Renew New York Issue-in-Brief

What Are the Best Ways to Fund and Support Public Schools?

Prepared by Floral Park Memorial High School students, Hannah Schlechter and Robert Todaro (Teacher: Ms. Deborah Francis) 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 Although funding is only one part of the reason for failing public school systems, it is at the heart of the problem because a student’s success is often based on the money his/her school receives. The role of the state and federal government is vital to the funding crisis because more than half the funding given to public schools comes from these sources.

State government, which is responsible for the bulk of the aid, needs to be held more accountable especially in giving sufficient funding to every school or district. Each school needs to receive funding that affords its students an equal opportunity to succeed.

The federal government also needs to be held more accountable for each school receiving enough funding to help it to be successful. Without adequate funding, schools will have serious trouble supplying their students with qualified teachers, textbooks and supplies, and a well-equipped school, itself. The community that the school is in is also an important factor that influences decisions affecting every part of education. In some 1

cases, the community was able to help the school fund certain activities or even help fix the building in order to make the school and community as a whole better. A school and the community in which it is located have a direct relationship. If a school’s community fails (regarding parental involvement and fundraising), then the school itself will begin to fail. If a community’s school fails, the community will suffer because the school system of a community is of utmost importance when people are determining where they should live; people will be less likely to buy a home in an area where educational opportunities are limited for their children.

Some Options to Consider Option 1: Giving Parents a Choice The use of school vouchers and charter schools in our public education system has been a highly debated issue for decades. School vouchers are defined as federal certificates that provide parents a tax credit or cash grant that can be applied toward the tuition of a private school, rather than having to send their child to the local public school to which their child is assigned. Charter schools are primary and secondary schools that receive public funding, are operated independently from their local school district, and have their own standards and curriculum. Charter schools and vouchers are often advocated as ways to save children who attend a school labeled “failing.” A “failing” school is defined as one where the students are not scoring high enough on their standardized tests. This correlates with the No Child Left Behind legislation, discussed in the next section.

Many children around the country, especially in urban areas like New York City, are “forced” to go to under-performing public schools within their neighborhood. In many cases, this exposes students to less educational opportunity than they could be receiving in private schools. Therefore, parents look towards the government for vouchers and charter schools to improve their child’s education. Vouchers could potentially give children who live in poorer communities the opportunity to receive a better education in a different kind of school (regardless of what their economic situation is at home).

Minorities could also benefit because they tend to be the most likely to fall below the poverty level; consequently, vouchers and/or charter schools would give minority children the chance to attend integrated private schools that supporters contend are likely to perform better.

2

A major argument in support of expanding the use of charter schools and vouchers is that it would increase competition between schools and indirectly improve education across the board. If more charter schools were created and more children had the ability to go to private schools with vouchers, then public schools would have more competition for students and funding. For example, it is believed that if charter/private schools began to showcase their students’ improved test scores and new programs, the local public schools would have to make efforts to improve their education systems so that they would not lose students or dollars. The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research found that many superintendents and principals respond to pressure from charter school competition by making changes to make their schools more efficient and appealing for enrollment.

Even though there are many arguments for the benefits of vouchers and charter schools, there is also a large opposition. A common argument is that funding for vouchers diverts dollars away from public schools that need the funding more. Some public schools are in desperate need for funding and many see vouchers as a waste of financial resources.

Vouchers are also controversial because they allow a child to attend a private school which could be faith-based. This practice has many people quoting the US Constitution and defending the notion of the separation of church and state.

Charter schools may face even stronger opposition. First, it has been said that it is hard to truly calculate the benefits of a charter school. A member of the Center for Education Reform, Kevin P. Chavous, stated "good charter schools offer a refreshing lack of bureaucracy and red tape, allowing these schools to serve students, teachers, and the community in more effective ways." A study conducted in Los Angeles during the 20082009 school year by The Times found that 43% of charter students scored proficient or advanced in math when only 25% of public schools students did, and 47% of charter students scored proficient or advanced in reading when only 30% of public school students did.

