School funding is an important factor in educating our youth in America. Different forms of taxation go hand in hand with the way our schools are funded. However, property taxes are the main source that funds our public schools in the elementary level all the way to the secondary level. Prior to the mid 1800s, schools were private and local entities and were not funded by the state at all. After that period, some states rewrote their constitution and our public education systems were established putting the government responsible for the funding of our public schools. Based on that proposal, the article in the New Jersey state constitution of 1947 was written and guarantees that “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.” (N.J Const. art VIII, §4, P.1.)
There are many sources for school funding today. In the state of New Jersey, almost forty-two percent of school funding comes from the state, which includes taxes from income, taxes that corporations pay, sales taxes, lottery taxes, and the money made on tobacco products and sales. A staple case that argued the state funding formula was The Robinson V. Cahill case. Their arguments were that urban schools children were discriminated against based on the way state’s funding formula created disparities in the educational system. The courts ruled in favor and legislature passed the Public Education Act of 1975 which states that “The goal of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools shall be to provide to all children in New Jersey, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location, the educational opportunity which will prepare them to function politically, economically, and socially in a democratic society"( N.J.S.A. 18A:7A-4). Another staple case that helped with the funding formula and also leveled the playing field for our poorer districts was the Abbott V. Burke case which deemed the Public School Education Act of 1975 as unconstitutional as applied to the state’s twenty-nine poorest urban districts (“special needs districts”) and ordered the act to be amended or a new legislation passed to ensure substantial equality in funding between the special needs districts and the state’s property rich districts. It comes down to the unfairness districts with higher property values which bring in more money based on their assessment values. The Supreme Court of New Jersey referred the “Thorough and efficient education” as “one that will enable their students to function effectively in the same society with their richer peers both as citizens and as competitors in the labor market…an education that is the substantial equivalent of that afforded in the richer districts.” (Abbott v. Burke, 149 N.J. 145, 166-67, 693 A.2d 417, 428 (1997).
The second form of funding New Jersey uses for funding school is property taxes which count as fifty-three percent to the local district schools. Property tax was adopted in the New Jersey Constitution in 1947. It states and provides that “property shall be assessed for taxation under general law and by uniform rules. All real property assessed and taxed locally or by the State for allotment and payment of taxing districts shall be assessed according to the same standard of value, except as otherwise permitted herein, and such property shall be taxed at the general tax rate of the taxing district in which the property is situated, for the use of such taxing district" (Article VIII, Section I). Taxation on properties tends to be socially regressive. For example, a homeowner who lives in a poorer community will end up paying more taxes then someone who lives in a richer community with a house with equal or lesser assessed value. That is one of the key arguments in this battle to equalize funding across the board. Districts with higher property values like our North Jersey counterparts are in better standing since their homes are worth two to three times higher than our South Jersey communities. Undesirable living areas, low-income housing, high unemployment rates, poor schooling are all criteria’s that work against raising money in poorer districts. Those particular situations mentioned affected poorer districts and communities to effectively raise money from property taxes, which counts as fifty three percent of funding at the local level in the state of New Jersey. Lastly, federal funding is also a help in funding our schools. Federal funding, counts as four percent in the grand scheme of funding in the State of New Jersey. Federal aid comes in the form of special programs like ESEA, Title I, IDEA, Part B, Grants to states, improving Teacher Quality, 21st Century Community Learning Centers are all funded programs from our federal aid. Since there is nothing in the constitution that requires our federal government to provide for its citizen, they contribute roughly a small percentage to our educational system. In another word, the pursuit of equality in education finance is pursued greatly at the state level.
The money is distributed statewide via a School Funding Formula Reform (SFRA). The SFRA is a formula that delivers state and local funding calculated by a per pupil amount. This amount is distributed equally to provide for the students needs regardless of what his needs may be. The formula also delivers monies for poorer at-risk students. The students included are limited-English proficiency (LEP) students, and students with disabilities. They are calculated as a weighted base cost. Under the SFRA all districts use the “weighted student enrollment” which is the way state and local revenue are distributed by using the base cost plus the weights reflecting unique student needs. Federal aid comes in many forms, but the largest federal program to elementary and secondary schools are Title I funds. The Title I monies are distributed by four separate formulas. These formulas are: Basic grants, which are given to schools based on the number of poor children they serve. Concentration Grants, which also is given to schools based on the poor children they serve and that “poor children” category has to equal to 15% or 6,500 of the student population. Targeted Assistance Grant, which provides monies to district who serve poor children, but instead of providing the same amount per child, it provides more money per child as the district poverty increases. Lastly, the Education Finance Incentive Grant Formula rewards “good school finance state” meaning it rewards schools that spend more state resources on public education and distribute their funding equitably amongst its poorer districts. Even though the school districts have some discretion on how they distribute their money, the law requires them to prioritize their funding based on the highest-poverty schools.
I believe that the allocation of funds does aid student’s outcome. Furthermore, I believe there is a strong relationship between resource allocation and student success. If you have a failing school who is suffering from poor math scores and language arts scores and you properly implement programs in those selected area, than it will have a significant impact on student performances.
The three recommendations for district allocation of monies to improve achievement of student outcomes are: successful school approach, which estimates cost of achieving student outcomes by simply using successful schools who have achieved the desired goals as the basis of the cost analysis (Loeb, 2007). Secondly, the regression-based approach or cost function analysis. This strategy entails creating a relationship between expenditures and student outcomes and generating a prediction of how much money it will take to achieve each outcome (Loeb, 2007). Lastly, the final strategy is the professional judgment approach. This approach I believe will work well due to the fact that the educators in the classroom can really asses where there is a need since they are directly in contact with the major stakeholders in their classrooms (Loeb, 2007).
In conclusion, there are plenty of debates over fair and unfair school funding practices. There are debates over per pupil spending depending on the child’s basic and special needs. Some argue that property tax is a regressive approach to funding our schools since all districts are not wealthy in the sense of property values and the amount from taxes collected on those properties to fund our local schools. I believe that districts should make the effort in building community support and develop these relationships with businesses to encourage outside resources to contribute to the expenditures. This debate will be ever growing since our student population and our poverty level continues to climb in our unemployment and poverty stricken states.
Loeb, S. (2007). Difficulties of estimating the cost of achieving education standards. School Finance and
Redesign Project: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved February 07, 2012 from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/wp_sfrp23_loeb_aug07.pdf
No Child Left Behind Act - Title I Distribution Formulas. (2002). Retrieved February 07, 20012,
From http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-act-title-i-distribution-formulas
