RunningHead:UNEQUALFUNDING 1

Unequal Funding for Public Education: Inability to Learn or Inability to Pay?

Julie McCorkindale
First Colonial High School
Legal Studies Academy
December 15, 2016
UNEQUALFUNDING 2

Abstract

This paper will outline the disparity between the quality of education received by low-income

students in comparison to the quality of education received by higher-income students. It offers a

direct thesis recognizing the concern of unequal funding for education. It will introduce the

background of education reform and its three different waves. Then, the paper will continue to

describe funding at three distinct levels: federal, state, and local. It will provide a comparison

between education financing in the state of Virginia and California including the laws regarding

funding in both. This paper will emphasize the impact school funding has on academic

achievement and will include an argument against the opposing viewpoint that there is no

correlation between student success and educational funding. Additionally, it offers court cases

relating to the topic of unequal funding and provides an analysis for each case mentioned. The

paper will conclude referring back to essential points made throughout the specific sections and

subsections.

Keywords: quality, unequal funding, student success

Unequal Funding for Public Education: Inability to Learn or Inability to Pay?

The driving force behind modern-day America is equal opportunity. Regardless of race,

gender, or income, students across the country expect that the quality of their education is equal

to that of all other students. The young generations that will represent the future of this nation

never thought that education had a price tag. Students believe that the knowledge gained from

their education is dependent on the efforts they invest, not their family's wages. They think that
UNEQUALFUNDING 3

the more they strive for success, the greater their chances are of achieving that degree of success.

Inequity among educational funding degrades one childs education, while benefitting another.

This leaves one child struggling to obtain knowledge with few resources, while another student

thrives with an abundance of textbooks, effective teachers, and modern technology. The notion

that equal opportunity applies to the educational system is a consistent belief of many

Americans; however, this widespread sentiment is not yet a reality. This concept of equal

opportunity leads to aspirations for a better local community, state community, and even national

community. Providing everyone with a fair share promises equity. Equality in education is a

prominent issue which will affect future success of millions of students. The primary question

regarding the disparity between the quality of education students in low-income schools receive

compared to that of students in more affluent areas is what exactly constitutes a good or quality

education. In the current educational system, some students enjoy greater advantages than others

based on their ability to pay as opposed to their ability to learn. Unequal funding for education

places students in low-income districts at an extreme disadvantage by creating a significant

academic disparity between the educations offered to poor in comparison to more affluent

students.

Background

The inequity in the quality of education in the United States derives from the history of

educational funding. The history of education financing begins when it was determined that

school funds would come from property taxes. This is where the concept that a different home

value led to a different education originated. The issue quickly became controversial because it

meant the peoples children and taxes would be affected. The result of the problems arising from

educational funding caused major education reforms. These reforms occurred in three waves
UNEQUALFUNDING 4

("Finance," 2008). Since Americans place great importance on the system of education, reform

will continue as long as the issue of funding is not resolved.

First Wave

The first wave was the most simple with the premise that education should not be

dependent on wealth. The catalyst for this wave of reform was a report published in 1983 by

President Ronald Reagan, A Nation at Risk. Reagan provides that the average educational system

would not withstand the changing of times. The former president goes as far as to state, If an

unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational

performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. Within this

statement, he declared that education was failing, and the American public did not take this

lightly. Generally, all aspects of education were failing, and due to this report, the people were

aware of it (Graham, 2015). The widespread sentiment that education should not be dependent

on wealth led to a concern for reform that would last for decades.

Second Wave

The next wave centered around education regarding the states and their legislatures. This

period was when ideas such as fiscal neutrality, right to equal funding, and right to a quality

education were born. Fiscal neutrality is synonymous with an equal bank account, or the school

funding and factors that contribute to that funding equal out to zero. This balanced equation

would ensure that property tax was not impacting the schools funding in a significant way. Right

to equal funding is a justice that should be guaranteed to all students in the American public

school system (Journal of Law and Education, 2002). This right would grant that schools

received adequate funding based on their need so the quality of education in all schools could be

equal. This educational reform was dependent on the premise that every child does not just have
UNEQUALFUNDING 5

a right to education, but to an education of a certain quality. The decades of reform lead to

further necessity for change.

Today

Current education reform deals with the quality of teachers as well as the quality of the

requisite curriculum. Progress has not truly been made due to the unattractiveness of the issue.