However, another study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) had very different results, stating that students in charter schools tested several points lower than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.

3

Charter schools are also accused of increasing elements of prejudice and segregation against certain types of students. The UCLA’s Civil Rights Project found that an average black charter-school student attends a school where almost three in four students also are black. This statistic is double the figure for traditional public schools. Similar studies by education policy centers at the University of Colorado at Boulder and Arizona State University found other shocking statistics about charter schools. Their reports show that charter schools were less likely than public schools to include middle-class children, disabled children, and children who use English as a second language. Explanations for this point to the charter schools trying to be lucrative, operating for profit by not spending money for special needs education. Like many other aspects of improving education, weighing the pros and cons or vouchers and charter schools involves different values and goals in our large, pluralistic society.

Those Who Agree With Vouchers And Charter Schools Say: 

Establish more charter schools and grant more vouchers to increase competition between schools, leading to greater effectiveness, student engagement and results in education.



Allow lower income parents to receive vouchers to give their children educational opportunities that can be comparable to the children of higher income parents.



Give all children more opportunities to go to a charter or private school to increase diversity in schools. (In our country, minorities are often exposed to segregated school districts and second-rate education systems because they live in impoverished communities that cannot provide for the local schools.) Vouchers and charter schools would give all children the chance to receive a better education no matter what type of community they lived in and what race they belonged to.

Those Who Disagree With Vouchers And Charter Schools Say: 

Vouchers use up public funding that could be allocated to already under funded public schools



The government should not be able to give vouchers for religious-based schools because of the principle of the separation of church and state in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

4



The accountability of charter schools is harder to measure because they are not attached to local school boards.



UCLA’s Civil Rights Project indicates that charter schools, in fact, increase racial segregation.



In many instances, children with disabilities and special needs are not effectively serviced and special education programs are cut in charter schools.

Trade-offs: 

A limited number of charter schools in each state would be acceptable as an experiment

in

improving

education

provided

that

independent

review

commissions are established to evaluate how well they work, how their costs compare to public schools, and what their effects are on public schools. 

The charter school experiment/study described above would be more acceptable if vouchers were prohibited for religious schools, thus preserving America’s principle of separation of church and state.

Option 2: Giving the Feds a Greater Role in the Classroom Recently, the role of the federal government in our American education system has been highly debated. Some feel that the issue of education should be left up to the states, while others feel there must be more federal intervention for funding and standards. Proponents of increased federal funding believe that it would help reform American public schools by providing schools with more opportunities for enhanced technology, better facilities, and expanded programs. The recurring question associated with this belief is whether our country can afford to spend increased amounts on education. Opponents label the federal government’s spending as “fiscally irresponsible” because Americans are enduring a large economic deficit. Other arguments against federal involvement in education include strong opposition to standards in all forms. Many people express how standards would have a reverse effect on education by making achievement harder in struggling, underprivileged public schools. Standardized tests in particular receive a lot of criticism. They are very costly and many label them as a waste of federal time and money.

Standardized tests also use up a lot of classroom time in preparing students instead of allowing teachers to teach in more interesting and interactive ways. Studies have also found that standardized tests lead to increased rates of cheating. In Steven D. Levitt’s & 5

Stephen J. Dubner’s Freakonomics, a study of the Chicago school system revealed that when tests have high-stakes, teachers gain the incentive to illegally help their students on their multiple choice examinations. In our country, education varies drastically from state to state in terms of funding, standards, curriculums, and student performance. The question is: Can we improve the American education system on a national scale so that we cant better compete with foreign competitors?

