Inequalities in School Funding

Inequality in public school funding facilitates substandard education for students all across the country. "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education." -Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954. Currently, forty states are engaged in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state public school funding. Although some Americans may not recognize the consequences of funding inequities in our country, most believe that students have a better chance at success in a well-funded school. Although several factors may affect educational inequality in the American public school system, funding inequity is the most detrimental as it deprives impoverished children of quality educators, computer equipment and safe facilities, and competitive academic courses to prepare them for college and beyond-- all of which are vital to the academic success of our children.

Some who oppose school funding equity assert that spending levels in public schools do not control learning. Robert W. Jewell conducted a comprehensive analysis of Missouri public schools to study the equal-spending argument and presented this information to the American Education Finance Association in 2008. In his argument, Jewell contends, "in Missouri, as in the Nation, as in almost every study which has been conducted on the question, the relationship between educational spending and student achievement remains breathtakingly insignificant" (2008, p.4). Jewell elaborates his point, stating that although it may seem on the surface that one student is receiving less money than the other, this difference is a reflection of the cost of living, which varies by location even within the same state.

"There are large variations in the costs of providing public education within Missouri. In some parts of the state, a dollar's worth of education costs 80 cents, in other parts, $1.20. With these variations, a per-pupil expenditure of $3,200 in one district and $4,800 in another appear quite different, when, in fact, those dollar amounts purchase about the same amounts of public education for each student" (Jewell, 2008, p.2).

Jewell goes further to say those in favor of educational funding equalization do not want to entrust the officials, elected by the people, with the power of public education funding. Jewell claims that some Americans would rather place the responsibility in the hands of the court and opinions of universities, essentially making public education non-public. Instead of getting to the true source of inequalities in American public schools, the movement for equalization would rather rest their case on measuring school district spending alone (2008, p.8). Despite the opposition's view on equalizing public school funding, several statistics refute the claim that spending levels do not control quantity and/or quality of education in American public schools.

Lawsuits challenging inequalities in state public education funding have increased since the 1970's (Jewell, 2008). Of the forty states entangled in these lawsuits, the plaintiff's argument has been upheld by the court, or the suit is still pending, in over 31 states (Berliner and Biddle, 2011, p.14). According to www.schoolfunding.info, the only ten states that are not currently involved in public school funding litigation are: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin (2011).

On May 2, 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's decision asserting the separation of powers doctrine prevented the lower court from considering the plaintiff's claims that children throughout the state are being denied their constitutional right to a quality education. Regardless of the separation of powers doctrine, which is a checks and balances system put into place within our government, both federal and state, to insure one branch does not have complete power, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled these issues as suitable to be heard in a court of law. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the constitutional language of the State of Indiana imposes a duty on the State to provide an education that equips students with the skills and knowledge to become productive members of society. The Court of Appeals reiterated their ruling by saying that mere competence in the basics, such as reading, writing, and math, is insufficient in the 21st century to insure public school students are fully prepared for the world around them. The Court of Appeals continues their argument by stating that exposure to social, economic, scientific, technological and political realities of today's society is vital for students to compete and contribute to society and the world economy. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the lower court and remanded back to the court for re-trial (Bonner v. Daniels, 885 N.E.2d 673 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)). The Indiana Court of Appeals cited decisions of sister states to reach their conclusion. In general, many State Courts are beginning to realize that those students who attend schools in which funding is inadequate or unequal to their counterparts run the risk of not being fully prepared for the social and economic challenges they face as adults.

Gross inequities in educational funding affect the ability to employ quality educators. Berline and Biddle (2011) proclaim that large disparities in student achievement appear to be directly related to differing levels of teacher qualifications. According to Jones et al. (2011), when compared to an average teacher, a high-performing teacher at the 84th percentile produces students with higher levels of achievement by the end of the school year and can have a substantial impact on the future of a student's success (p.21). Jones et al. go on to say that school districts who are unable to attract better educators, because they lack the funds to do so, run a higher rate of substandard academic achievement among their students (2011). The most significant findings across states show "school districts in rural locations, in conditions of high poverty and low achievement in math, were staffed with the lowest paid teachers, with lower percentages of graduate education" (Jones et al., 2011, pp. 23-24). Haycock and Peske (2006) add, "despite clear evidence that brand-new teachers are not as effective as they will eventually become, students in high poverty and high-minority schools are disproportionately assigned to teachers who are new to the profession" (p.2).

According to Haycock and Peske (2006), those children in need of the strongest teachers are often given less experienced, less educated, and less skilled teachers instead. Rather than organizing the educational system to match up our disadvantaged students