-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/c5403cd7ea2c739ffa5c975509725f16.pdf
8b7aabe4dc408d954f32d64e5d042187
PDF Text
Text
..
--,'~--..: ------------,;------,-~
'.;
.:t;
MAKING MONEY MATTER
..
Financing America's Schools
EMBARGOED:
NOT FOR PuBLIC RELEASE BEFORE'
Friday, September 10, 1999
10:00 s.m. EDT
PLEASE CITE AS A REPORT OF THE
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCil
�EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A national desire to ensure that all. children learn and ~hieve to high standards now
poses fundamental challenges to almost every facet ofbusiness as usual in American education.
Policy makers and educators are searching for better ways to provide today's schoolchildren with
the knowledge and skills they ~ need to function effectively as citizens and workers'in a future
society ~ promises to be increasingly complex and globally interconnected. A key component
ofthis quest involves school finapce and decisions about how the 5300 billion the United States
'
!
.
,
,
. spends annually on public elementary and secOndaryeducati'on can most effectively ~ raised
..
,
'
.
and used.
A new emp~ on raising achievement for aU students poses an important but daunting
ch3l1enge for policy makers: how to harness the education finance system' to this objective. This
.cballenge is important because it aims to link finance directly to the purposes of education. It is
daunting because making money matter in this way means that school finance decisions must .
.
1
t
I
•
f
I
become intertwined with an unprecedented ambition for the nation's schools: never before has
the nation set for itself the goal ofeduC;lting all children to high·standards. " ....
.This report argues that money can and must be made to matter more than in the past ifthe "
nation is to reach its ambitious goal ofimproving achievement for all students.·
There are,
however, no easy soluti9ns to this· because values are in conflict, conditions vary
challenge,
I
.
widely from place to place. and knowledge about the link between resoUrces and leaming is
incomplete. Moreover, without societal. attention to wider inequalities in social and economic .
opportunities, it is unrealistic to expect that schools alone, no matter how much money they
. E8-1
".
�09/09/99
1"1 : ~'I
l<"AA
, receive or how well they use it, win be able to overcome serious disadvantages that affect the
capacity ofmany children to gain full benefit from what education has to offer.
,
"
Taking full acCount of connicting va~ues, wide variation in edueatio,nal
contexts, and strengths and limitations of existing knowledge, the Comm1Uee
on Education FiDaaee concludes that money can aad should be used more
etredively than It traditionally has been to make a difference ~ U.s. schools.
To promote the ac:h1evement of a fair and productive educational system,
, finance dec~ions should be explicitly aligned with broad educational goal$.
In the past, finance policy focused primarily ,on availability ofrevenues or di~8rities in
.
.
"
.
spending, and decisions were made independently ofefforts to improve the educational system's
.'
performance. Altliough school finance 'policy must not ignore the continuing facts ofrevenue '
,~
,
needs and spending disparities, it also should be a key compon~t ofeducation strategies
clesigncdto foster bigh levels ofleaming for all students and to reduce the nexus between student
Khievcment and family background.
To ~ls end., the emerging concept offunding adequaCYt wlUch moves beyond
tile IDOre ,traditional concepts of finance equity to' focus attention on the
-tndaacy of funding for desired educationai outcomes, is aa Important step.
.
,
~""""-r'
, - , . . 0 Idc:qU21""\J'
.
' - J
"
15 useful because it shifts
""'~ IIIIpI:.a 10 ~'
"
. "~
the focus of finance policy from
•
.
and educational ~utcomes and forces discussion ofhow much money
E8-2
�is needed to achieve what ends. It also could drive the education.system to become more /
productive by focusing attention on the relationsbip between resources and outcomes.
•
f
I
I
,
I
Applying aD adequacy standard to school finaDce is at preseDt an art, Dot a
f~
scieDce. Misus~ of the concept can be minimized if adequacy-based poncies
!
are ImplemeDted with appropriate recognitioD of the need for policy
t
.
'. '
.
Judgmel!ts ad of the incomplete knowledge about tbecosts of an adequate.
education.
.
