Funding Policies and Public Education

It is no secret that there is great disparity between wealthy and poor school
districts when it comes to funding public education. Here in Vermont, as in most states, a
significant portion of our local education budgets are derived from local property taxes.
Consequently, townships with higher property values, and reasonably correspondent
taxes, have in fact, more money to pump into their local schools. As great as that may
seem, it is the impoverished communities that, in fact, see the short end of the stick.
The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution states, “The powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.” It is on the grounds of this amendment that it is
not the Federal Government, but the individual States who govern our public education
system.
“Since the federal government has no direct authority for public education, its
primary mode of action is to pass legislation often linked directly to federal funding. In
essence, national political leaders create public policy by tying initiatives to federal
dollars. States and more specifically school districts which want federal funding are
required to meet certain federal requirements.”
-Kersten, 2008
This has in fact, proven to be a very good method by which the federal
government can influence education policy. In some cases, such as the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and in the various Acts against discrimination in
programs receiving federal funding, this has truly been a blessing. In states that might
have otherwise opposed actions like desegregation and inclusion, federal funding may
have been the motivation to implement such actions. However, as we have seen recently,
some federal involvement has not been so positive. Initiatives like No Child Left Behind
have taken much of the curricular power out of the hands of the teachers, and have, in
fact, put many schools at an even greater risk for financial and academic disadvantage.
But it is not only the involvement of the Federal Government that determines the
risk to schools. Here in Vermont, I would assume that anyone interested in education
would be familiar with Act 60. Many states have passed similar acts to try to ensure that
all school districts receive adequate funding. However, the debate continues over just
how to achieve such equity. Potentials include vouchers and charter schools, or resource
sharing, but none have proven entirely effective and free of controversy.
I would likely have to write an intensive thesis on funding in education before I
could begin to understand it, beyond the basics. However, learning just how complex it is
has given me a renewed respect for the cost of education, and just how important it is to
invest in our children. I understand that as a future teacher, there will be times when what
I would like to do and what I can afford on the budget do not coincide. I understand that I
will likely often find myself frustrated with inadequate materials and not enough basic
supplies. However, I can do my best to prepare for these moments, and when the time
comes, I will make do with what I have available.
I have high hopes for what Obama might accomplish with our education system,
among other things. But if there is one thing that I can take from our reading this week it
is that change comes slow to our complex system of public education, and so whatever he
might accomplish, I will still need all the preparation I can get.
Thanks,
Katie May

Bill of Rights Transcript. Retrieved February 8, 2009, from

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Henniger, M. L. & Rose-Duckworth, R. (2007). The Teaching Experience: An

Introduction to Reflective Practice (Second). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom
Publishing.

Kersten, T. (2008). HISTORICAL BASIS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING.

Retrieved February 8, 2009, from http://cnx.org/content/m18332/latest/