Public education has been a constant in the United States for more than a century. Students go to schools, which are funded by the government. Chapter 13 of Nathan Essex’s “School Law and the Public Schools” deals with the financial implications of publicly-funded education, and the effect it has on providing students with an equal opportunity for that education.
The chapter first discusses which government has the role in public education. It states that there isn’t any power delegated for the federal government to provide an education, and uses the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives powers not expressed by the federal government to the states, to show that states are allowed to develop their own educational systems (Essex 2012 pp 328).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Public Schools Budgeting And Finance".
The chapter then goes into the financing for that education, discussing how taxes usually are the method for funding (Essex 2012 pp 328). It discusses how there are sometimes conflicts between the state and the local districts over funding, through state aid and property taxes. The chapter goes on to explain the conflict over property taxes, saying:
“Those who support property tax view low volatility of property tax as an advantage, particularly when there is a significant spending decline in the economy. Those who oppose property tax cite the disparity that it creates between more affluent districts and less affluent districts where property values are high in the former and low in the latter. Obviously, no tax levied is without criticism.” (Essex 2012 pp 329).
The rest of the chapter mainly delves into this conflict over the battle on property taxes and equality in districts, citing legal cases. One argument is that poorer schools, since the property values are lower, cannot raise as much tax money for funding, which hurts the students. In one case, Edgewood Independent School et. al. vs. Kirby, the Texas Supreme Court ordered the legislature to find an equitable system to finance schools after Kirby alleged discrimination against students in poorer districts (Essex 2012 pp 331). More cases followed, with wealthy districts challenging the new system because they said the Texas state constitution required voter approval of tax levies (Essex 2012 pp 331). The basis of the equality reasoning behind the lawsuits is the Fourteenth Amendment for the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection (Essex 2012 pp 332). An equal chance for results is also argued, including in Williams vs. California, which argued that unequal resources resulted in worse results for poorer districts, and that the state had a responsibility to ensure all students had the fundamental right to an education (Essex 2012 pp 335). The state settled the case, and agreed on its responsibility (Essex 2012 pp 335).
The chapter provides a comprehensive look at the various conflicts of financing public education, between the state and local levels. While the federal government may make some standards for states, such as No Child Left Behind, it is ultimately up to the states to figure out how to finance and set standards for their schools. It is then up to the states to come up with a unified plan for its local school districts, which may object to the plans due to the funding requirements. Wealthier districts may object to helping fund poorer districts, who themselves may object to lesser funding because they see it as discrimination against poorer students. Battles of financing local schools is a conflict that has been going on for decades. The Edgewood vs. Kirby case, for example, began in 1984, and, three other challenges later, ended up in the Texas Supreme Court in 1995 (Essex 2012 pp 331). Someday, there may be a system in place that will make everyone happy. But until then, there will be debates and lawsuits.
- Essex Nathan, (2012) School Law and the Public Schools, 5th ed., Pearson Education Inc.