I
Efforts to define and measure adequate funding are in their infancy. A number of
I
technical challenges remain, -including the detennination ofhow much more it costs to educate
chllc:b:en from disadvantaged backgrounds than those from more privileged circumstances.
r
I·
Beypnd these, some fundamental questions about educational adequacy (such as'how broad and
•
..
ho~ bigh the standards should be) are ultimately yalue judgments and are not strictly technical or
.'
mechanical issues. A key danger is that political pressures may result in specifYing ad~uacy at
so low a lev~l as to trivialize the concept as a meaningful criterion in setting finance policy, or at
sO high a level that it encomages unnecessary spending. Anotheds that policy makers will fail
to account for the higher costs ofeducating disadvantaged students.
MakiDg mODey matter more requires more thaD adequate fUDdillg. It also
requiresadditional.finance strategies, s~~~~ in ..e-:p'p~';~
education ~ystem, aI~rlng ~~~_~~_ves t~..e.~~~r~.tha~pel'f~~,.
, :"
.~--
--~---
-,< ,.' .
.
ES-3
~
�09/09/99
17:58 FAX
"Col .... -
.....
empoweriDllcilooJs or parents or both to make decisions about the uses of
public funds.
.. For money to matter more, it mustbe used in ways that ensure that schools will have the
'. capacity to teach all students to high standards as well. as the incentive to do so. Policy options'
involve choices among individual finance strategies and combinations ofstrategies; policy
decisions will depend partially on philosophical outlook but can also be infonned by careful
attention to evidence from research and practice. Attention to cOntext is ~rtant as well. as
. educational and political conditions diverge widely from place to place and individual policy
options will often vary in effeCtiveness depending on local circumstances.
Educational chaUenges facing districts and sch,oots serving concentrations of
disadvantaged students are particularly intense, andsoclalscience research .
provides few definitive answers about how to improve educational outcomes
,
,
for these youngsters.
While pockets ofpoverty and disadvantage can be found in all types ofcommunities, the
perceived crisis in urban education is especially wotrisome. Ongoing refonn c:fforts should be
encouraged and evaluated for effectiveness. At the same time. systematic inquiry is needed into
. "
.
a range ofmore comprehensive and aggressive refonns in urban schools. Pie,pemea1 reform
efforts in the past have not generated clear gains in achievement, and genCf8:1:ioDS of at-risk
schoolchildren have remained poorly served by public education. Because the benefits of
systematic inquiry will extend beyond anyone district or state, the fedend' government should,
ES-4
�- - ' - C - ,~,.--:-
bear primary responsibility for initiating and evaluating bold strategies for improving educati~n
for ~t-risk '~cnts.
.'
.
,
,·Improving the Ali:terican system of education finance is complicated ,by
t
i
!
•
,
,
",' 'deeply rooted difJerence5 In values about education, the'role'ofparents in
·
.guiding the development of their children, and the role ofindividuals and
governments iii • democratic sOciety. In addition, there are serious
, shortcomings in knowledge about exactly how ,to Improve learning for aU
i
students. Education ppUcy cannot Ignore these facts. Instead, the challenges
}
,
. are to balance difl'ering values in a thoughtful and informed maililer and
,*
..
CODtiDuOUSIy to pursne bold, systematic, and rigorous inquiry to improve
understan~g abODt how
to make money matter more in achieving
. edUcadODal goals. .
The committee is Convinced ~~ thes~ challenges can be met aDd that the nation can ,
I
!
improve the way it raises and spends money so 'that finance decisions contribute more directly to'
I
·
making American education fair and effective.
1RE COMMlTIEE'S CHARGE AND APPROACH
The Committcc on Education Finance was eStablished 'under a congressional mandate to
the U.S. Department of Education to contract with the National Academy of Sci~es for a study
ofSchool finance. ,In fleshingout1he briefmandate assigned 1roPl Congress, the department
f
chatgcd the commi~ to evaluate the theory and practice of financing ,elementary and seCondary
t
t
(
r
.j
ES-5
.....
�"
17:59
'I.
U~~U~/99
UAY
l'aA
'education by federal, state, and local governments in the United States. The key question posed
,
r
, to tl1e committee was:
.'