In 2001, the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed. This is an education reform based on standards set by individual states. States are required to reach goals or make progress in terms of test scores, attendance, and graduation rates in order to receive federal funding for schools. Children in certain grades are also prepped to take standardized tests to determine if schools and districts are making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These tests act as a tool for the federal government to measure and compare how efficient states’ education systems are. If schools are not making AYP, they are labeled as a “failing” school and could be subject to a number of sanctions, including: staff overhauls, transforming the school into a charter school, or even having the school taken over by the state. On the positive side, since NCLB was passed, funding for education increased from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion as of 2007. Funding for Title 1 programs for economically deprived children increased from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $55.7 billion in 2004. IDEA programs for children with special needs especially increased as well, from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004. Even though funding has dramatically increased, the question that matters most is whether student achievement has increased since NCLB? The major opposition to NCLB is that it has unrealistic goals, is ineffective, and forces teachers to “teach to the test” instead of exposing their students to more creative learning styles.

The Obama Administration’s education reform plan is titled Race to the Top. It is designed to stimulate reform in K-12 education on the local and state level. In this program, states apply for funding and are scored out of 500 points based on selection criteria. This includes 6 different categories. The “Great Teachers and Leaders” category correlates with improving teacher and principal effectiveness, providing teacher and principals with proper support, distributing the most effective teachers, etc. The “State Success Factors” category has to do with a state’s education reform, how the state will implement those plans, and the state’s progress in raising educational achievement. The 6

“Standards and Assessments” category coincides with developing common standards and high-quality assessments. The “General Selection Criteria” correlates with prioritizing educational funding and ensuring good conditions for high performing charters and private schools. The “Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools” category has to do with reforming and intervening in the lowest-achieving schools. The “Data Systems to Support Instruction” coincides with using data to improve teaching and putting a statewide longitudinal data system into effect. The prioritization of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education could also garner a state some points.

If a state were to meet these criteria, that would indicate there is progress being made in terms of that state’s education system, and therefore it would be rewarded with federal funding. The funding for this program comes from the Education Recovery Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The major opposition to RTT is that it won’t do much to help the declining state of public schools, the federal government is interfering with our state-based education system, and that the selection process for funding is biased and arbitrary. Opponents express how it’s a “Race to the Bottom”; they contend that subjectively rewarding a state for make changes to its education system is one step towards “nationalized” education.

Those Who Support Expanded Federal Involvement Say: 

Provide qualifying schools with greater federal funding to improve academic conditions in public schools and expand educational opportunities.



Follow the guidelines of No Child Left Behind by increasing education standards and rewarding schools with funding based on their academic performances.



Follow the steps of Race to the Top and reward states with funding based upon the reformative measures they make toward their education system.



The incentives provided by federal funds will be a spur to school innovative efforts and will encourage more accurate measurements of how students are doing

Those Who Oppose Expanded Federal Involvement Say: 

Our country now has an annual deficit of more than a trillion dollars and cannot afford to increase federal spending on education



Education is a state’s issue and the federal government should play as minimal a role as possible.

7



National standards won’t help under-privileged schools improve, but will only make things worse by forcing unreasonable standards in such circumstances.



Standardized tests are costly; they increase the frequency of cheating among students, and the chill creative teaching and learning opportunities.

Trade-offs: 

Federal funds can help promote educational advancements if individual school districts and states adopt more economies in salaries, retirement benefits and expenditures for non-academic programs.



Support with Federal funds is more acceptable if each state and school district that receives aid is allowed to negotiate a performance contract rather than simply having to follow guidelines established by national officials.



Federal financial support for education should be delayed until the nation gets past its severe economic crisis, extreme deficits and lack of jobs.

Option 3: Role of the State Government The state government plays a major role in funding for the public school system. It is the state’s responsibility to make sure that each school district receives proper funding so that the students can perform to the best of their ability. In the Sewanhaka Central High School District, the more funding they get from the state, the more classes they can enhance for the students. An example of this is having funds to supply workbooks for the students to take home and use throughout the year (giving more students a chance to study and practice the material on their own).

Funding is a critical part of a child’s education; it is the single key factor that supports good teachers that can teach, good textbooks to learn from, and great facilities to accommodate students. None of this is possible without funding. Therefore, funding from the state needs to be adequate for each school’s needs.

