by Renée Cockrell, MAT, NBCT
Almutairi (2015) defines the equality
approach to school funding as having the same, or equal, inputs (such as spending per student and available
resources) for all. However, this focus on having the same inputs does not
result in equity because “some students need more educational resources to
participate equally with others” (Almutairi, 2015, p. 513). Furthermore, the
equality approach to funding education ensures only that all students receive
the same inputs, but it does not concern itself with whether or not all
students receive adequate funding and resources.
Almutairi (2015) goes on to describe the
adequacy approach to funding education as being “satisfied when each student
gets adequate or enough education to meet a certain threshold” (p. 513). This
is problematic for two reasons, one of which Almutairi (2015) points out: this
approach fails to identify how to best distribute surplus funds, not concerning
itself with whether or not these funds are distributed equally or equitably.
Additionally, the idea of “enough” education seems to focus on aspects of
quantity rather than quality. The adequacy approach allows for inequality
beyond a bottom level of adequacy. It guarantees only a floor of adequacy, so
to speak, but certainly does not guarantee a world class quality education to
all such that would prepare all students to be equal citizens. Satz (2007), in
fact, defines the minimum requirement of the adequacy approach as the
preparation of every individual to be an equal citizen, a “full member” (p.
636) of our society, not necessarily equal in terms of wealth or income but of
equal rights and freedoms. However, Satz (2007) fails to address the issue of
inequality of opportunity that results from the adequacy model.
Equity is something very different from
simply equality (wherein everyone gets the same thing) or adequacy (wherein
everyone meets the bottom line outcome). Linton and Davis (2013) define equity
as a balance wherein every student receives the supports necessary to achieve
at a high and rigorous level. This is what every single one of our students
deserves. It transcends the requirements of the adequacy model while delving
more deeply beyond the equality model’s short-sighted focus on equal inputs.
Equity focuses on the output or achievement levels of students. It raises
expectations while addressing systemic inequality and bias.
Unfortunately, the reality of school funding
legislation and pratices in the United States is not an equitable one, yet. According to the United States
Department of Education (2015), school funding disparities nation-wide result
in less money spent per student in districts and schools serving the highest
percentage of poor families and students in poverty. The disparities are not
just in how much money is spent per pupil in a given year. The downstream
impact of disparities one year have an amplifying impact throughout the rest of
that student’s education and, possibly, life as a citizen beyond time in public
school, widening the opportunity gaps year after year in institutions whose
funding is negatively impacted by structural and institutional bias.
Almutairi (2015) introduces a concept of
distributive justice as an imperative focus of ethical decisions in funding
education. One powerful example of this is Colorado’s recently elected Governor
Jared Polis’s signing of a bill to fully fund full day kindergarten for all
Colorado students. The impact this equal funding will have will help to
decrease, but will by no means eliminate the opportunity gap. Colorado,
specifically, has many barriers to even adequate school funding – the adequacy
approach being so far below what our students deserve. Ikpa (2016) points out
the complexity of the situation with a description of inadequate state and
federal funding resulting in a system in which “most local governments depend
on property taxes and to a lesser extent income and sales taxes to generate
revenue” (p. 469). This is seriously problematic in Colorado after the 1992
passing of TABOR, the so-called Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which requires
allowing voters to decide on all tax increases. This has essentially frozen
school funding at 1992 levels (Staver, 2019). Educational advocates who began a
lawsuit in 2011 have only just this month received word that the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a decision allowing a challenge to the
constitutionality of the law. Though Governor Polis’s exciting achievements are
cause for hope, we in Colorado still have a very long way to go to secure
funding for the equitable education every single one of our students deserves.
References:
Almutairi, A. (2015). Is educational adequacy
adequate for just education? Educational
Studies, 51(6), 510-524. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=651be1d8-a79c-4894-accb-8e9d635892d9%40sessionmgr103
Ikpa, V. W. (2016). Politics, Adequacy, and
Education Funding. Education, 136(4),
468–472. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=116218133&site=ehost-live
Linton, C. & Davis, B. M. (2013). Equity 101: Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Satz, D. (2007). Equality, adequacy, and
education for citizenship. Ethics, 117(4),
623-648. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.csuglobal.idm.oclc.org/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=a75c6298-5ff9-4275-ae1d-c6e700c6ad3a%40pdc-v-sessmgr05
Staver, A. (2019, July 22). 10th
Circuit reverses TABOR ruling, says lawsuit can challenge Colorado law’s
constitutionality. The Denver Post.
Retrieved from https://www.denverpost.com/2019/07/22/tabor-lawsuit-appeals-court-reversal/
United States Department of Education.
(2015). Secretary Duncan: Step up and
fund education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2015/03/secretary-duncan-step-up-and-fund-education/