,
·How can education finance systems be designed to ensure that all
~,
, ItUdeJits achieve high levels oflearnmg IlIJd that education funds'~,e:,raised ud used in the
.
.
~.
, m~st effiCient aDd effective manner possible? In canying out its study,' the comnnttee was
' .
:.....">
'
. '
,
.'
further chirged to,' give particular attention to issues ofeducational equity, ad~~y, and
'.
productivity. .
. ' .."-'.
.....'
The committee translated these key questions into three goals for education finance
systems. This translation provided objectives against which to eyaluate
the performance of
existing arrangements and the likely effects ofproposed changes:
.'
.
.
Goai 1: education finance systems snould facilitate a mbStantially higher level of
.
,
achievement for all students, while using .resources in a cost·efficient marmer.
Goal 2: education finance systems should facilitate efforts to breik the nexus between
,
,
,student b~kground characteristics and student achiev~ent.
Goal 3: ,education finance systems should ,generate revenue in a fair and efficient
manner.
,Finance policy and practice, especially now that they are being linked to the nation's
highest ambitions for schools, touch on virtually all facets ofeducation-Inevitably. therefore,
.
,
finance is controversial; education policy is one ofthe most contentious items on the public
J
policy agenda because it is deeply enmeshed in competing public ~ues. Widespread support
for equality ofeducational opportunity masks disagreement over the extent to which high levels
of fiscal equality' among students or between school districts is required and, over the extent to
ES~
�'I!:IUUQ
which it 'is appropriate for parents to spend some oftheir reSources to benefit their own children
.
....
.
in preference. to others. The division ofpowers in U.S. government and a traditi~)~:afemphasis
' . '
"
on local control mak~ changeS in the dispersion ofresponsibilities for raising, and 'spending
.
:
.,.,
, education dollars difficult ,and
,
'
.Iow. Americans' deep beliefin the value ofefficiency becomes
complicated to act on when it .encounters limited knowledge about what efficient solutions ~ in
ii.~~:...:....
......
education, disagreements about what the ends ofeducation should be, and belief that ~e', '
educational system should be democratically governed and responsive to a ,variety oflocal, state,
and national needs and views. It is 'thus hard for schools to be both democratic institutions and to
have the focused and durable goals that are viewed by some as necessary for an e~cient system.
..
Education policy in general and finance policy more specifically raise difficult questions
that require both moral wisdom and empirical research. Experts, such as the
members ofthe '
Committee on' Education J?~ce, can contribute to po~cy making by e~amining evidence and
by r8.ooIWiy and objectively clarifying the values and objectives at stake. They cannot resolve
. all disagreements, but they can render some views more reasonable and others 'less so.
,
I
I
i
The committee's inquiry into education finance takes place agairist the backdrop ofa
highly decentralized and diverse system ofU.S. education that makes description and
generalization difficult. The existing finance system is broadly characterized by delegation: of
sighlfieant RSponsibility for education to the loca1levet. by an average division of funding :'
responsibilities roughly even between state 'and local governments (with the federal government
prOViding only about 7 percent ofeducation revenues available to schools)~ and by great
variation from pIacC to place in the funds available for education and the level ofgovernment
that provides them. Education is not mentioned in the federal Constitution and therefore has
..
E8-7
.•.
,-
,
, '
, .....
�.... ..., .. v v
.l'l'l..A.
, been viewed as a power reserved to the states, most ofwhose constitutions spec~fy the provision
.
,
(
,
..
'
.• 'ofCducation as a key state obligation.
,
'An~ther backdrop for
'
i.
:'
the committee's deliberations is its assessment ofthe CWTCnt
condition ,of education as it relates to the three goals. Regarding goal 1;;"'promoting high
,
.
achievement for all student&-.and goal2-reducing the nexus between student ac.bievement and .
family background-the committee concluded that although schools are not f~g as badly as
some people charge, they are not sufficiently challenging all students to achieve high levels of
leaming and are poorly selVing many ofthe nation's most disadvantaged children. The
. '
( ,
continuing correlation between measures ofstudent achievement and student background
('
.