Not all schools have a strong community tie to help them compensate for funding gaps.

Ever since the 1971 court case in California, “Serrano vs. Priest,” more and more schools from poverty-stricken areas have been fighting for funding equity. A continuing problem is the view that the state’s funding of education is inadequate. Schools have to pay their teacher’s salaries, which usually makes up about 60 percent of the budget. They also have 8

to pay for security, maintenance for the school, especially because the average age for an American school is forty-two, and for support services. Because in recent years schools have not been receiving adequate funding from the state, they are forced to cut things out of the budget. A recent study by Margaret Hadderman, revealed that more schools were cutting maintenance even though they were in need of renovations as well as certain textbooks even though they needed more updated ones. The study also found that thriving schools were able to spend more money on instruction like better teachers and poorer schools were forced to spend what little money they had on security.

Those Who Support State Support Say: 

Allocate each school district appropriate funds so that their students can succeed.



Raise the statewide standards for students; this would motivate students to try harder.



Increase the state funds for teachers in all schools and districts raising their salaries to attract better, qualified, and smarter teachers.



Make the state government more accountable for the successes and failures of the schools in the area.



Make sure each school or district is receiving funding based on the number of students it is serving and the wealth of the surrounding community.

Those Who Oppose State Support Say: 

Even if all the funds from the state are divided equally, individual, more affluent communities could contribute more money to their schools creating disparities in learning situations.



If the standards were to be raised, more students are likely to fail to meet the new standards. Consequently, more qualified teachers who would be needed to teach the new standards would also want higher salaries.



Even if the salaries of teachers were raised, that would not necessarily eliminate unqualified teachers. It would also b difficult to get teachers work in a violent or poor community no matter how much they were paid.



Making the state more accountable can be beneficial but it can also hurt the school and students if the state wants to start to dictate where and how the funds are used. It is not in the best interest of the school or students themselves to give up local control.

9

Trade-offs: 

Equity is state support is essential, but that does not mean that individual districts cannot supplement their own school funds for enrichment, provided that all school children are ensured a basic and good education.



An increase in state funding can best be achieved through expanding state income tax revenue and reducing the local property taxes for support of schools. Income taxes are no where as regressive as property or sales taxes in generating public revenues.



Increased state education funding, even in a time of economic distress, is feasible if New York does what some European nations have done; namely, adopting a “wealth tax” on those who have thrived over years in the state and who can afford to contribute much more.

Option 4: Connecting the Community and the Classroom The lack of funding for education has plagued our nation for years. The community can be a driving force to improve the quality of education. In the mid 1990s, there were problems of overcrowding and dilapidated school buildings in the Bronx. A group of parents toured the building and identified the problems. This group then held rallies, press conferences, and met with federal officials to discuss the importance of funds directed towards school facilities. Not only did the community work to change the schools in the Bronx, the students joined in the effort. They identified problems associated with overcrowding: increased violence, apathy among teachers and students, and tense relationships between teachers and students. A new school called the Leadership Institute was created. This school would focus on leadership and community action as a part of its curriculum. Two community organizations, instrumental in securing resources to make the school a reality, highlighted the importance of the community and school accountability to the community. These organizations worked to achieve traffic safety improvements, improvements in bathrooms and cafeterias, metal detector policies and greater communication between the school and the parents.

The Harlem Children’s Zone project (HCZ), under the guidance of Geoffrey Canada was established to offer programs in education, social services and community building. This organization was formed in 1970 and has addressed such issues as parenting, health, 10

crime and poverty. The programs established dealt with asthma, obesity, and parenting lessons. Parents are taught how to discipline their children and the importance of reading.

