edu 584 school business n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
EDU 584 School Business PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
EDU 584 School Business

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

EDU 584 School Business - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

EDU 584 School Business. Session 1. Agenda. Course Overview and Current Issues Legal Foundation of School Finance Adequacy and Equity Case Study and Counterpoint Pages 18-19 “Money and Schools” Case Study and Counterpoint Pages 66-68 “Money and Schools” Assignments.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EDU 584 School Business' - shaeleigh-newman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
  • Course Overview and Current Issues
  • Legal Foundation of School Finance
  • Adequacy and Equity
  • Case Study and Counterpoint Pages 18-19 “Money and Schools”
  • Case Study and Counterpoint Pages 66-68 “Money and Schools”
  • Assignments
activator current issues
Activator-Current Issues
  • Read the example current issues and identify the key points that relate to the crisis public education faces
    • Furloughs and Hawaii’s Public Schools
    • Yawning Deficits Put Public Sector Workers in the Crosshairs
edu 584 assignments
EDU 584 Assignments
  • Article Review Presentation-Study Team
  • Interviews (2) Individual
  • Budget Topic Presentations Study Team
  • Budget Case Study Presentation Study Group
  • Budget Project Individual
state system 1992 20101
State System 1992-2010
  • This system is based on three components:
    • Limits on annual growth in district revenues and spending, based on budgets from the 1992-93 school year
    • Restrictions on teacher bargaining rights, resulting in a dampening of wage increases
    • An initial boost in state aid, to hold down local property taxes and give additional resources to districts with limited property wealth
funding schools
Funding Schools
  • The tenth amendment of the US Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states
school funding
School Funding
  • The federal constitution is silent on the direct role of the federal government in education so by default education has become a state responsibility
funding schools1
Funding Schools
  • Each state has chosen to provide aid for schools to some extent. The effect has depended on several factors:
    • Relies on the wealth of each school districts and in most instances states have tried to equalize school spending
    • Amount of federal aid flowing to a given state
    • Operation of political philosophies that have driven the design of state aid formulas
    • Force of law as illustrated by the school funding lawsuits
funding schools2
Funding Schools
  • Article 10 of the Wisconsin Constitution
    • Public education is a state function
    • State guarantees a basic educational opportunity to each student
    • State has an obligation to contribute to local schools

How do you define “Local Control”