According to Professor Bruce Baker at Rutgers University, It's not a sexy topic. It's dry,

technical and involves tax policy and complex distribution equations. That's a lot less

fun/interesting in policy discourse than creating choices for great schools or firing the grossly

ineffective teachers (2016). This is the reason proponents of reform have been stuck with no

advancement for such a long time. The most essential aspects of education financing that require

fixing are not the most exciting areas in which to focus. This issue is not one that makes the

headlines. Part of the reason this issue has not been advancing is that it is not necessarily

shocking. Most people realize that education breeds inequality, but no one has made an effective

impact. Some have tried to improve the system, but to no avail; however, the lack of initiative to

solve this problem does not degrade the problem itself. The students who are suffering now will

continue to struggle throughout their lives and will never comprehend the reason for such an

academic divide. The gap is only widening as funding education becomes more expensive, and

the schools who need the most are not necessarily receiving adequate funds to satisfy those

needs. The solution, such as fixing the formula in which our educational funding is based at the

state level, are not being acted on because it is tedious. The solution would not be easy. The

quick fixes people like to hear such as the firing of inefficient teachers are not necessarily fixing

the problem at its core (Baker, 2016). The realization that has not been made by the general

public is that the longer the American educational system is not fixing its issue with financing,
UNEQUALFUNDING 6

there are more students being left behind. Students are missing out on their ability to learn due

to their inability to pay. Students will grow up wondering why their education was hindered by

their socioeconomic status, and their parents will be burdened knowing their childs education

was so negatively impacted due to their low income. In conclusion, the background of education

reform has brought many advancements that have led society to where it currently stands

concerning unequal funding for public education.

Funding

The primary reason education for one student is not equivalent to that of the other is

educational funding. Funding comes from three main sources including that of federal, state, and

local ("School Finance - EdCentral," n.d.). The way that education is being financed is causing

problems with equality between states, districts, and schools themselves. The broken method for

funding was outlined by Professor Baker when he claimed the primary issue with financing is

cross district segregation by race and economic status in addition to declining financial

support for high need districts which leaves schools struggling to support their students with the

inadequate funds allocated to them (2016).

Federal

The primary focus for financing education remains on the state legislatures, not the

federal government. Consequently, 92% of funds in elementary and secondary schools come

from non-federal sources, while the remaining eight percent comes from federal aid. Educational

funds are contributed from the Department of Education as well as other federal departments

such as the Department of Health and Human Services Head Start program. These funds all

have specified purposes. This targeting reflects the historical development of the Federal role in

education as a kind of emergency response system a means of filling gaps in State and local
UNEQUALFUNDING 7

support for education when critical national needs arise ("Federal Role in Education," 2016).

The way financing is currently arranged, the federal departments are offering very little funding.

The solution for improving the financing formula does not rely as heavily on the federal source

as it does on state legislatures.

State

In regards to education, taxes such as property tax are attributed to funding. Each state

utilizes different formulas to ensure what they believe to be the most efficient method to funding

elementary and secondary education. Different methods for determining how the states will

allocate funds to schools include per pupil expenditures, need based, or based off of other

socioeconomic indicators. States additionally determine the proportion of funds that will come

from state and local sources. Some states may decide to obtain a majority of school funding from

the state, while others may choose to allocate more funds at the local level ("School Finance -

EdCentral," n.d.). The potential for great disparities in the quality of education lies in the

discretion of the states regarding funding.

Local

When states draw most of their funds for schooling from local sources, problems are

more likely to arise. Local sources obtain money for funding primarily from property tax.

Consequently, more affluent areas gain more money for education, while lower-income areas are

left with less funds toward education. The disparities caused by this distorted method of

education financing are evident between states, between districts, and even between schools

within the same district.

Comparing States

Virginia
UNEQUALFUNDING 8

In Virginia, funding from the state is derived from the General Assembly. There are many

manners in which the state obtains funds such as by retail sales and use tax revenues, state

lottery proceeds, and other sources (Education, n.d.). This is where the issue with property tax

comes in. More affluent communities can afford to give more to local schools. Local property

taxes are a primary source for k-12 education in the state of Virginia. Additionally, Virginia

collects sources for funding from localities. The greatest area in which the state is lacking when

schools do not receive appropriate funds is with hiring efficient teaching staff ("Population,

Wealth, and Property Taxes" n.d.). Virginia Code of Law provides that the Board of Education

should utilize funds for the following purposes: (i) instruction, (ii) administration, attendance

and health, (iii) pupil transportation, (iv) operation and maintenance, (v) school food services and

other noninstructional operations, (vi) facilities, (vii) debt and fund transfers, (viii) technology,

and (ix) contingency reserves (Va. Code 22.1-115). With this information, it is evident that in

places where funding is not as great, schools could potentially be lacking in one, or all, of these

areas. The necessity for education financing reform is apparent even when looking in local

school districts. Seatack Elementary serves the most students on free or reduced lunch programs

in the city. This knowledge most definitely affects the responsibility placed on the school.

