This is a piece I wrote back in 2008. Enjoy!
Fatally Flawed Financing: An Analysis of National Education Financing
and a Proposal for Reform
Introduction
The education system in America
is, and has been, broken; the past 40 years of reform have not had a
significant impact on the highly distorted educational outcomes of our public
schools. States have tried a wide
range of financing policies, from the highly centralized to the minimally
invasive, and all have not been able to overcome the entrenched educational
discrimination that has existed for hundreds of years. It is vital to our countries
competitiveness, prosperity, and moral weight that we transform the educational
system into one that is fully supportive of all children. The only way, in addition to achieving
economic justice[i], we can
resuscitate the fatally flawed education system is to overturn the timid and
anachronistic Supreme Court decision, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, by passing a new
Constitutional Amendment, and fully fund public education through the federal
government. This would mean establishing an
efficient, equitable, and flexible education system that would eliminate the
bulky, ineffective, insular, and overly bureaucratic system of local school
boards, and disparate state standards, that is responsible, along with the
larger economic system, for the destruction of countless dreams and the
inhibition of national economic growth.
Education in America’s Development
Education in America has been
transforming to meet the demands of the economy and our evolving moral beliefs
since the founding of our country.
In colonial times, individual families and localities provided for the
education of their children because state governments did not play a direct role
in the lives of many. The federal
government did not play a role in early American education because the
Constitution does not mention, or allude to, education in the minimalist
framework it establishes. After
the Civil War demonstrated the need for a larger federal role in order to form
a more cohesive society, the Education Department was formed in 1867 to support
state education.[ii] States also began to gradually increase
their share of education funding and by the Twentieth Century the local
governments paid over 75%. The
Second World War and the Cold War propelled the federal government to increase
spending on education and state funding rose as well. The state share of education funding reached a fairly stable
plateau at 40% throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and early 70’s.[iii] The federal government began to respond
to the outrage of racial and class disenfranchisement with the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, and the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965. The later established Title I, a
funding apparatus that assisted schools with limited local resources.
Constitutional Quandaries
The early 1970’s produced 2
court cases that have had impacts upon all educational financing decisions
since. The most important and
least referenced was a Federal Supreme Court case in 1973, San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez. This 5-4 decision overturned a district
court ruling that found the Texas education finance system in violation of the
last sentence of the first clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution. This sentence, which
is so vital to the rights of our modern democracy, states “No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States;…; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”[iv] The education financing systems in
place in the 1970’s, as well as today, do not provide for the equal treatment
of children, and are unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court found ways to
overlook this.
The majority opinion asserted that education was not a fundamental right, because it is not explicitly
or implicitly protected by the Constitution. Another reason they did not support ‘strict scrutiny’ was
they found that the disproportionate financing of schools did not affect the
‘suspect classes’, groups traditionally discriminated against, and in this case
the ‘poor’. Therefore, they could
not apply the 14th Amendment to this case. They were wrong on both fronts. However their real concerns, as articulated by Powell, lay
with the resultant transformation of the federal government’s role in education
if they found education a fundamental right. “It would be difficult to imagine a case having a greater
potential impact on our federal system than the one now before us, in which we
are urged to abrogate systems of financing public education presently in
existence in virtually every state.”
The demolition of the local and state education finance system is what
is needed because of the vast inequities present in education finance developed
from and are fostered by a fragmented system.
Justice Thurgood Marshal wrote the dissent, unfortunately
not the opinion of the court.
He criticized the majority ruling “ …as unsupportable
acquiescence in a system which deprives children in their earliest years of the
chances to reach their full potential as citizens.” He fully discloses the reality of Texan education funding,
and their supporters, as well.
