Adequacy
  Academics argue vigorously about whether "money matters" -- but more the important question is how money can be spent effectively.
California is in line with national figures that show about 60 percent of each dollar is spent directly in the classroom, about 9 percent on administration, and the rest going to transportation, maintenance and non-classroom services.
Because there are no agreed-upon standards for an adequate education, California starts with a given pot of money and then determines what kind of education services to provide with those resources. The question of what is adequate is never directly addressed.

Adequate Funding

Finding 5: The allocation of education funding is driven by resource availability and political considerations rather than a determination of what is required to provide an adequate education.

When the State wants to build a highway, it plans a design, accepts bids from contractors and then moves ahead with construction once enough funding is available. The cost depends on the product -- the length, width and type of road, the conditions that must be overcome to build it, the wages of the workers, etc.

But when it comes to education, the process is reversed. The State starts with an allocation and then tries to determine how much and what kind of education that will buy. Unfortunately, the product is ill-defined, methods can vary substantially and quality is uncertain. It should not be surprising, therefore, that there is never a sure answer to "how much is enough?"

The role of money in education is a much-studied and often-debated topic in academic circles, in legislative arenas and in taxpayers' forums. It often goes hand-in-hand with discussions of equity -- the concept that children should have equal access to educational services. These intertwined issues are explored in this finding, which summarizes academic literature and highlights proposed standards for adequate funding and equity.

Does Money Matter?

As noted in the Background, debate has raged for some time in the academic world about whether money makes a difference in the quality of education a student receives. Intuitively, one is sure that poor educational outcomes occur in school districts with bare-bones budgets and slim options.

But such is not always the case. The Los Angeles Times recently highlighted a Sausalito school district that ranks tenth out of 1,000 districts in per-pupil funding, spending almost three times the state average. Despite small class sizes and many specialty teachers, the district's students barely reach the 40th percentile in reading and language skills on standardized tests.(124) Money -- and lots of it -- has not made a dent in the problem.

Advocates for increasing education spending see the Sausilito case as an anomaly. By and large, they maintain, many of the education system's shortcomings could be solved by bigger budgets. The critics of expanding state education spending argue that Sausilito is just an unusually clear case that supports their contention: Pouring more money into a broken system will not fix anything -- it will simply buy more of the same poor results.

So the question is: Once a system is operational, will adding resources improve student outcomes?

Beginning in the mid-1960s, researchers began publishing studies estimating the relationship between school spending and student achievement, while controlling for factors like home environment. The early work showed that resources have a very small impact on learning.(125) By the mid-1980s, economist Eric Hanushek found 187 studies to review and synthesize. His conclusion, which received widespread publicity: Inputs in schooling -- teacher-student ratios, teacher experience and training and expenditures on staff and facilities -- have almost no consistent impact on student achievement on standardized tests.(126)

Hanushek's work was systematically rejected in 1994 and 1995 by a team of researchers who questioned both his methods and his conclusions. They concluded that their synthesis of the same studies Hanushek reviewed showed resources do have an impact on achievement -- and that the effect became more pronounced when newer studies were added. Global resources -- per pupil expenditures -- showed positive, strong and consistent relations with achievement. Other important factors included smaller classes and smaller schools. But the most important variable was teacher ability.(127)

The two sides trade barbed comments in published literature today, Hanushek maintaining his original conclusion and bolstering it with further studies and the team of researchers displaying some frustration that his results continue to have credibility in many circles. But both sides have moved on to the more pertinent question of how money can be used effectively to make a difference. Some researchers have explored the question of how schools use extra money when they receive it. And some researchers are even trying to pin down exactly how much money is required to produce good academic results. A sampling of their work shows:

  • In a study of Alabama schools, teacher test scores, teacher education and class size were shown to be strongly related to better academic outcomes. Although the correct threshold for class size was not determined, the researchers theorized that the range was no higher than 23 to 25 children per teacher. In the low-spending Alabama schools -- where small added investments could be expected to make a dramatic difference -- the researchers found that a 10 percent increase in spending raised test results from the 10th percentile to the median.(128)

  • A 1991 study in Texas indicated that hiring teachers with strong literacy skills, lowering student-teacher ratio to 18-to-1, retaining experienced teachers and attracting teachers with advanced training all made a difference in test scores.(129)

  • A New York study found that smaller class sizes, more experienced teachers and higher levels of formal education for teachers all had an impact on achievement rates. Smaller class size was also found to be important in an ongoing assessment in Tennessee.(130)