funding schools3
Funding Schools
  • Local Control:Long held belief that local communities should control the education of school-aged youth
    • Educational spending decision were based solely on the amount of money that each district had available and how local officials wanted to spend it
funding schools4
Funding Schools
  • 1885: State legislatures added clauses in their constitutions that clarified the state’s role in maintaining a public system of schooling
  • From than forward the fiscal responsibility for funding public education was shared between the state and local taxpayers
funding schools5
Funding Schools
  • The more a state commits itself to equity in the provision of education, the more it will have to eliminate local control
funding schools6
Funding Schools
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
    • Court ruled that no child, regardless of race or national origin, will be deprived equal protection of the laws under the 14th Amendment
    • Mandated schools to provide equitable offerings to all students and set in motion an even greater fiscal responsibility of states for education
funding schools7
Funding Schools
  • Brown continued:
    • States designed funding formulas to collect and distribute money to districts in an equitable way
    • Ability to finance public education was heavily tied to the collection of assessable property values
    • Contributions differed according to the wealth of the community
funding schools8
Funding Schools
  • Equity
    • Means fairness, impartiality, even handedness
    • Each child receives the same benefit from the state’s educational efforts or at least the same opportunity to benefit
    • Equality of Opportunity has proven frustratingly difficult to define
funding schools9
Funding Schools
  • There is a fundamental contradiction between the notion that the state should ensure all its children an equitable education and the long standing American belief in local control
funding schools10
Funding Schools
  • Point-counterpoint on page 66-67
  • Case Study on Funding Achievement on pages 18-19
funding schools11
Funding Schools
  • Equality of opportunity
    • The most basic issue of whether equality of opportunity should be evaluated with reference:
      • Inputs: similar courses, equally qualified teachers
      • Outcomes: graduation rates, test scores
funding schools12
Funding Schools
  • The legal answer is that as long as state constitutions place the ultimate responsibility for education with the state, the state has a legal duty to ensure that education is equitably provided to all its children
funding schools13
Funding Schools
  • McInnis v. Shapiro (1969)
    • Plaintiffs claimed the state’s system to finance education was inequitable in that it allowed great discrepancies in expenditures and did not distribute funds on the educational needs of the districts
    • Court ruled: “need standard is impossible for judicial measurement or implementation due to a lack of manageable standards”
    • “the fourteenth amendment does not require that public school expenditures be made only on the basis of pupils’ educational needs”
funding schools14
Funding Schools
  • Askew v. Kirk (1971)
    • The plaintiffs, Florida students and taxpayer, claimed that state imposed tax rate limits disproportionately restricted educational opportunities in poor districts by limiting public school revenue, thus exaggerating inequities of educational expenditures
funding schools15
Funding Schools
  • Serrano v. Priest (1971)
    • Plaintiffs challenged the school funding program in California and provided the courts with the manageable standards missing in McInnis and Buruss.
    • Established the principle of fiscal neutrality under which states may not make the quality of a child’s education dependent on the wealth of the child’s school district
    • The court declared education as a constitutional protected fundamental right and wealth as a suspect classification. This mandated strict scrutiny and the state must provide a compelling interest to justify the state action or law
funding schools16
Funding Schools
  • San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
    • The plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate that inter-district inequalities were a result of state law and that by using property tax as a revenue source wealthy districts could raise more revenue with less effort.
    • In the opinion of the court the plaintiffs were receiving a poor education, but they were not being denied an education entirely.
    • The court struck down the notion that education is a fundamental right and concluded that the Texas system of school finance did not operate to the disadvantage of a suspect class
    • The opinion broke sharply with Serrano and chief Justice Warren’s opinion in Brown by explaining that education is no more important than many other services provided by the state and is therefore not a fundamental interest
funding schools17
Funding Schools
  • Plaintiffs who brought finance litigation to the courts claimed that discrepancies in funding and resources resulted in differences in educational quality and therefore did not create systems that were “thorough, efficient, uniform, or of high quality.
  • 17 states had the constitutionality of their school finance systems challenged
    • Arkansas, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming had their systems found to be unconstitutional and were required by the court to change the financing structure
funding schools18
Funding Schools
  • Rose v. The Council of Better Education (1989)
    • The court held that the Kentucky legislature through its school finance plan, did not meet it obligations as stated in the state constitution, to provide an “efficient” school system
    • The court found that education was a fundamental right in Kentucky
    • This is a landmark case in school financing adequacy and equity cases
school funding1
School Funding
  • Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby
    • It is the duty of the state to establish and make suitable provision for support and maintenance of an “efficient” system of public schools
    • District must have substantially equal access to similar revenues per pupil at similar levels of tax effort
    • The court held that there was an implicit link between efficiency and equality
funding schools19
Funding Schools
  • DeRolph v. State of Ohio
    • Plaintiffs claimed that the system of funding was so inadequate and unequal that it violated the state constitution
    • The court ruled that the financing system violated the state constitutional provisions requiring an “efficient” system of common schools
    • This decision established a system which included that the facilities be in good repair and that they have supplies and materials and funds necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe manner
funding schools20
Funding Schools
  • Vincent, et al v. Voight
    • Court concluded that the system in Wisconsin more effectively equalizes the tax base differential among school districts, did not violate the uniformity mandate and did not deny Wisconsin school children equal protection
    • As a result of the Vincent case the Wisconsin Supreme Court established a New Educational Standard
wisconsin educational standards
Wisconsin Educational Standards
  • “An equal opportunity for a sound basic education is one that will equip students for their roles as citizens and enable them to succeed economically and personally”
  • The legislature defines the standard as “the opportunity for students to be proficient in mathematics, science, reading, and writing, geography and history, and for them to receive instruction in the arts and music, vocational training, social sciences, health, physical education, and foreign language, in accordance with their age and aptitude”
school funding2
School Funding
  • Scott v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1994)
    • Advocates of school finance reform maintained that using the local property tax as a major source of revenue was unfair because of the disparity in both taxable wealth and educational costs from district to district
    • Court concluded that the state’s system of financing schools had created numerous inequities between wealthy and poorer school districts, yet ruled in favor of the defendants
    • The court ruled that “an efficient system” does not require substantial “equality” and the state had no obligation to fund public schools equally beyond the level that ensured minimum educational standards
funding schools21
Funding Schools
  • Legal challenges to education finance have focused on four basic legal questions:
    • Does the operation of a finance system that creates unequal educational opportunities represent a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
    • Is public education a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny
    • Are the revenue formulas based on wealth thus representing a suspect classification
    • Do these systems violate the provisions of the state constitution requiring a thorough and adequate education
funding schools22
Funding Schools
  • Courts have shifted from “equity” to “adequacy” of funding and from issues of race to issues of wealth
funding schools23
Funding Schools
  • Adequacy: Education offered to some or all of the state’s children meets the standard of quality stated or implied by the state’s constitution
adequate education litigation and education reform
Adequate Education-Litigation and Education Reform
  • 1. Education that prepares the student to: function productively as capable voters, jurors and civic participants and compete effectively in the economy
  • 2. Types of knowledge and skills
  • 3. Essential resources students need to acquire this knowledge and skills
funding schools24
Funding Schools
  • Adequacy pushes districts to determine funding on the basis of how much money it takes to reach a specific result
  • Adequacy permits districts to concentrate both on inputs (number of teachers and supplies) and on outputs (dropout rates, test scores)
funding schools25
Funding Schools
  • The No Child Left Behind Act may move in the direction of a federal “right to an education”
  • The congress might take action that gives rise to a federal “right to education” This would be a bill that requires states to prove they adequately fund schools and school systems
funding schools26
Funding Schools
  • Point-counterpoint on page 18
  • Case Study on pages 67-68
funding schools27
Funding Schools
  • Most current discussions on school finance reform is motivated by politics, by taxes, and by the deteriorated condition of the state’s balance sheet
  • Educational Adequacy is guided by educational needs. If the cost of achieving educational standards is too expensive, then either the standards must be lowered or a long-term plan adopted for gradually obtaining the needed funds.
  • Educational adequacy creates links among spending, educational goals, and the resources needed to attain those goals.
  • Educational adequacy has built-in accountability, because it links funding to student performance.
funding schools28
Funding Schools
  • Plaintiffs have turned to state courts and state constitutions for relief. The lawsuits address three main questions:
    • Is there a state constitutional right to an adequate education?
    • If so, how is that right defined?
    • What is the remedy?

See module for examples of litigation

funding schools29
Funding Schools
  • The most powerful obstacle in the path of school finance reform is “Money”
  • 1. Read Chapters 3 Individual
  • 2. Discuss Case Study and Point/Counterpoint at the end of Chapters 3 Study Group
  • 3. Read and Discuss Case Study “Financial Crisis” Study Group
  • 4. Schedule Interviews (2) Individual
  • 5. Read Supplementary Article Assigned and be prepared to discuss with cohort (Study Group)
  • 6. Begin to prepare finance topic presentation Study Group