In its final report released in February, the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 Equity and Excellence Commission issued a clear and powerful charge: Efforts to improve our school system 鈥渕ust start with equity"鈥攑articularly the equity of resources. To achieve this goal, the commission, of which I was a member, instructed all levels of government to improve or redesign their methods of funding schools in order to adopt truly equitable funding systems.
In calling for equity in funding鈥攚hich the commission defines as providing sufficient resources 鈥渄istributed based on student need, not ZIP code"鈥攖he report tells policymakers the 鈥渨hat鈥� of school funding reform, laying the groundwork for improving school quality.
Missing from the report, however, is the 鈥渉ow": How should or could the federal government, states, and local districts implement this bold principle of funding equity? Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said that the report 鈥渃ompels us to act,鈥� but how should each level of government do that? Leaving it up to each level to figure out is a recipe for inaction.
Here鈥檚 what I think needs to be done. At the federal level, Congress should remedy Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act鈥檚 complex and often unfair method for allocating federal dollars to schools with children in poverty. It should follow recommendations from my organization, the Center for American Progress, on reforming Title I鈥檚 four funding formulas to create one formula that better targets schools with high concentrations of students in poverty. This honors the law鈥檚 intent of providing additional education resources for children with the greatest educational needs.
At the local level, funding inequity is found in the unequal distribution of resources among schools within the same district, with high-poverty schools often receiving less funding than their low-poverty counterparts. To address this inequity, districts need to change the way they allocate resources to schools, adopting the practice of allocating actual per-pupil dollar amounts, weighted based on the needs of students in that school. Currently, most districts allocate teacher slots to a school鈥攖hat is, one teacher for a specified number of students. Teachers are not all paid the same amount, however. Treating them as if they were paid equally masks the fact that a school with five 20-year veterans receives more dollars overall than a school with five first-year teachers.
Larger questions surround what states should do to address funding inequities between school districts. Most states have adopted funding formulas aimed at ameliorating differences in the ability of districts to raise funding from local property taxes. Property-wealthy towns are able to raise more dollars at lower tax rates than property-poor districts, leading to inequities in per-pupil funding. Yet, as the commission report points out, prior attempts to address these inequities, such as through state funding formulas, merely patch a broken system and fail to redress inequities or to produce the kind of academic achievement our children need and deserve.
The time has come to strongly consider the need for larger systematic reform of funding systems. In a chapter in the recently released book Education Governance for the Twenty-First Century: Overcoming the Structural Barriers to School Reform, I propose a 鈥渘ew鈥� approach to school funding: States should adopt a state-based system of school financing鈥攐ne in which states provide all nonfederal resources for education, and districts no longer have the power to raise funds from local property taxes.
Under such a system, all districts would receive the resources they need to educate all of their children. Funding levels would be based on the specific needs of the students and of the districts, not just the resources districts are fiscally able to raise based on local property values. Local schools and districts would be able to provide additional funding of up to 10 percent of their state allocation for local priorities and programs.
I say 鈥渘ew鈥� in quotation marks because this is almost the same proposal President Richard M. Nixon鈥檚 Commission on School Finance called for in 1972. Yet, more than 40 years later, almost no states have taken this approach, and the idea has practically fallen off the radar in school funding discussions. Hawaii and Vermont come the closest, with less than 10 percent of total funding coming from local sources. They are rarities in this country, however, and by far two of the smallest states.
I also say 鈥渘ew鈥� because this method of funding schools has been adopted in other countries; it鈥檚 just 鈥渘ew鈥� to the United States. As a paper that CAP released last week shows, three Canadian provinces, for example, have each moved from joint local-provincial school funding systems鈥攕ystems like those in most U.S. states鈥攖o provincial-level funding systems. Under such a system, the province has full responsibility for providing all funding for public schools, according to the report titled 鈥淐anada鈥檚 Approach to School Funding.鈥� The province determines the resource needs for each district and ensures the district actually receives that funding.
The time has come to strongly consider the need for larger systematic reform of funding systems.鈥�
These provinces鈥擜lberta, British Columbia, and Ontario鈥攈ave each taken a unique approach to designing their provincial-level funding systems. Alberta, for example, has set up a centralized fund into which all property-tax dollars raised for education purposes flow. These dollars are then allocated on a per-pupil basis to every district in the province. Additional funding is provided by the provincial government on top of this allotment. In contrast, in Ontario, local school districts continue to raise funding from local property taxes, but the tax rates are set by the provincial government. This allows the province to ensure that districts raise amounts consistent with the districts鈥� overall provincially determined funding needs, and not inconsistent with principles of equality and equity.
To be sure, states can certainly have equitable funding systems that continue to allow local districts to set their own tax rates and raise money from local property taxes. New Jersey and Ohio are good examples; in these states, differences in property wealth do not dictate differences in per-pupil spending, and districts with greater educational needs receive additional funding. But most states have failed in this regard, despite decades of lawsuits and so-called reform efforts. It鈥檚 time to try something else.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education鈥檚 seminal 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, warned of a 鈥渞ising tide of mediocrity鈥� in this country. I worry today that mediocrity is found as much in our legislatures as in our schools. We need bold leaders with the political strength to tackle the problems in our system and fight for the solutions we need. Adopting a state-level system of funding education is an essential element of finally providing all children with a high-quality education.