In my judgment, the right of every American to an equal
start in life, so far as the provision of a state service as important as
education is concerned, is far too vital to permit state discrimination on grounds as tenuous as those presented by
this record. Nor can I accept the notion that it is sufficient to remit these
appellees to the vagaries of the political process which, contrary to the
majority's suggestion, has proved singularly unsuited to the task of providing
a remedy for this discrimination. I, for one, am unsatisfied with the hope of
an ultimate "political" solution sometime in the indefinite future while,
in the meantime, countless children unjustifiably receive inferior educations
that "may affect their hearts U.S. and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
undone." Brown v. Board of Education[v]
It is difficult to quantify
the harm that has been done to children, and the national economy, by the
majority’s decision in San Antonio School
District v. Rodriguez, but we do know that the struggle for high quality
education for all public school children has been made more difficult as a
result. Since the federal
government has stepped back from the debate, the battles turned to the
states. Progress has been made in
reducing state discrimination in education finance, but it remains rampant
across the country.
The court case that signaled
the beginning of the education equity litigation struggle was decided in
California, in 1971. Serrano v.
Priest reached the legal conclusions, education is a fundamental right and
wealth is a suspect class[vi], that
Justice Thurgood Marshal did two years later. This seemed to be the movement forward that children of
impoverished districts needed, but the structure of the funding system remained
largely unchanged and incentives imbedded in the decision resulted in a
“taxpayer revolt, fiscal bankruptcy of the state government, and a steep
decline of the education system”.[vii] Per pupil education expenditures
dropped 15% because wealthy districts resisted tax increases that would no
longer solely fund their children.[viii] When education financing depends upon a
large percentage of property taxes with some degree of local control, quality
equalized schools will not develop.
National Reform Since 1971
The federal government’s
reluctance to seriously address the vast discrepancies of education finance
forced each state in the union to address this vital national interest by
themselves. In 2002, a
meta-analysis of state’s individual litigation efforts found what Marshall
expected. “Most studies do not
show a clear trend of improved equity”.[ix]
Michigan was one state that improved equity statistics because they
significantly reduced the role of property tax in 1993. Ohio and Virginia’s educational equity
worsened after reform. Texas’
funding formula was still unconstitutional after 20 years in court, a 97% aid
increase, and three legislative policy reforms. Two years after New Jersey enacted a new formula, equity
statistics worsened.
However, some studies found
favorable impacts of litigation, which included a rise in the total funds
allocated to education. Sometimes states restructured their educational systems
to increase “centralization and bureaucratic decision making, greater state
control of school funding with less voter input, and more standardized and
sanitized curricula with less flexibility for students and parents.” [x] While rigid centralization has
limitations, it can ensure high standards, streamline evaluation and, if
actions are taken to dismantle highly localized districts, centralization
reduces bureaucracy.
Tennessee has experienced three
waves of equitable school reform since the early 1990’s, but local districts
have subverted legislative attempts to fulfill constitutional
requirements. There are two basic
measures of educational equity, horizontal and vertical. Schools are horizontally equitable when
they “treat students with similar academic qualities in the same manner”, and
they are vertically equitable when they treat “students with different
sociodemographic characteristics in a different manner in order to give them
equal opportunity”.[xi] Through the decade of reform Tennessee
was only able to slightly reduce horizontal inequity. A longitudinal comparison the ratio of the richest 5% of the
districts, to the poorest 5% of the districts, in terms of local and state
spending is not promising. In 1994
the ratio was 1.793 and by 2003 it decreased marginally to 1.491. This is a difference of $ 2297 per
student;[xii]
a substantial discrepancy when aggregated for a whole school district. This horizontal inequity translates
into vastly different educations for students. Things have not improved significantly in terms of vertical
equity either. A regression
analysis of categories of expenditures on total education spending found a
strong influence of localities upon schools. As the rates of poverty increased, as measured by number of
students receiving free or reduced lunch, local expenditures, teacher salaries,
administrative support, and student support services decreased. This relationship was found in all
years of the study; only minor improvements in vertical inequity were found.[xiii]
Tennessee’s experience, like other individual state’s efforts, at correcting
and entrenched state discriminatory system has been difficult and laced with
obstacles. When localities remain
a strong determinant of school funding, even if accounted for in a complex
state funding formula, they prevent a fair and balanced educational system from
developing.
