School Financing: Enhancing Inequality in Education

School Financing: Enhancing Inequality in Education
A Review of Literature Paper
School Financing: Enhancing Inequality in Education
A Review of Literature Paper
Education is considered to play an influential part in the growth and development of a society. It also enhances freedom and democracy. In the contemporary society, education plays an integral part in determining the future competencies of the young people in an environment that is increasingly becoming competitive. Schools which are present in the environment need to strive to provide equal educational opportunities to the members of the society in order to enhance their chances of competing for the available opportunities in the society (Hammond, 2010). The demand for efficient and effective education is growing in the society with the desired outcome being competent members of the society with required knowledge and skills to compete in both domestic and global markets. In order to accomplish the goal of effective learning and equal educational opportunities in the environment, narrowing down of existing inequality gaps need to be achieved with regards to subgroups in the country. The daunting challenges which are being faced by educational institutions in the society are made complex by the existing changes experienced in the economy (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
In order to introduce efficiency and effectiveness in education and also instill equality, it is important that adequate funds are acquired. This is what is referred to as school financing, which ensures that the funds available to schools are able to meet the needs and derive required outcomes. The funds ensure that a rigorous curriculum with a broad range of subjects is developed and implemented, competent teacher are available to disseminate knowledge infrastructure that supports effective, efficient learning is available in the schools, and the learning environment is made as student friendly as possible (Gamkhar & Koerner, 2002). Adequate funds are required by schools to provide efficient and effective education to low income students, as well as to English language learners and students with other special needs, who require a platform for equal education in order to enhance their competencies in the society (French, 2009).
In their article, Kirsch et al. (2007) suggest that concentrated poverty levels in schools in some regions raises the need for more effective school financing mechanisms, which will avail more resources for the schools to develop and implement effective and efficient learning programs. Learning programs and strategies such as high quality early education, full-day kindergarten, and summer and after school learning programs are aimed at improving the learning outcomes of students. Hammond, however, states that funding alone through school financing cannot lead to better outcomes and academic performance by students in the society (2010). When resources are invested wisely in critical areas like quality teaching, effective curriculum, programs for struggling students, and infrastructure, the desired outcome is achieved. With this in mind, the purpose of this literature review is to explore school financing in the United States of America and determine effectiveness of the funding systems employed. This literature review explores the federal government and state mechanisms which are put in place to ensure that schools in the society are adequately funded and that equality is achieved in schools.
Literature Review
The existing research suggests that school financing has been a major concern for government officials at federal, state, and local levels for several years. According to French (2009), school financing is considered to be the largest expenditure account for allocation of funds in a single batch in most operating budgets of state and local governments. For the financial year 2002, the national education expenditure was estimated to be approximately $435.4 billion, which was characterized by a 46% increase from the expenditures utilized in 1992, which was approximately $298.6 billion. School financing revenue originates from a combination of local and state government taxes, federal grants and aid programs in place and sale taxes. Approximately 10% of the revenue spent in education in the country is provided by the federal government with the remaining 90% bulk coming from state government, local government, and other intermediate sources (French, 2009).
The funds which are provided for schools in the country are used to cover the expenses incurred by the educational institutions and provide the best possible services to the students. Seventy-one percent of the funds are used to pay salaries of teachers and other employees whose services are engaged by the institutions. Moreover, 19% of the funds are used for employee benefits, while 10% are utilized for purchasing of supplies and services (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007). It is important for members of the conventional society to understand school financing and its effect on inequality in education.
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) explain that the modern society is more sensitive to ensuring that people gain equal opportunities in the society with education being one of them. Inequality is considered to be a dynamic and complex social problem, which requires sustainable solution for effectiveness and efficiency to be achieved in the society. The following section of the literature review provides the framework of school financing in the United States, examines how it influences equality in education, and determines the consequences attached to it.
