In the United States, we believe in equality of opportunity for all Americans.
This idea is unfortunately idealistic and vague.
How does one define equality of opportunity? It is undeniable that certain children are born with great advantages over others. These advantages could include natural intellectual, athletic, or creative capacities, the wealth and status of their family, or the quality of their education.
Today, we will focus on education. This post will address how public schools are funded and whether they are providing children an equal education.
School budgets and the ways they are financed vary from state to state and school district to school district. According to EducationWeek.org, generally, states use a combination of income taxes, corporate taxes, sales taxes, and fees to provide about 48% of the budget for elementary and secondary schools. Local districts contribute around 44%, drawn mostly from local property taxes. The federal government provides for about 8% of state education budgets.
Because local funding is so important for public education, the amount of money particular schools receive tends to vary dramatically, depending largely on property values. Less wealthy communities are not able to raise as much money for schools as wealthier districts, leaving their children at a considerable disadvantage. Variation is also seen at the state level. According to the recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics, the average state spending per pupil ranged from a high of $11,572 in New York to a low of $3,886 in Utah.
The higher the share of funding that states provide for education, and the more states target that money, the better the chances for increasing equity in the system.
Court battles have repeatedly determined that states are responsible for all education spending and that even when their funding is simply a minor supplement to local budgets, states should not allow one district to spend vastly more than another.
Let’s shift the discussion to Pennsylvania specifically.
In 2005, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania commissioned a study to determine how much it costs to provide a quality education for every child in Pennsylvania. The study found that $21.63 billion dollars would be necessary
to educate all students in a manner that prepared them to meet state standards. Yet the state was only spending $17.25 billion.
In 2008, Pennsylvania adopted a funding formula stipulating a baseline funding level for all school districts on a per student level. The funding formula provided extra funds on top of the base to help districts meet added cost factors such as the number of students in poverty or who don’t speak English, district size, and cost of living differences. The formula provided extra state funds to low-wealth districts to ensure that poor communities received sufficient funds.
In 2011, a billion dollar cut to state education funding was accompanied by legislation that also eliminated the 2008 education funding formula. The cuts caused property taxes to rise and educational opportunities for students suffered. Since the formula was scrapped, the funding gap among districts has risen to an all-time high.
If students from less wealthy districts do not receive the same quality of education that those in wealthy districts do, how can we in good faith espouse equality of opportunity? Education is vital to a person’s financial, personal, and intellectual success. We must ensure, through policies like the fair funding formula, that students are given equal access to educational resources.
jeb6596 says
I definitely agree that education is not equal across the board in our country, and it is an important issue to discuss. The amount of funding given to each district can positively or negatively affect a child’s future and how successful they are in the world. Seeing how Pennsylvania did not spend enough to properly educate students as well as the cut in funding to state education is concerning and should be addressed. You are right in saying that there is no equality in opportunity if there is no equality in education.
nbb5449 says
Why did the school education budget cut subsequently affect the funding ratio? It seems like in the terms of “providing equal opportunities for all children” (at least to the best a state fairly can) it makes sense to have a bottom level budget that all districts should have, therefore decreasing the inequity. It seems strange to me that as part of the cut, they would revert on their legislation made years prior that attempted to help children from empirically poorer districts. Was there unforeseen consequences of the funding ratio?
szk6258 says
There will always be a difference in equality of opportunity, simply due to the differences in peoples innate ability. To me it is about minimizing that difference. Somebodies being born into wealth should not make a difference in where they could end up, thus causing a difference in opportunity. I agree that students need to be receiving similar levels of education. This issues is extremely apparent in our own society, especially when you look at the acceptances in top schools. Going to a wealthier district exponentially increases the chances of you getting into one of the coveted top 20 schools. At the end of the day changes need to be made.