Educational Financing Structures
States have tried many different
ways of correcting the public educational inequities in the past forty
years. The manner of
financing schools has been changing since the foundation of the United States,
and this is particularly true in the most recent era of reform. In 2002-3, the national average for
local contributions to schools was 42%, the average state share of financing
was 49% and the average federal government contributed 9% to primary and
secondary public education. This
represents the highest share of contributions for the federal and state governments
since independence. However, these
averages mask the vast interstate variance in contribution rates. Local contributions range from a low of
12.9% in New Mexico, to a high of 62.85% in Nevada. State contributions range from a low of 30.2% in Nevada to
73.8% in Minnesota. Federal
assistance ranged from 4.3% in New Jersey to 17.7% in Alaska. The variance in various levels of
government contributions is high because the systems which states use to
finance schools are highly variable as well.
There are many variants of funding
systems, and new ones are constantly being developed, but they can be
simplified into a few simple models.
Foundation systems are the most commonly used by states because they
offer a politically acceptable middle path between complete state funding and
complete local funding. In this
model the state gives each district a minimum amount per student and the
districts are free to supplement this amount by raising additional funds
through local taxes. This method
clearly “may provide little if any cross-district equalization”,[xiv]
but it can provide a substantial base if the legislature chooses. States can also cap the amount of
additional funds districts can raise and this would “provide substantially more
equalization”[xv] than an
uncapped system, but it would be more problematic politically.
Another branch of public education
funding systems, which 20% of states are using, are power-equalizing ones. In the system with recapture (PER) all
districts have a common tax base.
The “districts are free to choose different tax rates, but all districts
face the same schedule of tax rates and revenues.” This system creates tax prices less than one for lower
income districts, and more than one for high-income districts. This contrasts with the
power-equalizing system without recapture (PEN) “except that districts with tax
bases that exceed the specified common base use their own higher base to
generate revenue for education”.
This means that districts have a tax price of one for additional funds
beyond the equalizing amount.[xvi]
In a theoretical analysis of
multiple financing systems that are in use by states, one study evaluated them
based upon the total funds raised, voter preferences, horizontal equity and
welfare.[xvii] The results are interesting, but
potentially false due to the highly unrealistic assumptions of heterogeneous
family incomes in perfectly sorted communities. One funding system does not perform consistently ahead of
the others, because each system is best at accomplishing only a subset of the
total goals set. The full state
funding is clearly the best system for equity. The state can establish schools that provide the same
facilities, instructional support, after-school programs, student-teacher
ratios, etc. that all other schools have available. When ranked by utility and voter preference, PER becomes the
best, but it raises less money for education than PEN and foundation, however
it does have the best equity ranking after the state system. PEN raises more than any other system,
and 25% more money than the state system.[xviii] The differences in the multitude of
financing systems are difficult to sort through, but one simplifying
categorization can be made.
In response to state court ordered
reform, many legislatures placed restrictions upon local governments abilities
to raise additional funds to supplement education. Some of these Tax and expenditure limitations (TELs) have
been discussed above, but a broad perspective on their influence has not been
introduced. An empirical study
based on data from 48 states from 1971-93 found that there was “no effect of
reform on state spending was found unless a TEL” was in place, however in this
same secenario there was no influence upon total amount of spending.[xix] If localities spend less, and the state
spends more on education, one can tentatively conclude that TEL’s assist in
creating a more equitable school system.
The authors also found that if the state enacted court ordered reform,
and a TELs were not in place, then localities spending went unchanged, but
state and total spending increased.[xx] In this instance equity could also
improve if the state gives a majority of additional aid to low spending
districts. One thing that is clear
is tax and expenditure limitations effectively limit wealthy districts from
spending extra money on their schools.
