This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE --This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
May/June 2004

School funding: The national disgrace

by Richard Smelter

For many years now, I have leaned upon satire as the perfect form to poke fun at educational subjects that simply cry out for a comical touch. In order to pull this off, the subject must contain elements that lend themselves to a comedic approach. It is only then that readers will (hopefully) laugh.

If properly executed, satire can bite as sharply as a whip. Entire ideas can be destroyed more thoroughly by laughter than they can by direct assault.

All satirists are social reformers, under the skin. If satirical writers can solicit laughter from readers, then, in our own small way, we plant the seeds of doubt in the subjects we attack. Once the reader laughs at a particular educational issue, that reader may never again see that issue in a totally serious light.

As readers may suspect, "Gus" is often an attempted conduit for this "expanded" satire. This issue, however, is an exception. I can find nothing humorous in the school funding. Gus must be silent. There is nothing even remotely comical about shortchanging children.

Many ideas have been espoused over the years as to how the education of our state's children should be funded. Some defend the prevailing method: property tax. Others suggest formulas based on state income tax or the sales tax. Most of the proposed "cures" are as bad as the "disease," because they still result in readily demonstrable inequities on a district-to-district and - what is seldom mentioned - on a state-to-state basis.

At the core of the problem is the fact that the right to an education is not guaranteed (let alone even mentioned) in the U.S. Constitution. Thus, under the auspices of the 10th Amendment, the right to establish educational "rules and regulations" falls to the individual states.

This creates an unfortunate situation in which the educational policies of one state may differ entirely from the educational policies of its sister states ... and they often do. Different educational policies result in different funding approaches. Different funding approaches, in turn, result in different levels of excellence in educational delivery systems.

Finally, different educational delivery systems result in children being educated "differently" from state to state. The freedom of each school district within each state (with state systems such as Texas and Hawaii standing forth as exceptions) results in a further Balkanization. One can readily surmise, then, that there is probably not one single school district within the United States that is precisely similar to another.

In other words, the system is a perfect example of federalism running amok.

Following this line of logic, this presents problems for children educated in a democratic society.

If we truly believe that all of our children are equal, then they all should be treated equally, and, I suggest, "differently" is not a synonym for "equally." Any child whose education is funded by a local school district to the tune of $4,000 per year is probably not receiving an education equal to a neighboring district's child funded at $7,000 per year.

Such inequities in funding are usually the result of using local property taxes as a basis for school finances. In this manner, children of wealthy parents are virtually guaranteed a funding level superior to children of poor parents, just as children in poor communities are often restricted to state "minimal funding levels," while their more fortunate peers in wealthier communities may be funded far beyond this, hampered only by tax caps. Thus, children of the rich continually are rewarded, while children of the poor continually are deprived. This is probably not, I humbly suggest, the most democratic and egalitarian way to go.

It has become fashionable to posit the theory that educational excellence can be separated from the almighty dollar. This is nonsense, as anyone from the profession knows. It is possible, of course, to have more money than you need (e.g. if one computer per child is good, two computers per child is probably overkill), but most districts do not have this problem.

What would I suggest? I propose that:

• In a democratic society, a child's education should not relate - even remotely - to the amount of income generated by that child's parents. I am speaking here of the education offered by public schools. If the wealthy desire a superior funding level, then let them enroll their children in private schools. Differing funding levels have no place in the public school systems. This is not 14th Century Europe; we have no aristocracy.
• Unless they are enrolled in a federally designated "special needs" category that results in the necessity of additional expenditures, all children in the United States should have the same amount of funding backing their education, regardless of where they reside. Children are citizens of the United States first, citizens of the individual 50 states second and citizens of their city or town third. Children have no choice as to the state or school district where their parents live, any more than they have in the income level of their parents. Under no circumstances should they be funded differently than a similar child in a neighboring state or school district.
• Such a reality can only be the consequence of generating all school funding at the national level, probably based on a federal income tax for education. Each state would receive a federal rebate based on the number of school-age children residing in that state who are actively enrolled in the public schools. Is this socialism? No more than Social Security, Medicare, AMTRAK and a plethora of other federal endeavors.

Let's call it like it is ...

To the extent to which we fund children's education at different levels, to that extent do we treat children unequally.

To the extent to which we treat children unequally, to that extent do we violate their civil liberties vis-à-vis equal protection under the law.

To the extent to which we violate their civil liberties, to that extent are we shamed.

School funding is not a state problem; it is a national problem. So far, we've failed.

Try though he may, "Gus" can find nothing humorous in this. Go read the comics. I'll attempt to be humorous next time.