SCHOOL FINANCE

School Funding Reflective Paper Cathie McClellan University of the Pacific

SCHOOL FINANCE On Wednesday, 14 November 2013, our facilitation team (Fawaz Alzoubi, Kyle Harkness, and Cathie McClellan) covered the paper by Baker and Corcoran (2012), which is a report on educational funding systems in 6 exemplar states. The states were chosen for the study based on data from the U.S. Census Bureaus Public School Finance Survey, through which they were identified as having more regressive school finance systemsthat is, states with the greatest imbalance in revenues available to both low- and high-need school districts (Baker and Corcoran 2012). The assertion of the report is that the convoluted and byzantine

legally mandated systems for raising school funding inevitably lead to inequalities in education itself. The authors further assert that the greatest inequality comes from school funding raised by local property taxes, as opposed to non-property revenue from other sources such as federal and state budgets, investment income, and donations, for example. The authors break the paper into two chapters. The first chapter is How State Aid Formulas Undermine Educational Equity in States; and the second is The Role of Local Revenues in Funding Disparities Across School Districts. The bias of the writers is evidenced in the full title of the paper The Stealth Inequities of School Funding, How State and Local School Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending, but if you somehow miss the title page, the conclusion of the paper is well-established in reading the chapter headings; there are no surprises in the text of the report. It is easy to conclude that the authors are strong proponents of a more liberal and equitable (as they term it: progressive) funding system, although they admit they dont have an actual formula in mind to replace existing systems. The chief advantage of the paper is in the thorough explanations given of complex systems for financing education and the horribly classist, if not purposely racist, results, as exemplified in the chosen states.

SCHOOL FINANCE

Our methodology followed the protocols used in the class previously. The team members read the article individually. Fawaz was the first to present a division of labor in the presentation; Kyle and I concurred. Each of us prepared an outline for our portion of the presentation, and Kyle placed them on a thumb drive to show using the classroom projector as well as printed out the handout for class members. The power point presentation drafted by Fawaz and me and Kyles additional information are attached at the end of this paper. (Please note that Table 12, from Baker & Corcoran (2012) was appended as the second page of the class handout, and was implanted in the PowerPoint presentation in the slide as designated.) As a team, we all felt that the information in the paper was dense and technical, and that trying to present the statistics verbally to the class would be less effective than class members taking time on their own to study the paper more intensively, especially within the tighter than usual time constraints operating that evening (there was another team facilitating the discussion of Reform Implementation and Turnaround Schools). Additionally, given that our paper had a national focus, Kyle wanted to bring information specific to school financing in California to the mix in order to round out the discussion. The result was that Fawaz covered Chapter 1, I covered Chapter 2, and Kyle covered the new material relating to California educational financing. For an activity, Kyles intent was to challenge the class members, based on the paper and our presentation, to draft a proposal for a more equitable way for California to finance education. The class members entered into the discussion enthusiastically. We have several class members who are already involved in K-12 education in California, including one who is currently a school principal, and some have children attending school in California, all of which made the discussion very pertinent. I must admit, however, that Kyles hope of coming

SCHOOL FINANCE up with a radical re-envisioning of school funding was not achieved. Various systems were proposed by one class member or the other only to be rejected by critique from yet another class member. The proposals were all variations on or derived from the systems described by Baker and Corcoran, and the objections mirrored the difficulties and resulting inequities pointed out by those authors. It is true that we were rank beginners regarding school finance, having completed only a single reading on the subject, so it is also true that our level of sophistication regarding concepts and options was low. I found it interesting, however, that

even those with a vested interest in the topic and considerable real-life experience were unable to come up with even a single new idea. It was an eye-opening exercise in political reality and though Kyle did not achieve the result of his dreams, I thought the activity was successful. What are the implications of this topic for the future, or for future leaders? I believe that one important outcome must be awareness of just how difficult it is to legislate morality. I hold many personal beliefs regarding the responsibility of society as a whole to protect and educate children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth or family. I do hold us all collectively responsible to actively assist in feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, caring for the young, and by extension, educating everyone, but especially children. To me these are moral imperatives. But the practical and pragmatic side of me recognizes the impossibility of conquering social and economic causes for social inequality within my own lifetime, much less in any foreseeable future. Perhaps the efficacy of studying topics such as school funding lies in the potential for us to talk to someone else who may be, or may talk to someone else who will become the person or member of a group of people who finally find the right way to fix this. Overall, I was pleased with how the presentation was given and how the class members responded to it. I believe that Fawaz and I did well in distilling the information in the paper

SCHOOL FINANCE

into the important points. I really respect the additional work that Kyle did in order to complete his presentation on California school funding. I cannot see that anything crucial was left out, and I believe that the other class members agreed with our choice of main points. This is my second facilitation assignment for the course, and we used the same method of working that my last team did, with equally satisfying results. I have no reason to believe that a different way of working would have produced significantly better results. Although I did not bring this up during our presentation, due to time constraints as a consequence of having two teams facilitating that night, I also found myself interested in the publishers of the paper: the Center for American Progress (CAP). The Center is a liberal think tank, focused on progressive public policy research, headquartered in Washington, D.C., created in 2003, and dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action (americanprogress.org). An article in the November 2008 Time magazine claimed that no one group has held so much sway with an administration since the Reagan era in 1981 (Sherer 2008). The groups chief areas of focus at this time are climate (through a daily global warming blog Climate Progress, edited by Joseph J. Romm); ThinkProgress, a blog edited by Judd Legum which is a forum for progressive ideas and policies; education reform and privatization, which is a proponent of charter initiatives and alternate certification for teachers; Generation Progress, a campus movement which supports conversation on issues such as student debt, access to higher education, affirmative action, and the death penalty, to name a few; and green jobs. They also share staffing and a physical address with an advocacy sisterorganization called the American Progress Action Fund. The Center has steadfastly refused to disclose it contributors (Smith and Frates 2008, Savage 2008), and has engaged in hostile smear campaign tactics against political conservatives and policies to which it is opposed.

SCHOOL FINANCE While this is considered part and parcel with the way things are done in American politics these days, I am troubled by the context it presents for the paper that is the subject of this discussion. The authors, in their conclusion, refer to their report as a potentially important step toward greater equity in local spending. (Baker and Corcoran 2012). Any reader would then infer that the intent of the writers and therefore of the sponsoring organization (in the absence of any disclaimer to the contrary) is to support such equity and encourage alterations in the way schools are financed. However, CAP is known for its procharter schools stance and anti-teachers union leanings. Therefore, the purpose of the paper, the use to which it might be put, is suspect. I admit that I cannot see any obvious malfeasance

in the writing or the statistics, and without a great deal of prior knowledge or intensive research on my part it is unlikely that I would be able to discern any hidden agenda or incorrect reporting. Nonetheless, this possible conflict of interest or intent makes my brain itch, and my research into the Center makes me suspicious and less inclined to trust the article. Which is sad, but which again is so much a part of our world today that it isnt actually all that surprising.

SCHOOL FINANCE

SCHOOL FINANCE

SCHOOL FINANCE

SCHOOL FINANCE

10

SCHOOL FINANCE References Baker, B. D., & Corcoran, S. P. (2012). The Stealth Inequities of School Funding: How State

11

and Local School Finance Systems Perpetuate Inequitable Student Spending. Center for American Progress. Sherer, Michael (November 21, 2008). Inside Obamas Idea Factory in Washington, Time. Retrieved November 20, 2013. Smith, B. & Frates, C. (December 9, 2008). Wheres transparency of Podesta group? Politico.com. Retrieved November 20, 2013.