.
characteristics, such as ethnic statuS and household income, looms ever more serious as global .
economic changes have ·increasingly tied the economic well-being ofindividual.$ to their
educational attainment and achievement Particularly troublesom~ is the perceived crisis ~ ..
eciUcation in many big-city school systems, a condition that has concerned policy makers since
. the 19605 but has been too often stubbornly resistant to improvement.
Regarding goal 3-raising revenue fmlr and efficiently-the United States is unique in its
.
"
heavy reliance on revenue i-aising by local school districts. the extensiv~ use ofthe locai property
tax, and the small federal role. Despite significant amounts of stat~ financial assistance to local
..
school districts, spending levels vary greatly among districts within states and also across states,
a situation that many people believe is unfair. Moreover, the l~ property tax is Dot always
administered eq~ly and may generate a greater btttden on taxpayers with low income than on
those with ~gh income. Efforts to increase fairness, however, must be balanced by sensitivity to
possible effects on the efficiency with which funds are raised.
ES-8
'
�F.AIJ;UmSS 'AND PRODUCTMTY IN SCHOOL FINANCE '
Fairness in the distrib~on of education 'dollars has long been an objective ofsehool'
tinSnce refoImers, but 'one ~t has frequently been thwarted by the political reaUties ofan
education system that allocates much of the responsibility for funding and operating schoolS to
local govemments. C()ncem about how funding policies and practices affect the perfomlance of
schools is a JDore recent development, but one that is becoming ever more 'central to school
finance decision making.
In the aftermath of Brown v. Board ofEducation, 347 U.S. 483' (1954), the United StateS
I
f
awoke from its historical indifference to the problem. ofunequal educafjonal opportunitieS and
began to ,address them. Beginning about 1970, the nation entered a notably vigorous peri~ of
school finance refonn aimed at maldng the distribution of education dollars more fair. Litigants
,
.
."
.
"
.:.
.....~
...,: .
in a number ofstates succeeded in having state finance systems overturned in court on:the .. :
I
I
grounds that they violated state constitutional equal protection p.rovisions or education clauses.
[
I
I
t
I
l
r.
l
~
In the wake ofthese cowt decisions, virtually all states, whether under ~urt order or not,
substantially changed their finance systems.. State and federal, governments also created a
number ofcategorical pr~gramsdirecting resources to students with special education needs and
.
'
to some cxtem compensating for funding inequities at the local level.
Despite these changes, U.S. education continues to be characterized by1arge disparities
in echic:anonal spending. While within-state funding disparities decreased in some states,
especially those subject to court-mandated reform, large disparities persi~. Moreover, disparities
,
,
continue to miITor the economic circumstances ofdistrict residents; districts with lower-income
residents spend less than districts whose residents have higher incomes. In some dis1ricts, this
pattern is repeated in school-to--school spending di.fterences. Nationwide, over half of the
E8-9
,
-
'
.
�""''ii'
Vi;J'
.LO: Ul. f4'JlA
~"
I
t
dispanty in district p~·pupil spending is the result ofdifferences in spending between states
.
.. '
..
..
,~':
'
rather than within states.
,
,
Particularly in the last decade, the concept of fairness asit applies to school finance has
, ,taken on a new emphasis. SpaWninganothet roundoflitlgation and refo~. The pursuit of
.
fairness baS moved beyond a 'focus on the relative distribution ofeducational mputsto embrace
"
"
, the idea ofeducational adequacy as the standard to which school finance systems should be held.
I.
Despite the success ofadequacy arguments in several prominent 'SChool :fiD.~ce court
'decisions, there is
. '
as yet no consensus on its meaning and oDIy limited underStanding about what
"
.
. "
----
, :would be required to ~hieve it Adequacy is an evolving COD::Pt,' and major C01lceptual and ,
~
"
'
,; technical cballengesremain to be overcome ifschool finance is to be held to an adequacy ,
i
.:
standard. Earlier cxmpepts of equity , .
posed similatcballenges in their infancy. although over time
.
.
,
,
,
'
'much progress was made, in defining and measuring them. ' Similar progress may be expected
"
; here. In the meantime, awareness ofthe shortcomings in current Understanding ofadequacy is
,
,
: important for all who woUld use the concepiin either policy making orin researCh.
