Local Control and Equity Do Not Mix

By Guest Blogger 05/05/2016 0 Comments

ednext-blog-may16-npr-schoolmoneySome things just go together–cookies and milk, surf and turf, the Three Stooges (Moe, Larry, and Curly, of course)–you get the picture. At the same time, there are things that simply do not mix. When it comes to public education, two fundamental ideals fit this bill–local control and equity. Try as we might, we simply haven’t figured out, in our current public education system, how to deliver on both of these principles.

Recently, NPR launched an initiative focused on the latter, the “School Money” project. Reporters for the news outlet asked the question, why do some schools have so much, while others have so little? They summed it all up very succinctly:

Two words: property tax

The NPR reporters go on to say:

The problem with a school-funding system that relies so heavily on local property taxes is straightforward: Property values vary a lot from neighborhood to neighborhood, district to district. And with them, tax revenues.”

There is just one problem with this answer–it’s wrong.

Imagine if we replaced the local property tax with a different local tax; it could be a local sales tax, a local income tax, whatever. No matter what we tax, as long as we collect it locally, independent school districts will generate different amounts of money. It is not the property tax that causes inequities. It is our very system of public education itself; it is the local school district that causes inequities.

More specifically, it is the combination of local school districts and local support for public schools which causes differences in school spending. Local school districts use the power of taxation to build new schools, to increase teacher pay, and to provide services for students. Interestingly, when given the opportunity, many local school districts tax themselves above and beyond any amount required by the state.

Here is the real kicker – the rich tend to tax themselves more. In my home state of Missouri, for example, the 50 highest spending districts have a tax rate ceiling for operating funds of $4.582 per $100 of assessed valuation. The 50 lowest spending districts tax themselves at just $3.029 per $100 of assessed valuation. These districts not only have lower property values, on average, they also choose to tax themselves less.

In other words, when we allow property rich school districts to tax themselves more and property poor school districts to tax themselves less, we allow taxpayers to willfully contribute to the inequities we see between districts.

Many people, including the authors of the NPR reports, point to the gaps in spending and take a reductionist approach to this complex system. It’s the property tax! As much as I enjoy discussions about school finance, the issues here are much more fundamental —some people willingly choose to invest more in their children’s education than others. These people appear to sort into communities with like-minded people.

Of course, you might suggest that poor people simply cannot afford to raise their taxes as readily as their wealthier counterparts. The two groups may value education just as much as one another, but one group simply has the means to offer greater support to schools. That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the point—the combination of local school districts and local support for public schools causes differences in school spending, not the property tax.

It is easy to ask the question, “Why do some schools spend more than others?” It is much harder to answer the question, “Should we allow local taxpayers to have some say in how much they will support their local schools? The former can be answered objectively, the latter cannot. If you say, “No,” you are saying you are uncomfortable with local control. If you answer, “Yes,” then you support some level of inequity. In the current system, we can’t have both local control and equity.

If at the end of NPR’s “School Money” project we have only answered the easy questions, we will be no better off. We will simply continue to wrestle with the same issues that we have grappled with for decades. We will continually struggle to reconcile two incompatible ideals – local control and equity.

If, however, we start to think about how the fundamental organization of our school system—a patchwork of 14,000 school districts with geographic monopolies over the residents who live within them—contributes both to spending and educational inequities and think about how we can reform that, we might be able to move the discussion forward.

– Guest Blogger James Shuls

James V. Shuls, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri – St. Louis and a distinguished fellow of education policy at the Show-Me Institute.

 

Rely on Local Actors, Instead of Faulty Information, To Make Judgments about School Quality

By 05/04/2016 0 Comments

if we’re unable to develop strong measures of school quality that can be used remotely, we should instead rely on the judgments of those closer to the situation, including parents.

Shut Bad Schools for Low Performance, But Don’t Draw Conclusions from Test Scores Alone

Not that it’s easy to identify measures beyond reading and math scores that are valid and reliable indicators of school success.

Student Achievement and Every State’s Economic Future

Vast economic gains are likely to accrue to any state that can improve the quality of its schools.

The Weak Predictive Power of Test Scores

By 05/02/2016 0 Comments

If regulators were to rely primarily on test scores when deciding which programs or schools to shutter and which to expand, they would make some horrible mistakes.

Happy Teacher Appreciation Week!

By 05/02/2016 0 Comments

To show our appreciation for all the great teachers out there, we’ve pulled together some of our favorite articles that we think teachers might enjoy.

Behind the Headline: Money, Race and Success: How Your School District Compares

By 05/01/2016 0 Comments

A widely shared post on The Upshot uses a set of colorful graphics to shed light on achievement gaps both within and across school districts.

Behind the Headline: This Controversial Law Could Help Schools in Nevada Struggling With Growth Booms

By 05/01/2016 0 Comments

A law passed in June 2015 in Nevada gave all parents in the state access to a new school choice mechanism — the education savings account (ESA).

Behind the Headline: The Merit Pay Myth: Why the Conventional Wisdom About Paying Teachers Is Wrong

By 04/29/2016 2 Comments

It is easy to find statements by education experts and journalists that “merit pay doesn’t work,” but as as Matt Barnum writes, the research on merit pay is mixed.

Behind the Headline: National Teacher of the Year: I Was a Teenage Mom, and Teachers Changed My Life

By 04/29/2016 0 Comments

Jahana Hayes, a history teacher at John F. Kennedy High School in Waterbury, Conn., has been named this year’s National Teacher of the Year

Posts by Authors

  • Mark Bauerlein
  • John Chubb
  • Martha Derthick
  • A. Graham Down
  • Joshua Dunn
  • Education Next
  • Williamson Evers
  • Chester E. Finn, Jr.
  • Jay P. Greene
  • James Guthrie
  • Eric Hanushek
  • Bryan Hassel
  • Emily Ayscue Hassel
  • Frederick Hess
  • Paul Hill
  • Michael Horn
  • William Howell
  • Marci Kanstoroom
  • Peter Meyer
  • George Mitchell
  • Paul E. Peterson
  • Michael Petrilli
  • Michael Podgursky
  • Andy Smarick
  • Bill Tucker
  • Herbert Walberg
  • Martin West
  • Blogs

  • Organizations

    Sponsored Results
    About the Blog

    The Ed Next blog aims to provide lively commentary on education news and research and to bring evidence to bear on current education policy debates.

    Our bloggers include editors at Education Next magazine and others who have written for the magazine. Education Next is a quarterly journal of opinion and research about education policy published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and additionally sponsored by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

    The opinions expressed by the Ed Next bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of Educationnext.org, Education Next magazine, or its sponsors. Educationnext.org is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the bloggers.


    Sponsors

    The Hoover Institution at Stanford University - Ideas Defining a Free Society

    Harvard Kennedy School Program on Educational Policy and Governance

    Thomas Fordham Institute - Advancing Educational Excellence and Education Reform

    Sponsors