Intellectual Property: Seldom Asked Questions About Education Funding

Why do we fund public education the way we do? Public education is perpetually one year into a three-year plan for reform. Education is often used as the politician’s “Ring of Power.” Whoever slips on the “precious” during a campaign can rule them, find them, bring them, bind them, win an election. Then, realizing that the ring brings with it overwhelming, all-consuming complications, he tosses it in a drawer until the next election cycle. Rhode Island is not unlike the rest of the country, where the state’s local municipal governments supplement the cost of educating students. The problem springs from where the majority of the funding stream is tapped to pay for the difference: property taxes.

How are property taxes linked to inequitable funding of public schools? Property taxes are the primary means by which localities make up the difference between state aid and the actual cost of running its public schools. Therefore, communities with higher property tax revenue can afford to spend more per pupil than those with lower property tax revenue. Many variables factor into this, and, these variables each come a set of consequences. Each community has a different local tax rate. Each community has different zoning regulations that affect the magnitude of industrial and commercial property sharing the property tax burden with homeowners. So, a bedroom community, zoned for a better “quality of life,” may not have as high a per-pupil property value due excluding the potential for significant commercial or industrial land tax revenue. Contrastingly, a community that zones for more commercial or industrial land use may dissuade residents from purchasing homes, thereby affecting residential property value and impacting  the economic backgrounds of the residents it attracts. Different populations require different individual education plans. For example, if English is not a family’s first language, additional focus on English is a necessary expense. If a higher percentage of families in a community require reduced price meals, this too can generate additional expenses. The bottom line is that the intersectional nature of diverse communities and individual municipal revenue policies creates a number of consequential roads (intentional and otherwise) congested by the traffic of inequitable access to, and adequacy of, education.

Doesn’t the federal government ensure equal opportunity? “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” That was George Wallace in 1963, nine years after Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declared such outright segregation of public schools to be unconstitutional. Alas, in the 1973 United States Supreme Court decision of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the court decided school funding disparities in Texas did not violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. The court held, in a 5–4 decision, that education was not a fundamental right and property wealth per pupil was not a suspect class. That tossed the issue to the states. And, as each state has its own constitution, judicial system and legislative assembly, litigation has proven wildly inconsistent.

Procedurally, the state courts have disagreed as to whether they even have the right or responsibility to hear the cases. In many instances such cases are a matter of legislation, and separation of powers prevents them from proceeding to litigation as that would be considered legislating from the bench. Those cases that have proceeded to a state’s highest court tend to focus on either of two main points of fairness: access equality or adequacy. Access equality standards imply placing limitations on the resources wealthier communities can spend on their public schools. Adequacy standards focus on the districts least able to provide some minimum level of education. However, they do not prevent high-income districts from providing superior schools. And, whereas equitable decisions favor providing a fair distribution of resources to students in communities of color and of low family income (too often the same community), adequacy standards place the emphasis on fairness to the taxpayer, with resources to districts most in need sufficient only to meet the minimum standard, and a focus on efficiency and accountability.

So, what do we do to clean up the mess? Were it possible, I would start with cutting the ties from public schools to property taxes from their districts. I would rule public education a fundamental right. I would grant much wider authority to the Department of Education. And, (here is the part that will probably make you laugh, cry or soil your undies) I would merge the Department of Education with the Department of Defense. The DoD is obscenely well-funded. And, if one were to ask me what is the greatest threat to the United States, I would answer ignorance.

Alas, there is no working federal standard for equitable allocation of funds to public schools. Each state is responsible for developing its own formula for funding, and, the federal government only kicks in a little over 8%. Over the last four decades, state courts have trended away from rendering decisions of access equality and more toward decisions of adequacy. Instead of raising the bar higher for learning resources, they sink toward the lowest common denominator model for funding aid designed only to meet a minimum performance goal for students. That certainly reflects a free market approach to public education. However, it perpetuates a cycle of regional poverty. Whereas, in Wallace’s era, that was overtly promoted as racial segregation, today it is a more surreptitious reality calling itself economic inequality and placing the onus on bootstraps over birth. Cities and towns appropriate tax revenue. Credit and lending determines who can live where. Property value fuels the housing market. Public education is a key factor in assessing regional property value. Education is a key factor in income. Therefore, wealth begets wealth, tethering poverty to poverty. And, circling back a full 360 degrees, like the Ring of Power, property value determines property tax revenue. One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them…