'
,
In part, efforts to use finance policies to achieve educational adequacy depend centrally
~ Understanding bow to translate dollars into student achleVeInent in fact, hov,:cver,knowledge
, about improving produCtivity in education is weak and contested. The concept ,itself is elusive
and difficult to measure.·'There is,as yet no generally accepted theory to guide finance refoims.
,
,
IDstead multiple theories, eachofYvhich is uicomplete, compete for attention. Empirical studies
.
.
' .
.
.
\
seeking to determine the best ways to dirett resources to improve ,school performance have ,
produced inconsistent findiIl~. '
.
.
..
Equality ofEducational Opp()rtunity, the ~amous study ofthe mid-l960s known as the
,
(
Coleman Report, found~ after ~Y background factors were statistically con¥lled, school
:
\
, ES-IO
�resource variation did not explain differences in student achievement. The Co.leman rcjJort
ushered in decades ofproductivity research attempting to understand (and perhaPs disCredit) that
counterintuitive result. For many years, the inability ofresearc;hers to speak, Corisistently on how
to improve schools has frustrated scientists and policy makers alike. While there is still a great
deal ofunccrtainty about how to make schools better or how to deploy resources effectively, the .
committee's review ofthe last several decades ofresearch and policy development on
educational productivity makes us more optimistic than our 'predeces~ors regarding the prospects
{or making informed school finance choices. Thirty years' worth ofinsights have generated a
host ofideas about bOw to u.se school1inance to improve school perfo~ce~ and researchers
i
t
·
.
have learned to ask better questions and to use improved research designs that yield more .
!
I
•
f
.
trustworthy findings. Knowledge is growing and will continue to grow. One major implication .
ofibis fact {or sChool finance is that good policy will reflect both the best knowledge available to
date and the need to continue experimenting and evolving as new knowledge emerges.
~
t
Even while understanding is becoming more sophisticated, knowledge about how to
..
1.
improve educational productivity will always be contingent and tentative, in part because the
f·
i
·
characteristics and.needs of key &c~tots-the students-differ greatly from·place to place.
.
., .
Therefore, solutions to the challenge ofimproving school performance are unlikely ever to apply
to all schools and students in all times and places. Policy makers and the public will have to
consider evidence and analysis about the strengths and weaknesses of strategies for change as
they also weigh differing values about what Americans want their schools to be and to do..
STRATEGIES FOR :MEETING THE GOALS
ES-U
..
�UIf;'UIf/99
i
18: 02 l"AX
•
'"C::I ... _
Four generic strategies can be used to make money mattet.more for U.S~. schools and to
. '.
propel the education system in desirable directions:
....
....:
.' .
' . t'
•
Reduce funding inequities and inadequacies; .
•
Invest more resource~ (either new or reallOcated from other uses) in developing
capacity;
,.
.• Alter incentives to make performance count (within the existing governance
structure); and
•
Empqwer schools and parents to make decisions about the use ofpublic funds ,.
•
•
•
:
J
(thereby altering governance and management relationships).
Reducing funding inequities and inadequacies includes options such as reducing
.....
~
~arities in funding
-
across schools, districts, or states; ensuring that all schools Qr districts have
fimgmg sufficient to provide an adequate level ofeducation to the students they serve; and
--~
.....
.
raising revenue more fairly without neglecting efficiency. Inv~ting, mOre resources in
developing capacity refers not only to the capacity ofthe formal education system to provide "
services but also to the capacity ofstudents to leam. Hence, it includes investments in inputs,
"-
..
.
---'
...........
~ as ~her quality and. technology, and in programs, such as 3Ke=¥~Eor disadvantaged
"-
students. Altering incentives embraces changes in incentives desigl;1ed to operate prilnarily
.
within the existing system ofschool governance and includes policies such as re~g
t~er salaries, use ofschool-based incentive programs,
and changes to the incentives built into
tmanclDg formulas for students with special needs. Em.Powering schools and parents refers to
policies"that would d~ significant authority over the use ofpublic funds, to schools in
E8-1Z
,','"
�09109/99· 18:03 FAX
__~.I__
'i~·~·
______
--~------------------------~---------------------~v~~
the fotID ofsite-based man~gement or charter Schools, and to parents· in the f~r~'f of sigmficant' ':.,
-
additional parental ,choice over: which schools (public and perh~s private as well) their children ',: ':
will attend.