School Financing in United States
Funding of public education is a task that is delegated to the federal, state, and local governments. Revenues are used as a source of financing the schools in the society, hence disparity in levels of revenue creates difference in levels of funding that schools are able to attain. The sources of funding from the federal and state government are guided by mechanisms which are developed and implemented. They determine the levels of funds that schools under the jurisdictions are viable to receive (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Federal Funding
The federal government is tasked with ensuring that children are able to receive quality education in the country. This prompts the federal government to allocate part of its annual budget to finance schools in order to improve the quality of education. Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) state that the “Federal government operates a variety of grant programs which provide funding for K-12 education … that supplements state and local funding. Several of these programs are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which combined a number of existing separate education grant program” (p.7) with the programs aimed at improving the levels of equality by allocating funds on the need basis. This means that schools in the states are not allocated equal amount of funds unless they are categorized as having equal needs and deficiencies in terms of access to funds (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) suggest that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides several categories of grant programs, which are tailored to meet the needs of schools in the society. The scholars point out that the most important grant program provided by Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is known as Title I, Part A which allocates funds to schools in order to effectively provide education to students from low income families, hence reduce poverty prevalence in the society. The size of the grant that the federal government will dispatch to a state depends on the number of low income earning families who are present and the average expenditure per pupil in the respective states (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Title I has two parts, namely Part B and Part C, which provide funds for the states to finance their schools. Part C is concerned with reducing the rates of students dropping out. Thus, the higher the rates of student dropout rates in a state, the higher the amount of funds allocated. Part D, on the other hand, provides funds to initiate effective development of programs which are aimed at improving education standards for children who are disabled, neglected, or migrating Title II, Part A of Elementary and Secondary Education Act focuses on strengthening the skills of educators and enhancing the instructions used in teaching and assessing mathematics and science (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Part D of Title II focuses on the funding designed to support the improvement of technology in the schools. It provides funds needed by schools in different states to improve application of technology in the learning process in order to enhance the learning outcome in the country. Title III provides funds for magnet schools while Title IV supports funding for several programs which are related to gifted schools. These are programs which very much ensure that gifted children in the society are nurtured and that their gift is efficiently and effectively exploited for the benefit of the child and the society. Title V provides funds which are needed for drug prevention programs in the schools. This means that the prevalence of drug abuse in the community from which the school is established determines the amount of funds allocated to the school. Schools which are situated in school districts, which have high drug abuse cases, receive more funds because drug abuse risks are high, hence the need for drug prevention programs in their systems (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Dawoody (2008), in his article, explains that there are several reasons which encouraged the federal government to start being involved in school funding in the United States. The author points to initiatives, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which were part of a reform process. Card and Payne (2002) also explain that the reforms in the distribution of school funding which took place in the 1980s signified the beginning of the involvement of the federal government in funding schools in the states. The aim of federal government initiative was to increase funds which are available for lowly funded state schools, which cannot meet all the required programs for effective and efficient student learning outcome.
State Funding
This has been the traditional source of funds for schools in the United States before the federal government also started contributing funds. State funds are allocated to the schools which are present in school districts within the jurisdiction of the states through a number of formula grants. The funds that a school receives are influenced by the number, grade level, and special needs of students enrolled in the school environment. The funds, however, pass first through the school systems or school districts which then distribute the funds to the schools on the basis of needs present in the schools to implement and sustain certain programs and policies (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
The types of funding formulas which are used in the United States vary according to individual states. Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) state that “every state maintains a system of state grants to local school systems to fund educational expenditure… these grants attempt to ensure that school systems are able to provide adequate resources for students and to provide adequate resources for students and to provide some level of equity in resource levels between school systems” (p. 9). This means that state funding formulas which are applied are motivated by the need to ensure that schools compete at an equal platform with regards to financial capabilities even if some are established in low income neighborhood districts. The neighborhood influences funding access of schools because it determines the students who attend the schools in the society. By bridging the financial gap that exists between schools, states are able to influence the learning outcome to suit the desirable objectives and goals of the society.
As much as state governments are involved in trying to ensure that school systems within their jurisdiction are able to provide adequate resources for students and to provide some level of equity in resources at the disposal of schools, they also try to allow local control over tax and the current spending levels. The main challenge for state governments is to ensure that the funding formula they apply in distributing grants to the school systems in the state balances with local control of taxation and spending. These two goals have to be simultaneously achieved for the grant formula applied to be considered efficient and effective. The goals are competing against each other which make attaining them at the same time a challenge. An acceptable balance, however, is fair enough for a sustainable grant formula to be developed and implemented by the state government with regards to school financing (McGuire & Papke, 2008).
In funding K-12 education in the United States, there are two types of grants which are used by the state governments to ensure that school systems receive the funds they need to develop and initiate educational programs. Different schools determine the type of programs they need for competent learning outcome to be achieved depending on their student enrollment, community they exist in, and special students within their ranks (McGuire & Papke, 2008). French (2009) links effective education outcome to growth and development in the society. The author, however, explains that the role of the states in providing the funds is not what brings efficiency, but rather the part that the schools play in ensuring that the funds are effectively and efficiently used to develop needed programs. There are two common grant formulas applied by states in financing school systems which are present within their boundaries. They are guaranteed tax base and foundation grants.