The decision to enact a education
finance system is complicated because individual states need to balance
prevailing constitutional interpretations, competing ethical values, and strong
local interest groups into one fiscal solution. The results of this struggle from competing interests have
not yet provided as system that is best for all American children.
Regressive Deductibility
Residents of the United States
face numerous taxes from multiple levels of government. To lessen the tax burden that
individuals face, the federal government since 1986 has allowed people to
deduct income and property taxes from their income that they claim for taxation
from the federal government.[xxi] Since 2004, people have been given the
option of deducting state and local income taxes, or state and local sales tax.[xxii] The total amount of these tax
expenditures in 2005 was $ 50 billion.
This massive amount has a direct impact upon public school finance in
two significant ways.
In 2002-3, the federal
government spent $ 38 billion on direct aid to public primary and secondary
schools[xxiii],
but indirect aid was greater. A
significant portion of property taxes goes to fund local education. When one deducts their property tax
from their income the federal government effectively pays a portion of their
school tax bill. If the school tax
bill was $ 1000 and that person’s marginal tax rate was 20%, then the federal
government would be paying $ 200 of the local school tax. 30% of federal taxpayers itemize, and
in 1987, their average marginal tax rate was 27%.[xxiv] This percentage indicates that people
who file for deductions have upper-middle class incomes. Further data shows that 90% of
taxpayers with incomes of over $ 100,000 file deductions and 14% of taxpayers
with incomes of less than $41,000 file deductions.[xxv] This shows that deductions favor those
with high incomes.
The end effect on schools is
that “deductibility more than doubles the federal contribution to schools and
is so regressive that, even in the combination with direct federal programs,
more federal funds go to high-income than low-income districts”. This is a highly inequitable result,
and it should not be allowed to continue.
In 1989 the average federal aid to schools was $ 778 per student for low-income districts and $ 932 for
high-income districts.[xxvi] The federal government should be trying
to remedy educational inequities, not foster them.
The indirect aid to public
schools from the federal government also subsidizes wealthy districts in
another important manner. Because
the price for schooling becomes cheaper, residents are willing to pay more for
the schools. Using national data
from 1989, in an average voter model the increase in demand for school funding
rose 3.1%, and it rose 1.4% using a median voter model. The national averages blur the distinct
impacts upon the low-income and high-income districts. Using the average voter model, low-income
districts experienced a .4% rise in education demand, and wealthy districts
demanded 3.4% more education spending.[xxvii] Another study also found similar
results when they concluded, “deductibility has a substantial effect on the
amount of personal deductible taxes pad to state and local governments”.
The ability of taxpayers to
deduct state and local income or sales tax, and property tax from their federal
tax liability works against children in low-income districts in two regressive
ways. It indirectly pays the
school bills of the wealthy, who then demand more funds allocated towards their
schools. This system is not
helping individual states in their efforts to become constitutionally
compliant, and more importantly it is funneling precious resources away from
children who need it the most.
Death at an Early Age
Under funded schools are a big
problem, and they need to be transformed, but the macroeconomic conditions
which create poverty are the true culprit. “Macroeconomic policies like those regulating the minimum
wage, job availability, tax rates, federal transportation, and affordable
housing create conditions in cities that no existing educational policy of
urban school reform can transcend.”[xxviii] Poverty also poisons the
brain. Children who grow up in
families with low-incomes have more environmental, social and economic stresses
around them, and this inhibits brain development. Specifically, researchers found that poverty impairs
language development and memory.[xxix] Equitable schools are part of the
solution, but alone they cannot transform poverty.
When schools are under funded,
children’s lives are destroyed, and the ripples in society created by state
discrimination are numerous and destabilizing. “Low levels of literacy are highly correlated with welfare
dependency and incarceration”.