In-reality, policy makers do not and should not consider strategies in isolation. Finance
policies ought to reflect the interrelatedness ofthe various facets of the :finance system and the
possibility that ccmlplementary changes may be required for reform to be successful. Indeed,
some visiOllS ofoverall education reform explicitly call for a set of intert\\jJ:ied fina;lee strategies.
Our decisiOn to examine the strategies separately is useful for analytical purposes, but it also
"
.reflects the important fact that strategies can be combined in different ways. It is impOrtant to
.1
,I
emphasize. however. that not all strategies are compatible. For example, a centrally (i.e., state or
school ~strict) managed program ofinvestment in capacity would not fit naturally with a .
I
p:ognn:. thnt empowers parents and schools to make decisions abouttthe kind ofcapacity in
which they wish to invest.
•For each ofthe three goals for an ~ucation finance system, we ev31uate a variety of
t
policy options employing these strategies and weigh the evidence on how effective they are
t
likely to be in helping meet 1he objectives.
~
Achieving goal 1: Promoting high achievemeDt for aU studeDts in a co.st-emcie1lt
way_ .
':
�09/09/99
18:03 FAX
: ....
,
achievement. Thus, while funding adequacy may be a necessary part ofany education
.
.
.'
.
,
~form ef:f~-and is likely to be especially crucial for districts·or schools serving
disproportionate numbers o{disadvantaged students-it is at most part ofan overall.
program for increasing student achievem~t in a cost-efficient way~.
" 1\
.. "
,)yf
,)'x;f' • Tcac~g all ~ hi~standards_makes un~recedented demands on teachers and
to
\\\,\~'
~\l'v\)
.
requires changes in traditional approaches to teacher training and retraining. 'In addition
to nonfinance policies for investing in the capacity ofteachers (e.g., reforming teacher .
..
----
---
preparation and licensing), finance options might include raising teacher salaries and .'
.
,
investing in the professional development ofteachers once they are on the job. Given
'. schools' need to hire 2 million new teachers over the coming decade, raising salaries
especially for new hires-may be needed to ensure sufficient numbers ofqualified people
in classrooms. Professional development that is aligned with CUITiculum reform and '
-----
=--'--
'
teJCbing objectives offers the promise of changing teaching practice in ways likely to
improve student performance. But neither approach is likely to be effective in ichieving
.' goal 1 UJJ.l.:ss it is aligned with appropriate incentives throughout the Cducation system to
make perfoIIl131lCC count.
.' '. Altering incentives reSponds to the fact that the school finance system historically has
operated almost in isolation from educational performance, in that educati~ goals and
desired outcomes have seldom been reflected in pay for teachers and budgets for sChools,
Tra4itional teadler salary schedules proVide higher pay for experience and postgraduate
t
' . ' ,
degrees. neither ofwhich appears to be systematically linked with student acbievemeni.
ES-14
,';.
"
.;
�.
'
Skill and knowledge·based pay shows greater promise for making teachersmo~
•
w
,:,
'
-..:.....
. effective in the' classroom but reinains to be testcd.School-based accountability and
-..
~~ systems are incfeasingly popular and seem to contribute to desired student
I
I
•
oUtcomes. To be fully'effective, however, theyrequ.irc adequate funding for schools and
attention to capacity building.
,.
• :Empowering schools or paz:ents to make decisions about public funds (via enhanced site-
.
.
.
based management, chuter schools or contract schools. or vouchers. for example) has
• ,;
.
C
.
•
•
beenjustified as a strategy for improving student achievement in a cost-efficient way
I
r
b.aSed on a variety ofdifi'etent arguments:
some contend that local control will enhance
, ,
"
r
innovation at the schoollevel; some 'believe that schools With a strong sense of
community perform better; and some believe that the introduction ofcompetition md the
f
possibility oflosmg students (and their associated funding) will encoUrage SchoolS to be
I
more productive thaD under the cWTent monopoly situa~o!\. Altl;1ough positive effects for
t
i
. '
.
