirely borne by the individual

7

taxpayers. In addition, some communities may have churches or church-run buildings that are not required to pay property taxes. Therefore, areas are losing more revenue if there are a large number of church-run facilities serving as the community’s “businesses.” Since these businesses are in an area where there is a school district they should have to pay as well.

Trade-offs: •

Basic levels of support from state or federal governments to all districts will allow local areas to raise taxes to fund their own schools and do so under local control.

•

Local costs of education can be reduced by leadership from elected officials in attracting “mixed-use” property (in which appropriate businesses could be given incentives to be situated in the community while they also increase the base for taxation).

•

With growing strains on local financial support of public education, it is time to reexamine the extent to which religious institutions are given tax-exempt status for houses of worship and sometimes for extensive arrays of property that have nothing directly to do with religious practice.

Option 3: Increase Charter and Private Schools In some poorly developed and low-income communities, families are forced to send their children to schools that may not be adequate to provide a quality education. This, coupled with the disparity of wealth in America, has led to social conflict, violence, and essentially a dysfunctional educational system. These areas are greatly disadvantaged. When the community cannot adequately fund school districts, the district relies on the state. Recently though, due to the Recession, state governments have greatly cut their expenditures (Streich, Michael). When all else fails, parents seek out private schools for their children to attend. Private schools obtain their own money in various ways and make their own decisions on how to spend it. Private schools aren’t bound by many of the guidelines of state education. Essentially they can do whatever they please educationally speaking.

8

Private schools and charter schools comprise about 10 percent of the education system. Private schools charge tuition for students to attend, whereas charter schools are funded by the public.

They are overseen by a group of individuals, a university, or a company. Once a charter has been signed by the overseer, the school is essentially free to run independently and does not have to function according to the rules governing public schools, including those set by teachers’ unions.

How are you going to get your education?

To most parents, private school sounds expensive. Usually, the tuition of private schools is relatively high. This tuition covers maintenance, salaries, etc. In order to appeal to families other than those with incomes to afford all the expenses of private schools, those in support of this option have formulated an alternative: vouchers.

Vouchers are certificates issued by the

government that parents may use toward paying private school tuition for their children. The money for vouchers comes from public school budgets; thus, granting vouchers to parents decreases the money set aside to pay for public schools. In some areas of New York State, private schools cost $20,000 a year, or more. Vouchers would help cover these expenses to private schools, but, especially, to charter schools. For example, take the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. In its fourth year of operation, the program provided approximately 830 lowincome students with $3,200 grants to attend private school in the state (http://www.wested.org).

Those Who Agree Say: •

Vouchers would be universally available to anyone that may want them

•

Vouchers are less expensive than governmental per-pupil spending, but would still have enough money to cover costs for school. Supporters of this option say that vouchers should guarantee that they will cover the entire cost of the child’s education (http://www.cato.org) I

•

Vouchers allow families to choose whatever private school they wish to attend, essentially giving parents more say in what type of education their child receives.

•

This type of funding can be used to directly finance what the school needs.

•

Charter schools attract families with well-motivated students eager to receive a quality education.

9

Those Who Disagree Say: •

Charter school success has been assumed, not proven. (A 2005 study by Columbia University compared public schools to that of charter schools. The study showed no significant difference between the two.)

•

Even though a charter school is run independently, the company, university, or individuals still have a say in what occurs at the school. Some of these schools are “for profit” and that creates a tension between making money and providing quality education.

•

Studies have shown that a large number of charter schools are not living up to their expectations. Charter schools often have less experienced teachers. These teachers don’t experiment with different teaching styles or curricula that would in turn benefit the student. Therefore, students would essentially be receiving the same or even a superior education at a public school.

•

Numerous studies have also been done comparing student scores of public schools and charter schools. These studies showed that students of charter schools were actually scoring the same if not worse than students attending public schools. Time Magazine reported (September 20, 2010) that only “17% of charter schools significantly outperform traditional public schools.”

Trade-offs: •

If charter schools show that they are more creative and effective in advancing student development, they are worth giving independent leadership and financing.

•

Charter schools are more worthy of consideration only if they do not engage in “creaming”, i.e. taking students who are likely to advance fastest and further, leaving to the public schools youngsters who require more support and attention.

•

Vouchers for religious schools fundamentally intrude on separation of church and state and should not be given. Those who prefer religious instruction to public education should be obliged to support it by themselves.

10

A Tough Problem to Tackle While public education still stands as major part of the success of children in America, providing that education efficiently continues to be difficult. The problems that exist within the school funding system have caused reformers to come up with a variety of alternative funding solutions.

Though there are many different opinions as to what the right direction is to ensure a quality education, no agreed-upon solution has been chosen. Each district has its own set of problems and challenges that ultimately influence whether a sound educational environment and experience will be achieved for students. Until some creative resolutions can be reached among the various factions supporting education reform, the American educational system will continue to be broken.

11