The Future of Educational Financing Grand Canyon University EDA-535 September 30, 2014 What will the future of school funding look like in the next ten years This question troubles many communities and professionals in the field of Education. Over the past decade many new laws and ideas have changed the way schools are funded. More than ever before districts are finding themselves struggling to meet the financial needs of their communities and students. There are many issues one must consider to effectively predict the future of Educational Financing. Some of these issues are The analysis of the Lemon Test for determining alignment with the First Amendment The choice issue that has implications for diverting public funds to non-public schools The impact of No Child Left Behind The Future of church-state relations in regards to education Future trends in court decisions and power over educational financing based on present information The future of public education in America will depend deeply on the results of these issues. The future of educational finance is on the line. Will there be enough funds available to meet the needs of each public school system in our country Lemon Test The first amendment to the United States constitution has long prescribed a belief that any relationship between church and state was to be held unconstitutional, which implies that a similar relationship exists between government participation and private or religious based schools. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled a number of times on the legal relationship of church and state as intended by the amendments to the Constitution (Brimley, Verstegen, Garfield, 2012). One of the most influential court rulings began its journey in 1968 with the passing of a Pennsylvania State law. This law allowed the acting State Superintendent of Public Instruction to allocate state funds for non-public educational services. Although this act was affirmed in Pennsylvania state court, the sensitive nature of the ruling led many to believe that further court action would follow. This action came in the form of a United States Supreme Court case and ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), declared the law to be in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments (Brimley, Verstegen, Garfield, 2012). This ruling became a strong precedent for future cases regarding the separation of church and state, and also established what is known as the Lemon Test. The Lemon decision has altered the landscape of legal thought regarding the role of religion in the public forum (Whitmore, 2007). The Lemon Test consists of three standards or prongs. These standards include, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. If a government fails any of these three prongs, it is unconstitutional (Blackman, 2010). The standards set by the Lemon test are intended to ensure the alignment between government actions and the interpretation of the First Amendment, more specifically, the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause included in the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion. While the Lemon test has set a legal precedent in many court cases, it has faced opposition. Opponents of the Lemon test feel that it, in many ways has been affected by past court decisions that may have altered the original foundation of the test itself. This opinion has been primarily formulated due to the ability of legislatures to present actions in a way that presumably side step the standards of the Lemon test. Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005 questioned the viability of the Lemon test, and currently the law literature is replete with articles questioning its use (Brimley, Verstegen, Garfield, 2012). Moreover, if the courts apply a consistent approach, legislatures will be able to draft statutes with an understanding of how they will be interpreted (Blackman, 2010). The Choice Issue The 1981 report, A Nation at Risk served as a catalyst for reform movements in education that have driven Americans to place the state of education at the top of the national agenda for improvements. These movements have led the public to demand an overhaul to the systematic process of education increasing standards and expecting more while not necessarily receiving the funding to do so. The idea that a more competitive market would spur productive change has led to the concept of choice for parents regarding where their child can attend public school and what type of education they can receive. This provides parents an alternative to the one-size-fits-all model to one in which children are provided educational opportunities and programs based on their own individual learning style (Brimley, Verstegen Garfield, 2012). Additionally, when the No Child Left Behind Act was established in 2001, the method of choice was presented as an alternative to parents enabling them to choice their child to a different school or take advantage of free tutoring if their child was attending a school that needed improvement (USDE, 2013). With options like vouchers, charter schools, virtual education, and magnet schools, the future of education is full of selection, but at what cost Voucher programs offer parents a variety of educational options, from public to private, by providing them with a state funded check to cash at the educational institution of their choosing so long as they meet state standards (Brimley, Verstegen Garfield, 2012). In essence, the voucher will cover a basic education sufficient to meet state standards, while any additional amount spent above and beyond towards a more affluent choice, will produce a higher quality education. This process has the potential to take public funds and submerge them into private, often secular, programs and divert funds away from public education as the money follows the students. Charter schools are growing in popularity given that increased educational options no longer require demographically specific populations. While the requirements for charter schools differ from state to state, each functions based on a contract that is between the school and the state or district which details the proposed system of education while not necessarily having to