  • Different sets of researchers close in on a $10,000 figure for the amount required to meet the needs of disadvantaged students. One estimates that extra services to accelerate achievement for at-risk students add about $5,000 to a $5,000 average spending level. Others, examining actual expenditures in New York districts, found that extra services needed cost about $3,500 added to a base expenditure of $6,000.(131)

  • Another research paper argues that current knowledge does not allow anyone to determine the minimum level of financial support that is needed for an adequate education -- nor the extra amount needed to help disadvantaged students. It is impossible to determine these amounts because schools are not set up in a manner to maximize learning and spending choices do not increase achievement rates.(132)

  • Supporters of giving students vouchers to purchase private education argue that expenses in public schools are already far beyond what is needed for adequate education. They point to the difference between the average tuition for all private schools in the nation -- $3,116 -- and the average amount of per-pupil spending nationally in public schools -- $6,857.(133)

  • When schools are judged for academic effectiveness in comparison to dollars that are spent, the multiple functions that they serve are often ignored, according to two researchers. They point to data that shows much of increased spending in the past 25 years has gone for new activities other than classroom academics, including training the disabled, student health and nutrition, vocational education and assimilation of non-English speaking children.(134)

    Other research has focused on how schools use their basic resources. Schools across the United States consistently spend about 60 percent of their dollars on direct student instruction -- a constant finding that one researcher has labeled remarkable considering the diversity of systems and requirements across the nation. This percentage remains true regardless of how much is spent per pupil, the size of the school, grade level and other factors. And when resources are increased, districts typically continue to spend the dollars in the same proportions on the same types of activities. In other words, districts buy more of the same educational inputs when they have the opportunity. The researchers concluded that if additional revenues are spent in the same manner as current revenues, student achievement rates are unlikely to change.(135)

    California's own statistics fall in line generally with the findings on how money is spent. The 60 percent figure for classroom instruction and a national average of 8.7 percent for school-site and central administration comes close to the state percentages, as shown in the chart at right -- although California has a slightly higher level of spending in the classroom and slightly lower level that is attributed to administration.

    The entrenched patterns of school spending may explain why the potential impact of giving schools more money is questioned. When districts receive new funding, they rarely use it creatively or effectively, according to experts who reviewed multiple studies. Resources are not invested in ways that directly raise student achievement. Funds are often used to raise teacher salaries, but rarely in a strategic way to enhance staff expertise. Other increases are used to provide services to special-need students but there is little evidence of increased achievement rates from these investments. Studies in Kentucky, New Jersey and Texas showed that when supplied additional funding, poor districts improve their learning environment but rarely address central education issues that would make a difference in learning outcome.(136)

    The question of how money is spent and how much is needed to provide an adequate education often becomes more sharply debated when the question of equity enters the equation. As one expert pointed out to the Commission, equity and equality are not the same. Finding the right formula to treat all children equitably may be even more complex than determining what it takes to fund an adequate education -- and answering the former without knowing the latter is particularly difficult.

    When is Equity Fair?

    Much of the effort to bring educational equity to all children has focused on equalizing the dollars that are available to districts to purchase education services. But it has not taken long for researchers to realize that impoverished districts flooded with new resources under court order may still yield poor educational results.

    While reform efforts across the nation have shifted from equity to adequacy, many would argue the means of measuring have not kept up with the changing goals. Early equity lawsuits targeted broad per-pupil spending -- what is called "horizontal" equity, or ensuring that the same amount is spent on each student regardless of different needs.

    From the beginning, courts and policy makers recognized that horizontal equity would not provide equality of education. "Vertical" equity recognizes that children vary in their needs and that equity is achieved when differing needs are equally met. In both cases, verifying equity requires a measurement of input dollars. And in both is an implicit assumption that equal dollars will be used to buy equal amounts of appropriate educational resources.(137)

    The National Coalition of Education Equity Advocates has suggested three indicators that might better measure equity that is meaningful to students:

  • Programmic equity: This would focus on educational resources rather than dollars. Consensus would be required to establish standards for such things as structures, services, curricula, books, computers, etc.

  • Program implementation equity: This addresses whether effective programs and services are not just planned and financed but are also in fact provided. The focus would be on the extent to which the curriculum is actually offered across all student groups and the competency of its delivery.

  • Outcomes equity: This measurement shifts the focus to results, comparing what students are able to achieve based on the different learning opportunities provided by schools.