Almost 40% of juvenile offenders have learning disabilities that were
not addressed in school, and 82% of prisoners are high school dropouts.[xxx] I personally witnessed overcrowding
play a significant role in high school freshman dropouts. A special education class I was
teaching in the Bronx, had four extra students, and one less teacher than
required by law, but the administration did nothing, and by the end of the year
many students had vanished from school.
They had returned to the streets of the poorest congressional district
in the nation without the ability to read or write effectively.
Most schools in impoverished
neighborhoods are currently under funded.
“The cost of educating a child in poverty in New York is approximately
twice that of an average-income child in the state”.[xxxi] However New York has not traditionally
addressed this fact. “When
Pineapple entered P.S. 65 in the South Bronx, the government of New York State
had already placed a price tag on her forehead. She and her kindergarten classmates were $ 8,000
babies. If we wanted to see an $
18,000 baby, we would have had to drive into the suburbs.”[xxxii] Localities and the politically engaged
drive the highly politicized school funding process in New York. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity (a
misleading name for an organization not striving towards equity) fought New
York State in court to increase school funding and they summarized the
anachronistic process in the following manner. The “often conflicting formulas…do not operate neutrally to
allocate school funds … they are manipulated to conform to budget agreements
reached by the Governor, the Speaker of the State Assembly, and the Senate
Majority Leader”.[xxxiii] Low-income minority students of New
York recently won a slightly more modern education funding system after a
13-year struggle with politicians representing upper class white people, but
they will still be left behind.
The Campaign for Fiscal
Equity’s mission statement includes the mundane goals of “adequate resources and … sound basic
education”[xxxiv];
it does not include a call for excellent and equitable educations for all of
New York’s children. CFE
encourages insularity, inefficient bureaucracy and an educational hierarchy
when they call on districts to raise funds for their own spending beyond what
is guaranteed in a revamped foundation formula. As discussed earlier, foundation financing structures will
not improve equity among districts, it only entrenches inequity.
National Crisis, National
Solution
Public education in America is
currently a system of fractured schools.
Districts are highly variable in their funding, curricula, services,
buildings and quality. The current
national system encourages inefficient use of resources and vastly different
educational outcomes. The national
government must fund an education system that is balanced, rigorous, equitable,
unifying, and yet flexibly creative.
Strong educations are
correlated with many positive outcomes.
If education was fully funded, it is highly likely that more people
would vote and be involved in the political process. There would be less crime. People would be healthier. America would be more productive.[xxxv] It is true that these conclusions are
drawn from correlations, but education does have an impact upon future
development, otherwise equitable educations would not be an issue, they would
already exist. Localities want the
best for their children, and they are willing to pay more than others to ensure
that their children have an advantage in future endeavors. If education did not create positive outcomes,
educating everyone equally would not be so politically contentious.
Economic inequality and
mobility would improve in America, if education were fully funded. Horatio Algiers spun wonderful stories
of how someone born poor could rise up and become rich and famous. This is fiction. Today 11% of children from the lowest
quintile earned Bachelor’s Degrees while 53% of children from the richest
quintile have.[xxxvi] This is a growing gap and signifies a
deepening class system developing.
Alan Greenspan also says that “a dysfunctional education system” is
significantly responsible for the increasing inequality of income.[xxxvii] These recent trends counter American
ideals, and impede economic innovation and competitiveness.
America would be more prosperous
if more resources were dedicated to education. In one multi-country study, using 40 years of data, ran
regressions using education expenditures per student as a share of GDP. She found that among developed
countries “expanding secondary and college enrollment rates prove the most
beneficial to per capita growth.”
Expenditures per student were so important that they explained over 79%
of the variation in GDP growth.
The fastest growing countries had spent the most per capita on secondary
education.[xxxviii]
This is an important study that
should foster investment in K-12 public school education by the national
government. GDP growth is not a
local issue.