meet the same rules and regulations as public systems (Brimley, Verstegen Garfield, 2012). This causes public funding concerns given that most charter schools are provided the same state generated per-pupil funding allocation as public schools, yet the regulations for achievement and accountability are not the same. In addition, if a charter school is closed due to failing to meet the terms of their contract, those students are often regenerated back into the public school systems where there may be inadequate resources due to fluctuated funding. Not surprisingly, virtual online schools are establishing themselves all over the country. In 2010, 27 states offered statewide schools as an option for either supplemental instruction, blended learning opportunities, or full time programs (Lips, 2010). Given that the current and future generations of students are becoming more technologically savvy than those who preceded them, online learning can be a magnet for students who feel more comfortable in front of a computer than anything else. While the social ramifications lead away from existing school structures, virtual education has the potential to diminish demographic restrictions, increase the quality of instruction while decreasing the cost of instruction, and also reduce the increasing tax burden on the public (Lip, 2010). While it is imperative to find funding solutions while striving to meet the needs of all students, this has proven over many decades to be a difficult task. While providing alternative educational options through choice is gaining in popularity across the country, there are financial ramifications that cannot be ignored. When parents choice their children out of public schools, the overall funding for that building decreases as the per pupil allocations decline (Matheson McKnight, 1999). This is especially detrimental to those students receiving services through programs such as Special Education and English Language Learners given that the funding for these educational programs cost more than the average student. Additionally, as more parents choice their children out of public schools, they are less inclined as tax payers to support local tax initiatives used to fund public education. While the options surrounding school choice continue, these discussions and movements should maintain an overall focus on the importance of increasing student achievement and opportunity without damaging the ability of public schools to function as an important educational system (Matheson McKnight, 1999). No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law in January 2002. It marked the first time federal government played a major role in setting broad parameters, implementation timelines, and sanctions for state accountability systems (Erpenbach, Forte-Fast, and Potts 2003). NCLB created a decade long initiative through federal funding to increase student performance and target students in poverty. The program itself, though marred with criticism, altered significantly the relationship between federal and state funding of education. While in no way reducing the importance of state and local funding for education, NCLB, increased federal power in contributing 10 cents of every dollar that funds public elementary and secondary education (Van Roekel, 2014). Of course, federal money was tied to federal initiatives. Under NCLB states were required to create statewide plans to increase student achievement to 100 by 2014. In fiscal year 2014, over 14 billion was dedicated to Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies, the largest NCLB program (See Table 1) (Federal Education Budget Project, 2014). However, as new political administration has emerged in Washington and results from NCLB are coming to light many question whether federal funding should pay such a crucial (if not essential) role in educational funding. NCLB altered the role of federal funds on state initiatives. By increasing federal funding to such a high level, schools, while not mandated had much to lose if they abandoned federal directives. States also struggled to identify for the costs of the federal initiatives including the cost of the testing system, the costs of enforcing the consequences, and the required changes in the school finance system to support the accountability system selected (See Table 2) (Duncombe, Lukemeyer, Yinger, 2006). Many times this caused issues in the federal state relationship. The state of Connecticut sued the federal government in 2005 for allegedly requiring the state to spend millions of state dollars on additional NCLB testing (Federal Education Budget Project, 2014). Additionally, issues arose with the equity of funding under NCLBs largest program Title 1. As Kim and Sunderman (2004) notes title Is two-stage funding process, in which funds go first to districts, then are sub-allocated to schools within each district, results in low-poverty schools receiving more funding per low-income student than high-poverty schools located in the highest-poverty districts. Yet with these inconsistencies NCLB still created the expectation of federal funding targeting certain areas and populations within education. The future of educational financing will certainly see an increase in federal funding with increased strings attached. While the majority of funding will remain the burden of state and local entities, power has slipped further and further towards federal incentives and initiatives as districts battle for increased funding. The newly created Race to the Top (RTTT) is a good example of what federal funding could become as states compete for federal grants that are handed out in addition to base federal funding. In this way NCLB and RTTT have both set the tone for educational funding and provide insight into the changing nature of educational funding. Church-State Relations The relationship between church and state has been a touchy subject for Americans over the recent years especially in regards to education and educational financing. Religious freedoms and explanations are addressed in the Bill of Rights. Conflicts within society regarding church and state have been statistically on the rise over the past decade (Essex, 2002). Laws referring to religion relate to the first amendment of the constitution. Essex (2002) describes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, which are two of the main clauses found in the First Amendment. The Establishment Clause restricts states from passing laws that show favoritism of one religion over another. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits states from interfering with individual citizens religious beliefs. These clauses are the key of what Thomas Jefferson, and we still today, call the Separation of Church and State. The Anti-Defamation League (2004) states, public schools may not teach religion, although teaching about religion in a secular context is permitted (pg. 1). Many people believe it is a familys right to engage their children in religious education and practice if they so choose. They also believe the school system should stay as far away from the topic of religion as possible. The argument of the separation of church and state does, and will continue, to affect state finances. According to Brimley and Garfield (2012), many believe the economic future of our public schools rely on the government assistance of non-public institutions. The cost of providing schools with proper funding so their students are provided with a quality education increases every year. If private, religious, parochial and non-public charter schools were shut down, public schools would have trouble maintaining financial stability (pg. 264). There simply is not enough state funds to support the education of each child within a given state. It is necessary that some parents choose to combine their childs education with religion and seek private education for that need. The funding of public schools is very much dependent on the success and survival of private school institutions. Future Trends Future trends in court decisions and power over educational financing can have a big effect on the state of educational financing ten years from now. One of the most important cases in recent years that can have an effect on this issue is the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. In this landmark case, the NY State Court of Appeals, which is the highest court in the state, upheld a decision that funding for New York City was unconstitutional and ruled that the state needed to increase financial aid to schools by 5.6 billion a year (Zaken Olson, 2013). In studying experts views on how to fund this increase, there was some consensus. Specifically, experts believed that increasing the states income tax by introducing more progressive rates was a necessary step (Zaken Olson, 2013). Experts did not support a sales tax increase because it was regressive in nature and could induce some consumer behavior to avoid taxes (Zaken Olson, 2013). In cases where states are compelled to increase funding, it is important to note that states have some latitude in how those revenues are raised (Zaken Olson, 2013). In deciding the Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of NY case, the court stated that considering all of the inputs, we conclude.. New York City schools are inadequate (Brimley et al., 2013). The idea of educational inputs could be at the heart of future litigation. Researchers believe that this idea, being challenged on a more local level, is superior to challenging finance formulas because there is a close relationship between inputs and positive student outcomes and achievement (Buszin, 2013). An example of one such input is teacher effectiveness, which has been shown to trump other variables in predicting student achievement (Buszin, 2013). As in the New York case, showing the consequences of the lack of inputs could increase funding to certain districts. Other states that have opted to not decide educational finance cases based on merits, such as West Virginia in Pauley v. Kelly and Connecticut in Horton v. Meskill, could very well have the door opened, through educational input litigation, for plaintiffs seeking educational reform (Buszin, 2013). It is critical for our country to have adequate education for all so they are prepared for a competitive global economy. Even as some plaintiffs cases are lost, challenges in the court system create ways for educational finance reform in the future (Brimley, et al., 2013). Conclusion So what does the future hold for the financing of education There are a lot of factors that come into play. The future remains to be seen, but what is clear is that educational finance will continue to evolve as new laws, court cases and trends influence the direction of education. To prepare for this uncertainty, states must search for new areas of funding and different funding sources. The only truth in educational financing is that it is ever changing and therefore funding will always be an uncertain factor for schools. References Blackman, J. (2010). This lemon comes as a lemon the lemon test and the pursuit of a statutes secular purpose. George Mason. University Civil Rights Law Journal, 20(3), 351-415. Brimley, V., Verstegen, D., Garfield, R. (2012). Financing Education in a Climate of Change (11th Ed.). Allyn Bacon Pearson Education, Inc. Buszin, J.S. (2013). Beyond school finance refocusing education reform litigation to realize the deferred dream of education equality and adequacy. Emory Law Journal, 62(6), 1613-1657. Retrieved from http//eds.a.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewersidd482b721-ca37-4bc1-88fc-c68e687788bf40sessionmgr4005vid4hid4208 Department of Education Budget Tables. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http//www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/tables.html Duncombe, William, Lukemeyer, Anna, Yinger, John (2006). The no child left behind act have federal funds been left behind Center for Policy Research Education Finance and Accountability Program. pp.7-21. Erpenbach, W., Forte-Fast, E., and Potts A. (2003) Statewide Educational Accountability Under NCLB. Council of Chief State School Officers. Pg 32. Federal Education Budget Project (2014). New America Foundation. Retrieved from http//febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding Kim, J., and Sunderman, G (2004) Large Mandates and Limited Resources State Response to the No Child Left Behind Act and Implications for Accountability. The Civil Rights Project. Lips, D. (2010). How Online Learning is Revolutionizing K-12 Education and Benefiting Students. As retrieved from HYPERLINK http//www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/how-online-learning-is-revolutionizing-k12-education-and-benefiting-students20on20September2029 http//www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/01/how-online-learning-is-revolutionizing-k12-education-and-benefiting-students on September 29, 2014. Matheson, R. McKnight, P. (1999). The Implications of School Choice. As retrieved from HYPERLINK http//horizon.unc.edu/projects/issues/papers/McKnight.html http//horizon.unc.edu/projects/issues/papers/McKnight.html on September 29, 2014. Ryan, J. (2003) The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act. 2003 Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers. No. 03-17. U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Choices for Parents. As retrieved from HYPERLINK http//www2.ed.gov/nclb/choices/index.html20on20September2029 http//www2.ed.gov/nclb/choices/index.html on September 29, 2014. Van Roekel, Dennis (2014) Federal Education Funding under NCLB Fairness Contributor or Inhibitor NEA Policy Brief. Retrieved from http//www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB39revfedfundingnclb2011.pdf. Whitmore, K.N. (2007). Shifting toward balance, not conservatism the courts interpretation of the lemon tests legislative intent prong and reaction from the electorate. University Of Maryland Law Journal Of Race, Religion, Gender Class, 7(2), 437-458. Zaken, O. Olson, J. (2013). But where will the money come from Experts views on revenue options to implement Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York. Educational Considerations, 40(2), 13-20. Retrieved from HYPERLINK http//eds.a.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewersidd482b721-ca37-4bc1-88fc-c68e687788bf40sessionmgr4005vid7hid4208 http//eds.a.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewersidd482b721-ca37-4bc1-88fc-c68e687788bf40sessionmgr4005vid7hid4208 This week your CLC group was to address a significant question What will the financing of education look like in 10 years This is the question that you explored from a theoretical and pragmatic view in this lesson. Your essay was to have addressed possible outcomes and impacts of the various issues facing education finance today and in the future, such as 1. Analysis of the Lemon test for determining alignment with the constitutions first amendment. Exceeds Expectations The choice (e.g., school vouchers) issue that has implications for diverting public funds to nonpublic schools. Exceeds Expectations The impact of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Exceeds Expectations The future of church-state relations in regards to education and educational financing. Partially Meets Expectations See comments Future trends in court decisions and power over educational financing based on present information. Partially Meets Expectations See comments The GCU eLibrary was used to research a minimum of three to five peer-articles. Meets and Exceeds Expectations This assignment was developed according to the APA guidelines Many of the components were very comprehensive and well developed Your collaboration was evident and your group researched and discussed each component using significant content and substantial resources BRAVO TEAM Educational Financing This discussion was outstandingyou presented all this issues and the important legal case. Yes, a significant factor This is an issue as many of the online schools and charters are for profit. Good point An excellent summation of School Choice Yes, can be very restrictive funding..many requirements A significant component Very well developedvery comprehensive Case law should be presented see the decision Justice Black also explained how the Supreme Court viewed the establishment of religion clause in the First Amendment Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can they force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and State. Shapiro (2014) Separatioin of Church and State, Teaching Social Responsibility. http//www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/separation-church-state-four-case-studies The most significant Amendment and Clauses Why is this relevant You did not discuss Cases such as Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v Nyquist (1973) and Mueller v Allen (1983) very significant How does this impact the separation of church and state What are the Supreme Court decisions .. In their decision the Supreme Court also established the principle that public money can be used to provide services not directly connected with the religious activities of religious organizations. Thus, the use of public money for a secular activity (bus transportation in this case) is constitutional the use of public money for any religious activity is not. Justice Hugo Black wrote a decision for the majority This is not a rationale for the separation of church and state. This discussion should have been more focused on case law and the application of such legal decisions. Is this a trend seen in other states Then what was the impact of the decision and how does this effect the local school districts And how does this relate to how schools will or should be funded This is not clear..what inputs.. Please define merits..much of this discussion is copied form Buszin and your conclusions are not necessarily related to the question. What is the trendsimply reform What types of reforms..financial What reforms Almost this entire discussion is quoted materialwhere are your conclusions and analysis of the trends Examples How are these different Your conclusions should reflect the issues discussed in the paperthe conclusion does not address any of the components discussed. Y, i-qN3 (f4Av2l_j-OQ ev)Ur-@V4EjzNp
PL52 1w/AXE6NGUOsVBLy_xPiBIO1k9IcLHYv7aEh,8q4WqnogA8f2)QHxK Zz)MSm@7wP3EBU1OC5V8U U37a
NDoutWa4(F qp 69MDO,ooVM M_U7eo N6 bvz6iLvm2SFnHDrISXO0 ldC3ds2.h565v.chNt9W dumgLStfC9PAWfa1QBmqDl uf9k@FgP0OVKRt 6JMNgUn.SjCRqb4Y
)YvCKCjwBVD Xap
S4NS28Y,T1n/j,E
t4.Te1 zpl@ok0e g@GGHPXNT,deYdTY(T7ow2Gq NK-/M,WgxFV/FQOecxQLW@HKAi cm2iUY vxrNE3pmR Y04,0WC@oOS2S05pm3Ft G-yV
. 6Q