    The coalition argues that focusing on equality of dollars or extra resources is not productive if the results do not improve. They write:

    More than two decades of experience have shown that educational equity for poor, minority and other at-risk students cannot be achieved by a patchwork of "compensatory" services added on to a fictional "mainstream" education that serves all children equally. Equity requires finally providing what we have for too-long pretended exists -- the resources and the will to provide high quality educational opportunity to whatever child enters through a public school's doors.(138)

    California policy makers have discussed tailoring education to each child to meet individualized needs. Senator (then-Assemblyman) John Vasconcellos advocated such a child-by-child approach in a bill that failed to advance in the Legislature. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin has made personalized student assessments an element of her "challenge" districts, a program that encourages districts to focus on academic results in return for relaxed oversight provisions. But for the majority of school children, California schools continue to offer a one-size -fits-all access to education.

    Setting Standards

    When the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards finally weighs in with an end product, California will have specific goals for its education system and a yardstick to measure results. But while the Commission is expected to address what should be learned and when, the State will still lack standards for many elements of the education system. For instance, are schools adequate if they effectively teach the mandated skills but have leaky roofs and unsafe settings? Is it adequate to have 30-to-1 student-teacher ratios if 90 percent of children can meet goals, or should ratios be dropped to improve the percentage of children succeeding?

    Because the questions of funding adequacy and educational equity seem so very fundamental to any evaluation of a school financing structure, the Little Hoover Commission's Education Finance Advisory Committee spent considerable time discussing possible standards. The committee agreed on some basic statements:

  • More money can make a difference. The members agreed that more money can make a difference when it is used well. Setting goals, creating plans based on the goals and measuring the results are important elements that allow money to be used well.

  • Not all funds are directed to educational activities. The advisory committee noted that for convenience, effectiveness and efficiency, the State delivers some non-education services at the school site, such as child care, nutrition and health programs. These added costs should not be confused with the cost of educating children.

  • Equity of educational opportunity should be a primary goal. This would guarantee that all students have:

    The advisory committee also reviewed the 1974 work of the so-called Hanson Committee, a model that set standards for providing quality education and attributed costs to the different elements. The Hanson group crafted its report in response to the Serrano decision and in an advisory capacity to the State Board of Education. The report adopted a variety of very specific standards to determine costs, including such things as providing one librarian for each 1,000 students, one counselor per 450 students, one certificated resource specialist for each 40 teachers, four instructional supervisors for each 100 teachers, one custodian per 10 teachers and one maintenance person per 15 teachers.(139)

    While a logical approach to school funding, advisory committee members questioned the value of updating the document -- an exercise that could involve considerable effort to both determine new costs and reach consensus on appropriate standards in today's environment. Policy makers might find such information interesting, members said, but hardly useful since it was widely expected that spending required to support such a model statewide would greatly outstrip California's present funding capacity. Advisory committee members also worried that any attempt to craft a model might end up being imposed as a mandate on districts, limiting local ability to make appropriate decisions.

    But at least one witness urged the Little Hoover Commission to undertake the task. He said models should be developed for a typical elementary school and a typical high school:

    Such a model would help people understand what various levels of expenditure can produce and what choices they may trade off to obtain the educational quality that is important to them.

    Summary

    What constitutes an adequate education and how equity of educational opportunity can be achieved are slippery issues that are rarely directly addressed when it comes time to allocate dollars for schools. In California, the resources available for education are a fairly fixed sum dictated by Proposition 98 and the pressing, competing demands from other services the State must provide.

    But just as it is difficult to judge performance of students without adequate goals and assessment practices, the lack of a consensus on standards for providing education makes it difficult to determine whether the State is falling short of what it should be investing in education. When policy makers decide to direct new funding to reducing class size, it would be good to know if that step will improve learning -- but it also would be wise for policy makers to know and understand the trade-off that is made in earmarking funds for that purpose instead of another.

    Nothing in today's research or state policies provide the answer to that type of question. As a result, the State's investment in education is made without the kind of information that would be demanded in the business world when billions of dollars are involved. It is hardly surprising that the results often are not what policy makers were aiming for.

    Recommendations

    Recommendation 8: The Governor and the Legislature should convene a process to build consensus on what elements constitute an adequate education environment in California.

    Just as the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards is focused on learning content, a similar commission could consider issues such as class size, school year length, number of course offerings in high schools, building condition and ratios of types of services to students. These elements could then be used to develop standard school components, with coinciding expense estimates, to serve as a model for districts.



    Next Section   Previous Section   Table of Contents