. chi~ nsiag ~IRI have been rcpnttod mm:u.evera1 sites where ~ouchers have,!x='
tri$4. the small scale ofqgrient programs leaVes many important questions unanswered.,
f
f
I
Achieving loal2: RedutiDg the nems between student achievement ud
.
.
,
,
"
famBy background characteristics.
"
.
•
As money is made to matter more in education. funding disparities will become
,',
increasingly wonisome, because their effects on achievement will be magnified to the
~crrt ofchildren in underftmded schools, many ofwhom are likely to be from
disadvantaged backgrounds. The new f~ on funding adequacy ltas the potential to '
-
Es;.15
�--..---------------------------- --buildings in many older Urban areas suggests tbat rei~ ~f facilities financing must
,
'
........
also be attended to. Again, the effectiveness ofany individual policy change may
depend on how it is-.Iinked to an inten:onnected set ofstrategies for improviI,tg school
,
peri'orm8Dce, and some critics question \'Vhether these most troubled ofU.S. schools_
C8D,~ reformed through strategic investments 8Dd related strategies. or whether they
require much more fundamental structural change, such as might be brought about by
a voucher program.
"
•
• Most fedens1 and some state aid flows to schools via categorical programs tied to the
special needs of c:ertaiD groups of disadvantaged students. Title I compensatory
'.
education grants and sp~ education funding are the chiefexamples. Questions
have been nised about the extent to which the incentives dehoeratelyor inadvertently
. created by categorical programs serve educationally desirable purposes and whether
. and to what extent it continues to be appropriate to treat children 'Wit,4 special needs
separately in an educational system increasingly oriented toward fostering high levels
oflearning for aU students. Our fin~gs suggest that previously defined sharp
distinctions between students with speciale4ueational needs and'0ther stu,lents have
compromised educational effectiveness and tbat current efforts to move toward more
inte$f8ted school programs should be facilitated by the finance system.
• .Arguments for dramatic 1:hanges in School govcm.ance (by empowering schOols or
parents to make decisions about public funds) may be more compe1ling in urbin areas
with la!Be mrmbers ofdisadvantaged students. tban in th~ educational system in
-
Seneral for a nmnber ofreasons. The size ofmany urban districts and
.
the continuing' .
fact· ofr3cl&1 and economic segregation offer many mban residents much less,choice
.
ES-17
�,
"
:help ~vantaged studen~ but it will do so only to the extent that school funding
formulas are appropriately adjusted for the additional costs ofeducating youngsters
from disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Achieving goal 2 will also require attention to increasing both the capacity ofchildren
to Jearn and ofschools to teach. Children raised in economically and socially
impoverished environmentS or suffering'frpm physical disabilities often come to
!
. school less ready to learn than their more advantaged counterparts. Schools must deal
with these problems. even though they alone will not be able to solve them. A strong
~
.
,consensus has emerged among policy makers. practitioners, and research~ about the
iniportance of in:cr~eas=in=g~in:.:.v.:.:es:.:tm::en;;;:;.;;.ts;:..;in=-::th=e c=a~p..;;;.ac=ity~o;.;;;.f.;;;.at;;..;.n;.:.:·sk:::....:c:.:;;hi;:.;;·ldren.;:;;..;;=to;;...:l=~=i~ by
__
icJlI \,
v.;
~f~U
.focusing
,
on the scbool-readiness ofvery young children and by linking education to '
other social services. so that the broad range ofeducational, social, and physical
,....
'"
needs that affect leaming are addressed. Programs providing early childhood
interventions and school-coinmunity linkages give evidence ofboth promise and
"
'
problems. suggesting that there is Still much to l~ about making these investmentS
effectively.
