Jesse M.

Conant February 2012 Learning Module #2-Chapter Three-Discussion Question #1 Garners third chapter, focusing on varying factors that determine the shifting tax revenue for public schools detailed several critical areas which all school leaders need to have a strong working knowledge of. The most fundamentally important is an understanding of the four main revenue streams that impact public school funding. School leaders should understand that revenue comes in many shapes and sizes. Of course the income and property tax generating the bulk of capital for schooling, each of those taxes is constantly on the minds of politicians and their constituents as well. Is it equitable to ask those who earn more to pay more in taxes? That I am not sure, however, it seems that horizontal tax inequity is a topic, which is hotly debated both at the local and especially national level. Should people who earn more, pay more such as the progressive tax rate illustrates? Or is a proportional rate more conducive to stable school funding? Funding which is predicated on income level and property ownership can prove beneficial to high earning districts whereby they are able to spend far more per pupil versus communities with lessened property values and lower incomes. This might seem like common sense, however in times of economic hardship as we have struggled with over the past few years, declining home values and increased unemployment could hamper the potential and expected yields of this tax stream. On the other hand, towns that have a strong balance between residential, commercial, and industrial taxes may weather the economic turbulence better than towns that primarily rely on a residential tax base as a result of their more diverse tax base. Sales tax is another popularly contested tax source which although vertically inequitable does provide a relatively constant resource. With that being said, individuals need to purchase items, however those who are higher earners will not struggle or fret over the cost of an item and subsequent tax. Thus there is a clear imbalance to this method of tax collection. Another caveat to this that Gardner does not directly address is the relative fluidity of the state sales tax. For example Massachusetts has over the past

decade-plus proposed regular changes to the sales tax through voter ballot approval. The 2010 ballot measure proposing lowering the state sales tax from 6.25% to 3% is the most recent instance of this. Had this been approved by a majority of Massachusettss citizens, public school services would have most likely been drastically reduced throughout each and every district. Furthermore, Massachusetts is a state that has lost some earnings from sales tax from neighboring New Hampshire where there is no sales tax. Each of these factors school leaders should be cognizant of when budget planning. Lastly, the privilege tax whereby schools may charge students and families the right to participate in an event or sport to generate revenue for the school has become a divisive issue for school administrators as well. This is an example of vertical inequity in the sense that the cost or fees may vary upon the activity and on the number of those involved. This form of funding although somewhat malleable and thus helpful to school administrators is also very dangerous as establishing fees can be precedent setting and can be viewed as a slippery slope towards future funding. Learning Module #2-Chapter Four-Application Problem #11 It was interesting when reading through this chapter from Gardner that I continually found myself wondering why public school funding in this country has not been reformed, basically just simplified over time. The public education system in this country has certainly evolved, and no doubt will continue to do so. However, it seems our country struggles still with how to fairly and properly fund schooling, ensuring an equal education for all children. If you really look at the system of school funding in this country from an outside perspective, it appears this method of financing is incredibly convoluted. Some states contribute far more to individual towns and cities for their schooling, others less so. Some states rely more heavily on federal funding, and again some do not. Further, when put into the context of fiscal equity, it is incredibly unfair and unbalanced for those on the lower end of the financial ladder. Those in wealthier states and towns simply have more money, when this money is directed back to the schools, per pupil spending increases and generally so too does their quality of education. Those in education, such as advisors to a

superintendent should be concerned with this equal allocation of resources. One caveat to this is the increasing percentage of students enrolled in the public schools with particular disabilities that may require an unequal distribution of district resources to adequately provide services. The value of the IDEA legislation was of course critical in providing a legal precedent that horizontal and vertical inequities of funding would cease to exist. Even still, towns and cities today that are most fortunate still are faced with properly funding education for all of their students, never mind poor or impoverished districts. Considering the federal government has a lessened role in determining what is a good education, the quality of education varies dramatically by the state. This in turn has forced the federal government to try and introduce programs to level the playing field so to speak. A prime example of this is Race to the Top where federal grant money is allocated based somewhat arbitrarily on meeting particular criteria set forth by the government. On one hand, this approach in theory would provide opportunity for all schools, allowing for districts wealthy or poor access to federal monies, thus addressing vertical inequities in funding. However this is neither vertically or horizontally equitable as scarce resources are being distributed not necessarily by need or any really systematic approach. However, if you are an educational leader working in a school or district, which has vocational schooling, additional federal funding is always available. The SmithHughes Act of 1917 where the federal government guarantees increased financial aid to districts that have some type of vocational training is important to understand as school leaders could utilize that resource to help in subsidizing the costs of new programs or initiatives that are could help enhance student learning if you were working in an applicable location. Therefore, any leader in education, for example someone who is advising a superintendent must have a strong grasp and plan on how to guarantee that all students will continue to have the resources they need to be successful. Determining the EPV or Equalized Property Value of your town is one of the better quantitative measures in evaluating where one district stands in comparison to others. This measurement is one of the more telling pieces of data that educational leaders must understand when assessing what type of funding they may be privy to at the local, state, and federal level. This

indicator is perhaps the best tool to help districts and schools that are unfunded in attaining additional federal and state dollars that promotes equal education for all.