2017-2018 National Debate Topic – responsibility for school funding

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Responsibility for School Funding
Baker, Bruce D. Does Money Matter in Education? Second Edition. Albert Shanker Institute 2016.
In this article, Baker analyzes three major questions related to funding and quality of education. She argues that the per-pupil spending has a significant impact on the student outcome. Also, the schooling resources that require money affect the outcome. Such include trained teachers, class sizes, and early childhood programs. She also suggests that there should be sustained levels of distribution of funds across all the schools.
Bakers work is significant in that it demonstrates the importance of equal funding across the schools. In so doing, all schools will have equal resources and all students will have improved outcomes. All children regardless of their background will access quality education.
Davis, Matthew, Andrea Vedder, and Joe Stone. “Local Tax Limits, Student Achievement, and School- Finance Equalization.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 41, no. 3 (2016): 289-301.
In this article, the authors evaluate the effect of enacting TELs on funding and the performance of the student. They suggest that constrained funding due to TELs or SFE (school finance equalization) does not have any significant effect on the student’s achievements. They examine the effects of tax expenditure limits (TELs) on education. They conclude that the local limits have no notable effect on expenditures of a given district although they affect the local funds due to the uncertainty of state funding.

Hence, tax compression has a lower impact on the performance compared to the uncertainty of funding. Therefore, it is important to have a predictable funding of schools.
Haney, Patrick. “Coercion by the Numbers: Conditional Spending Doctrine and the Future of Federal Education Spending.” Case Western Law Review, vol. 64, no. 2(2013): 577-617.
In this article, Haney analyzes a case of National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sibelius. The Supreme Court claimed that the federation act of conditional spending on education was unconstitutionally coercive. He addresses issues such as when a conditional spending for education may become unconstitutionally coercive and if conditional spending on other programs is venerable. Conditional funding offers benefits to the Congress due to its efficiency especially to those who avoid the federal bureaucracy. However, its major disadvantage is lack of political accountability.
I would support Haney in that the federal intervention in education should be minimal. This is because its involvement will create more coercion and heightened scrutiny from the judiciary. The state and local should have a greater share in choosing education policies.
Hanna, Robert. Seeing Beyond Silos: How State Education Agencies Spend Federal Education Dollars and Why. Center for American Progress, June 2014.
Hanna explores how the states spend the federal money they get for education and how the federal policies affect the expenditure. She argues that when there are strings attached to the federal funds, then the state leaders are unable to build the education agency capacity. Hence, there is a need for the federal policymakers and the state leaders to re-examine the regulations to ensure a new equilibrium. The federal funds are used in supporting staffs working on compliance, monitoring, and reporting. State leaders require federal funds for improving the staffs, providing, assessing students, and special education and to pay for other services. Hence the need for a balance.
Houck, Eric A., and Elizabeth Debray. “The Shift from Adequacy to Equity in Federal Education Policymaking: A Proposal for How ESEA Could Reshape the State Role in Education Finance.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3 (2015): 148-167.
In this article, Houck proposes the need to have a renewed federal focus on programs that provide an opportunity-to-learn. He suggests that the fiscal inequities which exist in education can be resolved by creating a program within the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by rewarding the states that play a major role in reforming the education within the states and the districts. This includes providing adequate school facilities, effective teachers, and instruments for learning. Hence, the states’ need funding to enhance developments and innovation of such a structure.
Houck’s ideas are essential since such works would reduce the gap for resources, outcome, and opportunities for students.
Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131, no. 1, 2016: 157-218.
The authors seek to find the relationship between the school spending and the student outcome. In their findings, they suggest that an increase of 10 percent per-pupil spending in a year led to 0.27 increases in completed educational years. It also resulted in 7.25 percent in an increase of wages and reduced the poverty level by 3.67 percent. This was attributed to reduced student-to-teacher ratio, increased salaries for teachers, and quality schools.
According to this study, the amount spent on each student contributes significantly to their performance and hence the wage that they receive after school when they are adults. Therefore, equal distribution of funds across all schools is important.
Leachman, M. N., et al. “Most States Have Cut School Funding, Some Continue Cutting.” D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. January 25, 2016.
The authors analyze how the states have continually limited the funding they offered to support elementary and secondary education. This is despite the fact that the future of a country relies on the quality of education that it offers to its children. The research indicates that in 2014, at least 31 states had reduced their support for education compared to the year 2008. The general funding was only increased slightly. Consequently, this has resulted in slow recovery from the economic recession, and weakening of the key funding education sources due to difficulties in making revenue from local property taxes as it calls for a raise in tax rates.
Hence, it is important to ensure that state funding is available as schools rely on that aid.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Supplanting the Law and Local Education Authority Through Regulatory Fiat, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 114th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 2016, Serial No. 114-53. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2017.
In this article, the U.S Congress describes what is required by the bipartisan law. It requires that all funds are distributed in such a way that the districts do not have to account for the federal resources. The secretary of education is also not allowed to interfere with any of the processes. However, the Secretary of Education proposed a “supplement, not supplant” rule. With such a rule, schools will make decisions to get numbers rather than considering the best interest of students. This is against the Every Student Succeeds Act. This will result in schools enacting the multi-billion-dollar tax regulation which will also affect the hiring and relocation of teachers.
Works Cited
Baker, Bruce D. Does Money Matter in Education? Second Edition. Albert Shanker Institute 2016.
Davis, Matthew, Andrea Vedder, and Joe Stone. “Local Tax Limits, Student Achievement, and School- Finance Equalization.” Journal of Education Finance, vol. 41, no. 3 (2016): 289-301.
Haney, Patrick. “Coercion by the Numbers: Conditional Spending Doctrine and the Future of Federal Education Spending.” Case Western Law Review, vol. 64, no. 2(2013): 577-617.
Hanna, Robert. Seeing Beyond Silos: How State Education Agencies Spend Federal Education Dollars and Why. Center for American Progress, June 2014.
Houck, Eric A., and Elizabeth Debray. “The Shift from Adequacy to Equity in Federal Education Policymaking: A Proposal for How ESEA Could Reshape the State Role in Education Finance.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 3 (2015): 148-167.
Jackson, C. Kirabo, Rucker C. Johnson, and Claudia Persico. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence from School Finance Reforms,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 131, no. 1, 2016: 157-218.
Leachman, M. N., et al. “Most States Have Cut School Funding, Some Continue Cutting.” D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. January 25, 2016.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Education and the Workforce. Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Supplanting the Law and Local Education Authority Through Regulatory Fiat, Hearing before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. 114th Cong., 2nd sess., Sept. 21, 2016, Serial No. 114-53. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2017.