Trends in Educational Funding - Public Schools: Where Does The Money Come From?, Public Financial Support Of Education, Public Schools: Where Does The Money Go?

Few Americans would argue against the desirability of a publicly funded education for every child. In fact, most state constitutions guarantee an education, and they use phrases like "equal," "appropriate," "uniform," and "thorough and efficient" to describe the type of education every child should receive.

Despite the loftiness of the states' intentions, there have always been inequities in the funding of public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court took a stand with Brown v Board of Education (1954), ruling that "separate but equal" schools for African-Americans were inherently unequal. Movies, books, and television programs with titles like Blackboard Jungle, Dangerous Minds, and Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools, graphically depict the problems faced by the large numbers of children who attend America's poorest schools.

Fair-minded people asked: Was it just or appropriate for some children to attend schools that resembled country clubs, while poor children settled for so much less? Lawsuits were filed on behalf of poor students, demanding fairness in the taxation system used to support education. It began with California's Serrano v Priest (1971), in which the high court ruled that a child's access to public education could not be based on the wealth of his or her parents. By 2000 poor school districts in more than 40 states had challenged the constitutionality of their states' school financing system. The lawsuits are still being filed and fought. State courts say repeatedly that education is the duty of the state and legislatures must find ways to make sure every child has an equal chance at an adequate education.

Bob Chase, President, National Education Association, describes the issue this way: "That some children are more equal than others in American public schools is an abomination, a national disgrace, and an ugly pustule on democracy's fair visage."¹

In theory, equal educational opportunity sounds like the American way. But what about parents who want more than what the states are willing to provide? Should they be allowed to spend their own money to make their childrens' schools better? One such parent, novelist John Irving, calls legislation to equalize education funding "Marxism." "It's leveling everything by decimating what works… It's that vindictive 'We've suffered, and now we're going to take money from your kid and watch you squirm.'"²

In the panels that follow, we will look at how our schools are funded and where the money goes. We will look at the issue of whether schools allocate their funds wisely. We will examine Americans' willingness to tax themselves to pay to educate their own children versus the unknown child in some other part of the state.

Americans have always regarded education as important, whether it was for the purpose of teaching people how to think, for the survival of democracy, or for the productivity of the economy. Throughout American history there has been an emphasis on providing at least a rudimentary education for the poor.

Education used to be a parental responsibility. As society became more complex, education became a local responsibility. When the public perceived a failure of the education system to meet the increasing demands placed on it, with test scores falling or flat, remedies were sought. A major shift in education funding resulted in the second half of the twentieth century, with state and federal governments playing an increasingly larger role in support of schooling. This is evident in state equalization efforts and in federal programs for the poor such as Title I, Head Start, and after-school programs. We will close this chapter with a look at trends in preprimary education and funding for Head Start and latchkey programs.