Seatack Elementary provides breakfast for the students since they are aware some of the children

are not fed at home. Serving breakfast at reduced prices is not something typical for most

Virginia schools. This is one example of Seatack having to respond to their responsibility to

serve students in unfortunate circumstances. While they are primarily focused on education, they

are additionally concerned about where their students next meal will be coming from ("Low-

Income Youth," n.d.). Additionally, the students at Seatack Elementary will not be receiving the

same education as students in Alanton Elementary. Alanton is known for being a more affluent
UNEQUALFUNDING 9

area of Virginia Beach ("Best Neighborhoods" n.d.). Furthermore, Alanton Elementary receives

43.4% of its funding from the state, while Seatack Elementary receives 22.6% from state

sources. 61% of teachers at Alanton Elementary have Masters degrees, but only 48% of teachers

at Seatack have Masters degrees. This is a direct example of the effects of unequal funding on

local schools ("Alanton Elementary," n.d.; Seatack Elementary, n.d.). The state needs to alter

its formula for financing education in order to level the playing field for all Virginia Beach

Public School students. This alteration of the funding method should consist of the basic

structure of a need-weighted foundation aid formula and include changes that allow for state

aid equalized for local capacity (Baker, 2016). In short, states need to allocate funds so that

every school obtains adequate funds and most importantly that the schools who have the highest

need receive sufficient funds to meet that need.

California

California is one of the most advanced schools when it comes to funding education. The

state of California, as of this year, obtained almost half of the state budget. The local schools

decide on the budget for different resources each year ("Education Budget," 2016). Education

funding has improved drastically this past year. New revisions to the formula have led to an

increase from $47 billion to $53 billion. In addition, the control of the funds has shifted from the

state to the local school boards since localities know where the money would best fit their needs.

The new formula ensures that students who need the most funds receive them. The more

equitable system provides that All districts would receive the same base funding per student,

with supplemental dollars flowing to districts according to the proportion of their high-needs

students (Fensterwald, 2015).This state should provide an example for all other states regarding

achieving equity in education. Recently, California has set in place the The Local Control and
UNEQUALFUNDING 10

Accountability Plan (LCAP) and annual update template [which] shall be used to provide details

regarding local educational agencies (LEAs) actions and expenditures to support pupil outcomes

and overall performance (Ca. Code 15497). This state code holds that there must be specific

expenditure plans that allocate funds resulting in equity. A portion is included to require adequate

funds are given to students with high needs (Ca. Code 15497). The best quality of this states

funding formula is that it is very clear. There is nothing vague in the direct plans outlined in this

state code, while code in other states creates problems with its lack of clarity. In other states, the

problem with inadequate funding cannot be ignored. For any advancements to be made in

education, there must be money to allow for those advancements. Hiring more effective teaching

staff, and affording updated resources as well as figuring how to distribute these resources all

require a successful formula (Baker, 2016). By creating this perfected formula, the source of

funding will not be discriminatory against any students and will allow all students the

opportunity for success. Finding this solution is possible with enough proponents and the right

numbers.

Impact of School Funding on Academic Achievement

It is evident that school funding does have an impact on academic achievement.

According to Klein, an education journalist for the Huffington Post, the divide between white

students and minority students begins at a young age. By comparing white students and black

students, it was found that black students are more likely to be held back, be less literate, drop

out before earning a high school diploma, earn lower standardized test scores, and obtain higher

juvenile detention rates (2015). An aspect of unequal funding that is seldom thought over is that

the expectations for those students are lower. Minorities are regarded with lower expectations not

because they are incapable of learning, but because more often than not they are not placed in
UNEQUALFUNDING 11

environments that are the most conducive to their learning. The generations that are raising

current students are simply victim to the educational system that still has yet to be changed. Their

expectations for their children are lower than for white, more-affluent students because they were

raised at a lesser academic standard. This generational cycle represents the neverending effects of

this inequality in education. Lower expectations become self-fulfilling prophecies, contributing

to lower expectations from the student, less-positive attitudes toward school, fewer out-of-school

learning opportunities and less parent-child communication about school (Klein, 2015).

