Abstract This study was undertaken to examine the differences in school funding perceptions between Alabama school superintendents and leg...
Abstract This study was undertaken to examine the differences in school funding perceptions between Alabama school superintendents and legislators. The overarching purpose was to determine areas of agreement and disagreement so that intermediaries working with both of these groups can help public policy makers make the best education funding decisions through the legislative process. Keywords educational administration, leadership & policy, education, social sciences, general education, history & sociology of education, educational, research education, theory and practice
It was hypothesized that there would be differences between legislators and superintendents across four constructs: Equity and Adequacy, Personal Values, Political Ideology, and Social Influence. Several demographic variables were evaluated. While the study did not yield as many differences as expected, it is conclusive that important differences do exist; the results are important because school funding decision makers must find common ground to equitably and adequately fund education for every child. Introduction School finance is not a new problem in the United States nor is it a new problem in the state of Alabama. It has been in existence and evolving since the beginning of public education. During the 2004 democratic presidential primaries,
Senator John Edwards struck a chord with voters and educators when he spoke of “two Americas: one for the wealthy and privileged, another for those not so lucky” (Bartolomeo, 2004). Likewise, since the beginning of the school finance debate, researchers have found spending differences between tax-wealthy school districts and those poorer districts with limited tax capacity. Students and schools may be shortchanged in the quality of education because of the lack of financial resources. In a study of New York City schools, Bartolomeo (2004) analyzed the inequities teachers and students experienced due to the funding divide. Bartolomeo found that poorer districts in New York had higher turnover, fewer textbooks, more unsafe conditions and older buildings when compared with their wealthier counterparts elsewhere in the state.
Class sizes in the poor districts were 30 to 35 compared with the wealthier districts’ class sizes of 15 to 25. The results of this study provided evidence that a strong tax base resulted in more funding, afforded better programs, higher quality textbooks and more manageable class sizes. A similar study found that the majority of students who are classified as having the greatest needs and a higher cost to educate tend to live in poor districts (Moran, 1999). These costly students more often than not reside in property-poor districts; this creates a greater obstacle for district leaders to generate sufficient local taxes to meet their educational needs.
School finance in Alabama presents problems similar to those in other parts of the country. Many believe that current funding issues in the education system are rife with inequity and the lack of equal opportunity for students from different socioeconomic classes (Crawford, 2004). Moran (1999) attributed the lack of opportunities to the differences in funds collected by the individual school districts. These problems, while not new, remain unsolved. In Alabama, the budgeting process is spelled out in state law. Specific taxes are designated to the Education Trust Fund, which funds education in the state. These are primarily
sales tax and income tax, which both fluctuate with the state’s economy. When the economy is growing, there tends to be additional revenue. When the economy slows down, the Education Trust Fund has a hard time meeting existing financial obligations. The Alabama Education Trust Fund provides the financial resources that support the legislatively approved minimum educational programs for each district and each student throughout the state. Any additional program offered by a district that is above and beyond what the state mandates is a result of the expenditure of local tax dollars. Some districts have the potential to generate greater amounts of local taxes; therefore, they can offer enriched learning opportunities over tax poorer districts. Local school districts have very limited authority to impose additional taxes for educational purposes without first gaining full support of the Alabama Legislature. Statewide legislation only allows county commissions to levy limited county and district school taxes. If a district wishes to exceed that amount, they must secure a three-fifths vote of the House and Senate delegation to have a proposed constitutional amendment placed on a ballot for a statewide vote, and then a majority of state voters is required for its passage.
As a result, funding for education in Alabama relies heavily on legislators and local superintendents who work with legislators to determine funding priorities. The decision-making process of these groups of individuals is influenced by internal and external factors that affect their belief systems. This study investigates how these belief systems influence the decisions of legislators and superintendents.
Literature Review Funding The politics of school funding tend to blend philosophical, social, and economic differences into a structure recognized as “free public schools.” It is impossible to separate education funding from resources. The level of funding drives not only the quantity but also the quality of resources available to create public educational opportunities. The success or failure of schools is strongly connected to the financial support made available to them through the levying of taxes and the allocation of revenues (Harvey, 1989). In this regard, major legal decisions have occurred in Alabama affecting the educational funding throughout the state.
To understand where the state is today, it is important to know where it was in past years. Historical Events in Alabama That Held Funding Implications Three major legal decisions that affected education funding in Alabama have all centered on the state’s right to define what is appropriate legislative support of school funding. The 1950s were an extremely volatile time in Alabama history. In an attempt to avoid desegregation of public schools, the Alabama Legislature amended the 1901 Constitution in 1956 (Harvey, 2000). This amendment has served as the basis upon which the State of Alabama provides funding for schools based on its available revenue. It also eliminates any obligation to the needs or quality of those educational opportunities (Harvey, 2000). Since the 1950s, proration of educational funding has been a major factor in the history of Alabama. Proration in the Education Trust Fund has been declared 17 times since 1950; 15 times it continued until the end of the fiscal year, an average of once every 3.66 years. The second legal factor that continues to influence legislation and policy decisions in Alabama was the 1973 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the case of San Antonio v. Rodriquez, where the court ruled that public schooling was not a right guaranteed under the United States Constitution (Schrag, 2004). This ruling essentially assigned obligations for any kind of an education to the states, where it remains today. The third and most significant legal factor that transformed the state funding scheme from what was known as “The Minimum Program,” prior to 1995, to the current funding scheme known as “The Foundation Program” was Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt (1993). In an effort to more clearly define the state’s obligation to provide equitable and adequate educational opportunities, 33 school systems sued the State of Alabama in Ace v. Hunt (1993). This court action resulted in the creation of a declaration in which the judge stated, “that education is a fundamental right under the Alabama Constitution.” This ruling forced the legislature to adopt a different method of distributing state funds (Ward & Sauser, 1997).
The final disposition of this case was never completed to the extent of defining and implementing a funding scheme based on a set of defined outcomes, as many similar cases in other states were able to accomplish. Instead, it ended in 2002. While considering a totally unrelated educational matter, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that it was not the court’s responsibility to insure equity and adequacy of the schools in Alabama. According to the Court, that responsibility rests in the authority of the Alabama legislature (Siegelman v. Alabama Association of School Boards, 2001). This ruling established the legal precedent that legislators control the funding of public schools. The major outcome of these three cases was that the legal responsibility for school funding rests with the states. States have a responsibility to provide equitable education for all citizens, and legislators control the allocation of funds for schools. Thus, legislators are the key to school funding equity in the state.
No comments