This organization, with Canada as the President and CEO, works to promote education while breaking the poverty cycle. The Harlem Children’s Zone has helped approximately 21,000 people, including parents and children. Some of the results include: (a)100% of third graders at Promise Academies I and II tested at or above grade level on the math exam, outperforming their peers in New York State, New York City, District 5, and black and white students throughout the state. (b) Over 98% of Promise Academy II's students scored at or above grade level on the math exam, outperforming their counterparts in New York State, New York City and District 5, as well as black and white students in New York State (c) 99.2% of high school after-school program participants (262 of 264) stayed in school. (d) 499 HCZ after-school program participants enrolled in college. (d) 197 students were accepted into college for the 2009-2010 year, representing 90% of our high-school seniors.

In Chicago, 2005, the public schools partnered with The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). They created a program in the state to train teachers who live in the communities that faced hardship. This “grow your own” (GYO) project involved the community, university leaders, school district officials and the teachers’ union. The purpose was to train people from the community where schools are hard to staff. These people would identify with the problems that already exist and then work to eliminate those problems. This program focused on preparing teachers to work in low-income communities while also establishing a role for parents and community members to work to improve the schools. ACORN was able to secure funds to improve facilities and to support the GYO program. ACORN has been committed to help the community to improve teacher preparation, placement and retention. In 2008, Action Now, an independent community organization has taken over the work ACORN had previously done.

In South Los Angeles, the Community coalition, focused on the problems facing the district with an organized political action plan. The coalition discovered that the schools offered many classes in preparing students for low-wage jobs rather than college preparation. The coalition’s youth leaders collected data from each of the high schools regarding the master schedule. One student found that at his school, there were 9 11

cosmetology classes, but only 4 chemistry classes offered. The student leaders also discovered that large numbers of students dropped out of high school, while those that remained lacked the requirements to attend college. The coalition took this information to a larger coalition – Communities for Education Equity (CEE). The organization campaigned for change. The CEE was instrumental in getting the Los Angeles school board to pass resolutions that would mandate college prep courses. The CEE continues to work with the school district. The coalition was able to contribute to greater educational opportunities and raising the district’s accountability to the community. The students that were involved in bringing the changes to fruition were on their way to becoming community leaders.

In 1983, a foundation was created in the Jefferson County school district in Colorado.

This district is the largest in Colorado serving approximately 84,000 students. This foundation was formed to raise money and fund projects that the school district was unable to fund. The foundation gets its support from corporations, businesses and individuals that support public education. This past school year the Jefferson Foundation focused on closing gaps of achievement and increasing graduation rates. The organization has given more $8.5 million to support the schools and community in the county.

Initiatives include backpacks filled with supplies for those in need, “Lights on After School” (LOAS) which allows for extended learning opportunities, Literacy Initiative, mini-grants for teachers and a scholarship funded by employees of the district.

Each of these case studies has utilized the strengths of the community to aid the school districts when funds were lacking. Large school districts were able to take great strides through the support of community organizations that were able to identify the problem and then work to find a viable solution for that particular district.

Those Who Support Expansion of Communities’ Role in Education Say: 

Community organizations are able to utilize their voice to call for change with political officials; collaborative initiatives build common ground.



Community organizations have the ability to fundraise for specific programs that would help the students achieve.



The community has an interest in improving the quality of life that, in turn, leads to improved schools.

12



Support from local businesses and corporations can lead to

expanded

opportunities for students in schools and in the community. 

The community organization can be instrumental in gaining supplies for the schools.

Those Who Oppose Expansion of Communities’ Role in Education Say: 

The community organization that has been the driving force for change may expect a controlling voice in the schools.



The community may not understand the specific needs of the school.



The community may require accountability from the school leaders and teachers.



There is a risk of politicizing the educational process.

Trade-offs: 

Community involvement and support for the schools is so valuable that it is worth sharing some of the policy decision-making in the running of the schools with the community leaders



The nature and extent of community support for the schools should be welcomed so long as the community responds to the school leaders guidelines and maintains respectful interaction on prioritizing developments.

A Tough Problem to Tackle Public education remains the experience of over three fourths of American children. The question of who should be responsible for education – parents, the federal, state or local governments – has implications for students and our nation. As Thomas Jefferson so aptly noted over two centuries ago, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be.”

13