• That more investment is needed in,the capacity ofschools to educate concentrations
ofdisadvantaged students would seem to be obvious given the dismal academic
performance ofmany ofthese students, but as yet we have only incomplete answers
~ the question ofwhich types
ofinvestments are likely to be the most productive ~d
how to structure them to make them effective. ,The quality ofteachers is likely to be
a,
I,
key component; reducing class size might help under certain conditioDS; ly.hole
school restructuring may have significant potential; and the dilapidated state ofschool
ES-16 ,
�ovet where and bow to educate their children t1wi suburban residents have.
Moreover, urban residents have arguably benefited least from pnor SCh901 reforms.
Both theory and' empirical evidence suggest fhat, among choice options, Charter
-
schools and vouchers, rather than interdistrict and intradistrict choice prograJD$, the
.
approaches most worthy offurther exploration as vehicles for improving poorI-
perf~ seh,ools. At pr~ent, however, little is
,
known about the effects ofeither.
'
'
Extensive evaluation is needed ofthe many charter efforts cUIl'ently under way.
.
Vouchers, both publicly and privately funded, are bein$ tried in a number ofcities,
.
,
but the eXisting small-scale efforts are unlikely to provide adequate information to
assuage the concerns ofthose who question the need for so dramatic a break with .';
traditional school finanpe policies.
Achieving goal 3: Raising revenue fairly and efficiently.
-
• Shifting away from local revenue raising to greater reliance on state revenues and/or
.
increasing significantly the federal role in revenue provision (or elemettt8ry ana,
.'
sccondaIy education would foster the goal of raising revenues faicJ.y. Both, however,
'
have to be considered in light oftrade-offs and complementarities with the other two
goals ofa good financing system and with attention to maintaining some local control
over managerial decisions.
• ,A larger federal role in providingeducation revenues could be juStified either on the
grounds that ~ fair and appropriate for the federal government to take respoDSlbility
.
.
for disproportionate needs of students who are poor, who have disabilities, or are
otherwise educationally disadvantaged, or on the grounds ofensuring ~ aU states
ES-18
.{
,
.",
�4
_1IIiiii_....
..........
vu
w
'..
- -
1"/'lA
---~·"'
.--__
~---
can provide adequate education funding. Fully funding federal compensatory "
education programs would be consistent 'With past federal policy and is likely to be "
the more politically viable ofthe two approaches. The alternative ofa new federal
foundation aid program based on an adequacy justification would eiltail a significant
"change in f~era1 policy and would raise many ofthe same analytical; conceptual, and
political issues that arise in the formulation ofadequacy progrm:ns at the state level. "
,
f
t,
Finally, the report draws attention to the nation's need for better and more focused
. education research to help strc:ngthen schools and bring about substantial improvements in
student leaming. Acknowledging the especially chaIlenging conditions facing many big-city
;
i
j
eduCatorS, the committee proposes three new substantial research initiatives in urban areas
I
(without
.
~ecifying the PrioritY-8m~em): (1) an experiment o~ ca~acity-building that would {
.tackle the challenges of develop~g and retaining well-prepared teachers; (2) systematic
t
i
!
I
I"
t
I
--~------------------~------------------
experimentation with incentives designed to motivate higher performance by teach:.rs and
-
schools; and (3) a large and ambitious school voucher experiment, including the participation of
.
.
.
'
"
"
private schools. Meeting the nation's education goals will depend in part on continuously and
. ~ematica1ly seeking better knowledge about how to improve educational outcomes, through
new research initiatives such as these along with more extensive evaluation ofthe many reform
efforts already underway.
f·
[
.
ES-19
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Andrew Rotherham - Education Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1999-2000
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36329">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Description
An account of the resource
The Education Series highlights topics relating to class size reduction, test preparation, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, charter schools, the digital divide, distance learning, youth violence in schools, teacher salaries, social promotion, Hispanic education, standardized testing, and after-school programs. The records include reports, draft legislation, memoranda, correspondence to and from organizations and community leaders that focus on education issues, articles, publications, email, and fact sheets relating to the Administration’s progress on education.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
171 folders in 12 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
National Research Council
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Andrew Rotherham
Education Series
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2011-0103-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 4
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2011-0103-S-edu.pdf">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/id/612954">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/22/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2011-0103-Sa-national-research-council
612954