The Tiebout model does not
work for education. In order for
the model to be effective a number of strict assumptions must be met. Perfect sorting is when people have
perfect information about where to live and they move to where the local
government’s services best suit their needs. This does not happen in reality. Poor people can not move to wealthy districts to enroll
their children in the best schools in the area because they lack affordable
housing, public transportation and decent jobs in or around these exclusive
areas. The second major problem
with Tiebout is that education has externalities. When people are educated in a small districts they do not
stay in those districts their whole lives. Even if they did, their economic choices influence people
globally as well as nationally.
America is no longer a country of isolated towns with little connection
with other communities, as might have been in an idealized sense, when Tiebout
developed his ideas. Everything is
interconnected in today’s modern economy, and educations influence people’s
future choices in countless ways.
If anything has external influences it is education. Based on the breakdowns of the basic
assumptions in the Tiebout model, it should not be used at all to finance
education.[xxxix]
There are 14,229 school
districts in the United States[xl], with an
average of 4865 students in each district.[xli] In Schenectady County, there are 6
districts completely or 60% within its boarders, and 4 districts that are
partially within the county.[xlii] There are approximately 37,101 children
in the county, or an average of 6183 students for each of the 6 major
districts.[xliii] This hyper fragmentation is not
economically efficient, or pedagogically productive. Each one of these districts has a phalanx of administrators
and staff that perform the same function.
If these districts were consolidated, then many efficiencies could be
found in many areas including reducing excess staff, transportation costs, tax
collection costs, and the number of extravagantly paid superintendents.
Schenectady County already is
moving towards municipal government consolidation. They recently won a grant to research how they can integrate
the multitude of emergency services.
They also are very proud of their countywide compost and library system. The library system operates with 26%
fewer funds than the average library system due to efficiencies from
consolidation.[xliv] Even at the county level, governmental
consolidation can reap great benefits, but to align with Thurgood Marshall’s
insightful and just constitutional interpretation, America needs a national
educational system.
One national school district
would harmonize all aspects of education by creating high quality structures,
support services and pedagogy for all American children. Consolidation would reduce “financial
disparities and racial/economic segregation”, a critical result. America could have an educational
system that is an engine of growth instead of one that divides and limits
opportunity.
A national educational finance
system not based on property tax would have a broader base and therefore
property owners would pay significantly lower taxes. One study modeled the changes that would happen in America
if education were funded nationally, and he found that there would be
significant welfare gains and leisure time for all people. Specifically he found that “11.66% of
per capita income to be given to young workers for them to be indifferent
between community wide education … and nation wide public funding”. This is also in alignment with a
previous study that found a rise in welfare levels after a move from community
funding to state funding.[xlv] Although these models do not directly
correspond with the current atmosphere of education finance, they do provide
insights into the benefits of national funding.
As we have seen, the fractured
education finance system in America has not worked in providing a high quality,
equitable education to all children.
Past attempts by individual states to remedy the disparities created by
insular structuring and financing have not been able to overcome the
unconstitutionality and immorality of the entrenched system. One way in which to begin the
structural transformation needed is to pass a new national amendment. Jesse Jackson Jr. first introduced such
a proposal in March 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the
United States to a public education of equal high quality.” [xlvi]
Passing an amendment to the Constitution would have countless benefits for the
country including lowering education costs, increasing national welfare,
increasing GDP growth, reducing economic inequality, and increasing economic
mobility. However, the most
important benefit would be the reawakening of the hearts and minds of millions
of children.
[i] Jean Anyon, in her book Radical
Possibilities: Public Policy, Urban Education and a New Social Movement,
argues that all school reform is doomed without addressing the plethora of
macroeconomic policies, by the federal government, that create impoverished
pockets of minorities in our cities.
While I agree with her thesis, and much of her book, I will confine this
brief analysis to the reforms needed for education itself.
[ii] “The Federal Role in
Education” http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
[iii] Fernandez, R. and Rogerson,
R., “Equity and Resources: An Analysis of Education and Finance Systems”, The
Journal of Political Economy, vol, III, no. 4, 2003, p. 861.