Unfortunately, the divide begins before formal education even begins. The issue begins when

children are still in their toddler years and are enrolled in lower-income day care programs that

are not offering the same benefits as other, costly pre-educational programs. The divide only

deepens when those same children enter elementary schools and are more likely to be held back

than their white classmates. Socially and academically, these students are then being hindered. In

addition, they are not gaining anything by being reinforced that they are developmentally behind

their peers. The only factor that would be worse than students receiving a lesser quality of

education due to their inability to pay for better schooling is if an increase in dropout rates was

recorded. All of these aspects of academic achievement relating to school funding provide

evidence that there is a correlation between the two (Klein, 2015).

Opposing Viewpoint

Some people believe that funding for education has no bearing on the quality of

education being received. They hold firm that a students success is directly proportional to their

efforts regardless of the resources available to them.

Individualism (Individuals effort vs. Social Circumstance)

UNEQUALFUNDING 12

Individualism is the amount of work an individual is willing to put in to achieve their

desired level of success. Social circumstance would be the amount of adequacy of resources

offered by their school based on funds. Students with the drive to learn will thrive in

environments that allow them the opportunity to do so. There are other students who may have

the will to learn and excel in school that simply cannot because of the poor resources provided to

them. Opponents of reforming educational funding for more equity passionately believe that

regardless of resources provided, it is a students efforts which determine his success and

increased funds will have little to no effect (Biddle & Berliner, 2002).

Refuting Opposing Argument

These opponents argue that it is not how much money is being allotted to schools, but it

is how the money is spent. This argument holds little validity considering that it is important how

money is spent, but there has to be money to spend in the first place. Additionally, they argue that

increased funds have not been shown to relate to any more success than in lower funded areas.

These people who see the need for education reform, but do not see funding as the main issue

refuse to recognize the data that shows the inequity among school systems. Opponents think that

it simply does not matter whether one school receives more resources than another and believe

education is highly affected by individualism and not social circumstance. Even if all schools

made the most out of the resources they had, the schools with the most resources would remain

the most successful (Baker, 2016). To look at modern education and determine that there are no

students placed at a disadvantage due to inadequate funding is nearly impossible. This disparity

is shown evident through facts and statistics emphasizing the academic failure of students in low-

income schools compared to students in higher-income schools.

Court Cases
UNEQUALFUNDING 13

Many supporters of education reform have brought to court issues about inadequacy in

the quality of education being offered. Unfortunately, these cases have not yielded great results

because the issue is not necessarily one for the courts, but instead, one for state legislatures who

make the decisions dealing with education financing.

Serrano v. Priest

Serrano v. Priest is the historical case regarding funding for public education. Serrano v.

Priest outlined the history of education reform. Wealth should not be synonymous with quality of

education, and this was the basis of the three different cases that fall under Serrano v. Priest. The

first case, named Serrano I, dealt with California's public-school, general-fund, financing

structure as a violation of equal protection because under this system per-pupil expenditures

varied greatly and depended on a school district's tax base The variation caused a gap in

education which resulted in inequalities in actual educational expenditures per pupil ("Separate

And Unequal" n.d.). Education was viewed as a right, and that right was being violated due to

the inequity. In this case, it was the first time the attention of school funding was truly brought

into the court system. The court ruled that disparities in education due to income was not

allowed, and the state began working to fix the educational funding inadequacy.

Serrano I revolutionized equal-protection analysis of wealth as a suspect classification by

extending it for the first time to government institutions, that is, school districts: "The

commercial and industrial property which augments a district's tax base is distributed

unevenly throughout the state. To allot more educational dollars to the children of one

district than to those of another merely because of the fortuitous presence of such

property is to make the quality of a child's education dependent upon the location of

private commercial and industrial establishments" (Serrano v. Priest).

UNEQUALFUNDING 14

This case is so significant because it was the first time legal actions were taken to recognize the

inequity in education funding. Serrano v. Priest is an older case from the 70s; however, the

courts ruling remains essential to modern day education reform. The thirty years since this

ruling and current reform only further provides that this issue needs to be acted on before more

and more generations of students suffer due to their familys income which truly should have no

bearing on their education.

Campaign for Quality Education

The main issue of this case is whether or not students were being denied their right to a

quality education based on California state law regarding education financing. This case was

heard in appellate court where appellants restated their premise that students are not receiving

adequate education and the current educational financing system violates sections 1 and 5 of

Article IX of the California Constitution. Their basis remains that the Constitution grants

students a right to an education of some standard. Additionally, the appellants hold that the

educational system is violating their obligation to maintain schools to a certain caliber. The court

ruled that they found no implied constitutional rights to an education of "some quality" for

public school children or a minimum level of expenditures for education, as appellants urge us to

read into sections 1 and 5 of article IX. (Campaign for Quality Education v. State of California)

This case and many proceedings like it have been unsuccessful due to the vague context in which

many state educational law is written. The complaints made dealing with students in low-income

districts who have a lower quality education are dismissed due to the lack of clarity when

defining the word quality and not expressing actual figures when addressing education finance

(Campaign for Quality Education v. State of California). Legal suits against educational
 UNEQUALFUNDING 15

institutions are not facilitating reform because the problem is not with violations of the law, but

instead with the law itself.

