Dear State Representative of Texas,
I write to you to respectfully request your help in lobbying for the increase in state funding to the education sector beyond the required constitutional requirements compared to other government services. After our class on public finance, I have concluded that the state of Texas has a broken school finance system that requires additional investment to ensure all students have a fair opportunity to college admission and better career opportunities.
The public schools in Texas state are significantly underfunded, ranking 43rd in school spending compared to other states. Most schools are now dependent on local property taxes to counter the high rates of inflation, hire qualified and experienced teachers, and fund additional innovative programs that give the students an equal competing ground in the rapid evolution of the education sector. The current school finance system is financed by local and state sources (Martin et al., 2018). The local funds are sourced from the school district property taxes, while the state funds are derived from various sources such as general revenue and lottery proceeds (“Public School Funding,” 2020). The Texas school funding system does not increase the school funding system even when the local property values increase. There lacks a mechanism in which money can be re-invested back to public schools, which will directly impact student outcomes (“Public School Funding,” 2020). For over a decade, the state of Texas has continued to reduce its school funding, worsening the already inequitable school finance system. The rapid influx of charter schools which are privately managed and publicly funded has further increased the inequitable share of funds to public schools. The current system makes the system more inequitable by expanding the gap between property-poor and property-rich districts.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The underfunding of schools in Texas harm student outcomes. Texas is ranked 46th in the United States in fourth grade National Assessment of Educational Progress reading proficiency, a dismal drop from 41 in 2015 (Strauss, 2019) . In 2008, the state decline in state funding to public schools was estimated to be around 12.6 percent per student between 2008 and 2017 despite the increase in student enrollment of 13.7 percent (Strauss, 2019) . The inadequate finances to public schools have crippled the school’s ability to keep up with the numerous state mandates and increased cost pressures. The schools barely have any money left to provide compensation for teachers and implement program improvements.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the amount of revenue spent per pupil for public elementary and secondary education has increased for all fifty states. The increase in spending has been attributed to an overall increase in the incoming student populations over time. Variations in the required outcomes for a large number of students necessitate a more rigorous curriculum and changes in the competitive compensations for the desired quality of school staff.
An increase in the number of poor children attending elementary and secondary schools has raised the cost of educating them and other at-risk children. The target levels for each “pupil” have increased due to the increase in special pupil needs, low family income. States in the United States have the responsibility of giving low-income students better funding compared to other students. The spending on low-income schools has driven up education spending to ensure equity in access to critical educational services. For low-income children, more money spending led students to complete a few more months in school, reducing their chances of being poor (North,2020). It is essential to spend more on high poverty communities as it enables the schools to improve instructional quality that is systematically inaccessible to students in low-income backgrounds. The well-funded rigorous curriculum has proven effective as it has led to better student outcomes (North,2020). Besides, the population of children with disabilities who attend school has grown exponentially than the general population of students, and schools must educate them. The cost of special education is twice that of other students.
The increasing student population makes teaching more complex, which directly translates to higher wages. As the complexity of outcome goals increases, the need for a more skilled workforce rises. Combining different social determinants in a more significant classroom setting increases education spending that far eclipses the consumer price index. Increased language barriers, maintaining teacher quality to match the current needs, increased outcome demands, and the evolving student demography does not match the available funds (Baker, 2011). Texas has failed to channel resources to the districts that face the highest costs of achieving desired outcomes.
Improvement in the school finance equity involves value judgments about how to ensure education financing is allocated fairly. The school finance system in the United States is based on state law which gives states the responsibility of funding education within their borders. School finance equity has evolved, but the primary assumption is that state finance systems should be formulated in a manner that provides children, regardless of their economic background, with an equal opportunity to access quality education. Several reformers have concentrated on reducing the significant disparities in available revenues and spending levels among school district schools to create equity. From a taxpayer’s perspective, the system achieves equity if the taxpayer is assured that a given tax rate will translate to the same amount of expenditure per pupil regardless of the economic background of the taxpayer. The public finance perspective differs from the taxpayer’s perspective in that a fair system would be judged on how equitable tax burdens vary as the ability to pay changes (Ladd et al., 1999). The different definitions of equity have resulted in conflicting views about how to constitute fairness as a single concept does not serve the purpose of all users.
Structural barriers in the US that include inequitable funding systems remain consistently wide, making it challenging to close achievement gaps. High-income communities still receive extra resources while low-income communities receive less state and local funding. Traditionally underserved students such as minorities and low-income students complete college at a far lower rate than their peers. The states have the most significant opportunity to address these inequalities per-pupil spending as the widest variation exists across state boundaries.
Achieving equity in public education to ensure a balance in the distribution of wealth faces problems as applying the taxpayer’s perspective is not considered equitable in the modern-day. One of the problems that might occur in changing school finance formulas is the variations in the cost of providing education services due to the various needs being served and district aspects such as size and student density as various districts do not have similar prices for personnel and non-personnel inputs (Baker & Levin, 2014). These factors complicate the comparison and interpretation of formulas across states.
Also, taxpayers who do not take their children to public schools may question the importance of contributing to public education funding and why the students who directly benefit from funding should not bear the cost. Taxpayers find it hard to believe that equity in the school finance system will benefit the nation’s revenue in the long run. Greater educational attainment increases the possibility that the beneficiaries will be employed, resulting in higher tax payments. However, it is very difficult to relate the value of education to the amount of revenue that has to be invested.
I appreciate all you do for our state, and I hope you consider lobbying for increased state education funding. I look forward to seeing the positive changes as a win in education is a win for all other areas.
References
Baker, B. (2011). Understanding education costs versus “Inflation” . School Finance 101. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/understanding-education-costs-versus-inflation/ .
Baker, B., & Levin, J. (2014). Educational equity, adequacy and equal opportunity in the Commonwealth: An evaluation of Pennsylvania’s school finance system . San Mateo, California: America Institute For Research.
Carroll, S., & Erkut, E. (2009). How taxpayers benefit when students attain higher levels of education . Rand.org. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9461.html .
Ladd, H., Chalk, R., & Hansen, J. (1999). Equity and adequacy issues in education finance . National Academy Press.
Martin, C., Boser, U., Benner, M., & Baffour, P. (2018). A quality approach to school funding - Center for American Progress . Center for American Progress. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/11/13/460397/quality-approach-school-funding/ .
North, A. (2020). The shift to online learning could worsen educational inequality . Vox. Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://www.vox.com/2020/4/9/21200159/coronavirus-school-digital-low-income-students-covid-new-york.
Public School Funding . Raise your hand Texas. (2020). Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://www.raiseyourhandtexas.org/advocacy/invest/public-school-funding .
Strauss, V. (2019). It’s a really bad way to fund schools — but Texas may adopt it anyway. Washington Post . Retrieved 18 April 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/01/13/its-really-bad-way-fund-schools-texas-may-adopt-it-anyway/ .