[iv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[v] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=411&page=1
[vi] Coon, Art, “Separate
And Unequal: Serrano Played an Important Role in Development of School-District
Policy”, http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Dec/1/129939.html
[vii] Thompson, D. and Crampton,
F.E., “The Impact of School Finance Litigation: A Long View”, Journal of
Education Finance, 27 (Winter 2002), p.796.
[viii] Gruber, J., Public
Finance and Public Policy 2nd Edition, Worth Publishers, New
York, 2007, p.279.
[ix] Thompson, D. and Crampton,
F.E., p.798.
[xi] Rolle, A. and Liu, K., “An
Empirical Analysis of Horizontal and Vertical Equity of Public Schools of
Tennessee, 1994-2003”, Journal of Education Finance, 32:3, 2007, p.329.
[xiv] Loeb, S., “Estimating the
Effects of School Finance Reform: a Framework for a Federalist System”, Journal
of Public Economics, 80, 2001, p. 246.
[xvi] Fernandez, R., and Rogerson,
R., “Equity and Resources: An Analysis of Education Finance Systems”, Journal
of Political Economy, vol. 3 no. 4, 2003, p.863.
[xix] Blankenau, W. F. and
Skidmore, M. L., “School Finance Litigation, Tax and Expenditure Limitations,
and Education Spending”, Contemporary Economic Policy, vol.22, no.1,
2004, p. 141.
[xxi] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/em974.cfm
[xxii]
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=165636,00.html
[xxiii] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_7/1_2/4_14.asp
[xxiv] Feldstein, M. and Metcalf,
G., “The Effect of Federal Tax Deductibility on State and Local Taxes and
Spending”, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 95, no. 4, 1987, p.713.
[xxv] http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/em974.cfm
[xxvi] Loeb, S. and Socias, M.,
“Federal Contributions to High-Income School Districts: the Use of Tax
Deductions for Funding K-12 Education”, Economics Education Review, 23,
2004, pp.85, 93.
[xxviii] Anyon, J., Radical
Possibilities: Pubic Policy, Urban Education, and a New Social Movement,
Routledge, New York, 2005, p.2.
[xxix] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22poverty+is+poison%22&st=nyt&oref=slogin
[xxx] Anyon, J., Ghetto
Schooling: A Political Economy of Urban Educational Reform, Teachers
College Press, New York, 1997, p.181.
[xxxi] Alexander, K. and Wall, A.,
“Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk Children: An Econometric
Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials”, Journal of Education
Finance, 31:3, 2006, p.306.
[xxxii] Kozol, J., The Shame of
the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America, Crown
Publishers, New York, 2005, p.49.
[xxxiii] Campaign for Fiscal Equity,
“Sound Basic Education Task Force: Ensuring Educational Opportunity for All,
Part I, An Adequate Education for All”, CFE, 2004, p.7.
[xxxvi] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/20mobility.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=%22higher+education+gap+may+slow+economic+mobility%22&scp=1&oref=slogin
[xxxvii] http://www.democracynow.org/2007/9/24/alan_greenspan_vs_naomi_klein_on
[xxxviii] Keller, K., “Investment in
Primary, Secondary, and Higher Education and the Effects Upon Economic Growth”,
Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 24, No. 1, 2006, pp.18-32.
[xl] Anyon, Radical
Possibilities, p.104.
[xli] My own calculations based on data from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
[xlii] http://www.cdrpc.org/SchCoSch.gif
[xliii] My own calculations based
on data from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=schenectady+county&_state=04000US36&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&_county=schenectady+county&_cityTown=schenectady+county&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph
[xliv] Rooney, K., “2008 Program
Budget: Adopted”, Schenectady County, New York, pp.3, 7.
[xlv] Soares, J., “Public
Education Reform: Community or National Funding of Education?”, Journal of Monetary Economics,
52, 2005, pp.669-695.
