Money, Money, Money, Money

 

Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The University of British Columbia

[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]

The most frequently discussed topic in education is . . . school funding. Well, maybe mathematics and readings, but, after them, it is definitely school funding. Why? Scarcity. There is never enough money. Have you ever heard anyone in education say, “you know, we should give this money back because we really don’t need it”? No, never.

Raising funds for schools from local property taxation was quite common for most of the history of public schools – and in many places still is. That practice creates vast inequalities between school districts. Communities that have a large tax base can raise money that communities without a decent tax base – or communities whose citizens send their children to private schools – cannot or will not raise. In the United States, there is a $23billion dollar gap between school districts serving predominantly Black students and those serving predominantly white students.

Inequalities such as these affect the quality of schooling. From maintaining the buildings and equipment to paying teachers, severe inequalities affect student outcomes. Those who can, flee districts where conditions are poor and where teachers are poorly paid. The less affluent – families that cannot afford to move and whose children lack the advantages that money can buy – are left behind. However, children from economically disadvantaged families attending schools in relatively more affluent communities fare better that students who live in homogeneously poor communities.

Although there are inequalities among school districts in Canada, the inequalities are much smaller than in the United States because most of the basic funding that school districts receive comes from provincial governments. Provincial governments use formulas to ensure equity in the distribution of funds. The funding for school districts that are more remote is adjusted to account for the additional cost of transportation. The funding for school districts in northern climates is adjusted to reflect that fact that heating schools is more expensive and lights are on longer because there are fewer hours of daylight during the school year. As I have written in another blog, the outcomes students achieve in Canadian schools are better in part because of greater equity in school funding.

No matter. Almost everyone wants more money, and almost everyone wants new formulas for the disbursement of government funding. But there is little agreement about what they want the money for. It is hard to make a case for additional funding when jurisdictions want the money for different purposes or simply want more money and the discretion to use it as they see fit.  And, by the way, if there isn’t going to be more money don’t bother changing the funding formula because changing the formula will just take money from one district and give it to another – creating what are perceived as ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’  

Governments are typically unwilling to allocate funds for specific purposes without accountability for the use of the money. Thus, when funds are allocated for a specific purpose they are designated (‘targeted’ or ‘earmarked’) for that purpose alone. School boards don’t like designated funding because it fetters their discretion and requires them to be accountable for the use of the funding.

The acceptance of designated funding can produce unanticipated consequences. Consider special needs funding. Many local school boards receive designated funding for students who manifest special needs. Where this is the case, the number of students with special needs sometimes increases over time. It isn’t clear whether, in their attempt to get more funding for student needs, school boards identify greater numbers of students whose conditions attract funding or whether the funding draws attention to students with conditions that, though recognized, went unaddressed prior to the board’s receiving additional funding.

Money matters. In education, there is a natural desire to want to do more for students. No one wants to do less. Claims for additional resources sometimes try to paint a picture of students whose needs are neglected - ‘students falling through the cracks.’ But I have not ever seen evidence of neglected students.

Claims for additional resources for education would be easier to justify if (a) there was agreement on where those funds were most needed, and (b) those seeking the additional funds could show that the funding they received in the past made a visible (measurable) difference for students.