Conclusion

Unequal funding for public education and the disparity it causes is at the core of all other

educational concerns. Equal opportunity needs to find its place in the educational system, while

socioeconomic status needs to find its way out. The goal is to prevent an increase in students

being left behind in their education not based on their inability to learn the material, but on their

inability to pay. Every issue with the current educational system stems from inadequate funding

which stands as further proof that this issue demands a solution. Education is arguably the most

important aspect of American society and denying one child an education as valuable as another

should never occur. Education is a fundamental right granted to all American students, and it is

imperative that right is honored. Students can no longer be hindered by their inability to pay for

something as invaluable as their education.

References

Alanton Elementary. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://schoolquality.virginia.gov/schools/alanton-

elementary#fndtn-desktopTabs-finance

Baker, B. (2016). Review: Does Money Matter? Economica, 10(37), 88.

 UNEQUALFUNDING 16

Baker, B. D. (n.d.). Profile: Bruce D. Baker. Retrieved November 21, 2016, from

http://gse.rutgers.edu/bruce_baker

Barshay, J. (2015, April 13). The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade.

Retrieved from http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-schools-grew-44-

percent-over-a-decade/

Best Neighborhoods in Virginia Beach. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.movoto.com/guide/virginia-

beach-va/best-neighborhoods-in-virginia-beach/

Biddle, B. J., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, May). A Research Synthesis / Unequal School Funding in the

United States. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/may02/vol59/num08/Unequal-School-Funding-in-the-United-States.aspx

Campaign for Quality Education v. State of California (Court of Appeals of California, First District,

Division Three April 20, 2016), United States Google Scholar A134423.

Carvin, A. (n.d.). The Developmental Years: First Wave Reform. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://www.edwebproject.org/edref.1stwave.html

Connecting Older Adults with Low-Income Youth. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.thehealthjournals.com/connecting-adults-youth/

Education Budget. (2016, August 29). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fr/eb/

Education, V. D. (n.d.). School Finance. Retrieved from

http://www.pen.k12.va.us/school_finance/index.shtml

The effects of unequal school funding. (2002). Retrieved from http://www.ernweb.com/educational-

research-articles/the-effects-of-unequal-school-funding/
 UNEQUALFUNDING 17

Federal Role in Education. (2016, July 21). Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Fensterwald, J. (2015, June 9). New school funding formula to get huge increase. Retrieved from

https://edsource.org/2015/new-school-funding-formula-gets-huge-boost-in-state-budget-

plan/81128

Finance. (2008, September 5). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/finance/how-do-we-fund-our-schools/?p=197

Good School, Rich School; Bad School, Poor School. (2016). Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/property-taxes-and-unequal-

schools/497333/

Graham, E. (2015, October 26). 'A Nation at Risk' Turns 30: Where Did It Take Us? - NEA Today.

Retrieved December 10, 2016, from http://neatoday.org/2013/04/25/a-nation-at-risk-turns-30-

where-did-it-take-us-2/

Guin, K., Gross, B., Deburgomaster, S., & Roza, M. (2014, June 18). Do Districts Fund Schools Fairly?

Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/do-districts-fund-schools-fairly/

Katz, M. B. (2016, Fall). Public Education as Welfare. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/public-education-as-welfare

Klein, R. (2015, March 13). School Funding Inequality Makes Education 'Separate And Unequal,' Arne

Duncan Says. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/arne-duncan-school-

funding-disparities_n_6864866.html

Population, Wealth, and Property Taxes: The Impact on School Funding. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.virginiaplaces.org/taxes/popwealth.html
 UNEQUALFUNDING 18

R. (2010, June 24). Fiscal Neutrality. Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fiscal-

neutrality.asp

School Finance - EdCentral. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.edcentral.org/edcyclopedia/school-

finance/

Separate And Unequal: Serrano Played an Important Role in Development of School-District Policy.

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/separate-and-unequal-serrano-

played-an-important-role-in.html

Serrano v. Priest (Superior Court of the State of California 1971).

Stover, D. (n.d.). Unequal Funding for Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.asbj.com/TopicsArchive/SchoolSpending/Unequal-Funding-for-Schools.html