Funding the Equitable Education Colorado's Students Deserve

by Renée Cockrell, MAT, NBCT

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

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 10^th 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). 10^th 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/