FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

How Does Illinois Deal with the Funding for Education?



How Does Illinois Deal with the Funding for Education?

Introduction

Funding of Illinois public schools has long been a focus of contention, primarily because children living in high-poverty and high-minority neighborhoods so often attend schools that have relatively few resources. Decades of litigation document a clash between commitments to “local control” of schools, on one hand, and the provision of equal educational opportunity, regardless of where one lives, on the other(Ramsay, et al., 1996, 18). This paper discusses how Illinois deals with the funding for education in a concise and comprehensive way.

Discussion

Books & McAninch (2006, pp. 67) mention unlike most industrialized nations, the United States relies heavily on local property taxes to fund its public schools. These revenues, which account for about 45 percent of total school funding, create significant disparities among school districts because local property values vary so much (Books & McAninch, 2006, pp. 90-92). Even when property-poor communities tax themselves at higher rates than property-rich communities, as is often the case, they cannot raise comparable revenues because property values are so much lower.

State revenues are another significant source of funding for public schools. Because budget priorities and tax policies differ from state to state, the size of the state share varies considerably, but on average, it is about 47 percent of the total. Some states allocate funds in such a way as to reduce the disparities created by local property tax revenues, but many do not.

A report by The Education Trust, a research and advocacy organization, found that in the six years it has been tracking the funding gap, the disparity between high- and low-poverty districts has remained unchanged (Books & McAninch, 2006, pp. 222). In 2003, in the nation as a whole, low-poverty school districts received approximately $900 more in state and local funds than high-poverty districts. (High-poverty districts were defined as the 25 percent of districts with the highest levels of poverty, and low-poverty districts as the 25 percent with the lowest levels.)

The third source of funding for public schools, federal revenues, comprises only about 8 percent of the total. These revenues come primarily through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized most recently as the No Child Left Behind Act) (Kozol, 2005, pp. 67-68). Although Title I funds often are used to bring spending in schools in poor neighborhoods up to par with spending in other neighborhoods, some funding is diverted to schools in wealthier neighborhoods.

The Issue of Poor People Getting Less Funds That Rich Gets

How large are disparities in school funding? In its 2006 Quality Counts report, Education Week reported that in 2003, average per-pupil spending (adjusted for regional cost differences) ranged from a high of $11,031 in Washington, D.C., to a low of $5,087 in Utah. Gaps among districts within states and among schools within districts exacerbate the state-to-state differences (Lieberman, 1993, pp. 57-59).

Funding disparities between large, predominantly minority city districts and nearby predominantly White suburban districts are particularly significant ...