Foundation Grants
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) defines foundation grant as “The per-pupil foundation amount, with adjustments to account for differences in the costs of the various educational programs, is multiplied by the number of students in each system to determine the minimum total expenditure on K-12 education in each school system” (p. 9). Foundation grants are considered to be one of the most common ways that states use to fund school systems within their jurisdiction. The state government, in this case, determines what it considers to be the minimum level of per pupil expenditures for all the school systems. The foundation programs require that school systems tax a minimum property tax rate which will then contribute to the overall revenue used in the foundation grants.
After revenues have been collected, the state government will provide the difference there between what is collected by the school systems and the calculated required foundation revenue. This is for efficient and effective education to be provided for the students in the school systems. School systems, which have small property tax base per student such as schools existing in a low income earning community, will be able to raise limited finances from property tax. This will not be able to match the minimum property tax rates that are calculated by the state government. On the other hand, schools which are situated in perceived wealthy neighborhoods will be able to raise property tax revenue, which is above the stipulated minimum. This means that school systems which are located in low income neighborhoods will receive higher grants from the state government compared to schools located in wealthy neighborhoods (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) illustrated that a state government sets the foundation amount minimum for students at $4,000 per high school student and $4,200 per student attending elementary classes. Moreover, if the school system has 200 high school students and 300 elementary students, it is required to raise property tax worth $500,000. The school will need a given amount of foundation grant for learning outcome to be considered to be competent enough. The school system will receive from the state government a grant of $1,560, 000, which results from multiplying the number of high school students in the school system and the foundation amount per high school student summed up with the same done to the elementary school students and the foundation amount per elementary student. The property tax that the school system is required to raise is then subtracted from the total which results to the sum of the foundation grant that the school needs ($800,000+$1,260,000-$500,000=$1,560,000). The foundation grant translates to approximately $3,120 per student in the school system (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
Guaranteed Tax Base
Guaranteed tax base can also be referred to as guaranteed yield. Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) explain that this grant formula applied by state governments involves a state choosing a level of property tax wealth per pupil. The same guarantees that the school system will at least get an equivalent amount. The state government determines property tax wealth per student which is often the level of wealth of a particular school system and guarantees that the school system will obtain the same revenue or higher that would be generated by each mill of property tax. This is when it is applied to guaranteed property tax wealth per student. Property tax rate is expressed in terms of mills. Each mill represents $1 per $1,000 of taxable value of property in the society.
In applying this grant formula, the state government provides a grant which is considered to be equal to the difference that exists between the revenues that would be raised by the school system and the guaranteed tax revenue base that is set per student. This plan of school financing by state government allows school systems to be flexible enough in order to choose their own tax rates which they see fit to raise the revenues they require. There are, however, limits which are linked to the number of mills eligible to introduce sustainability in the system, which reduces exploitation (Rubenstein & Sjoquist, 2003).
With regards to state government funding, Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) point out that the “lower the property tax wealth per student, the greater the grant from the state, for any given tax rate” (p. 10). This means that school systems, which have the ability to acquire low amounts of finances, are required to get more financing from the state government. This is perceived to enhance their ability to provide high quality education and be able to compete with schools which have significantly higher rates of finances from property tax.
Hypothetically, if the state government sets the guaranteed tax base to be $180,000 per pupil, it will influence the funds provided for school systems in different ways. The stipulated guaranteed tax base translates to the school system being guaranteed $180 for every mill of property tax that they levy. If a school system is able to raise $100 per pupil for each mill, this means that the state government will provide the school system with $80 per pupil for each mill, which is the balance between what the school is able to raise and what the state government perceives as the desirable amount.
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) believe that foundation grant program initiated by state governments can be effective in ensuring that there are minimum spending levels in schools present in the society. This means that the schools will be able to provide to the students a given minimum desirable level of quality education which, in turn, influences the levels of learning outcome in the society. Guaranteed tax base plans can be effective in reducing inequality in school financing that is present in the contemporary society by raising revenue attaining abilities, but only if effectively implemented.
Rubenstein and Sjoquist (2003) point out that “neither program will necessarily provide equal spending across school systems” (p. 11). This can be changed if the “state controls the level of local contributions; some schools systems will provide additional funding above the foundation” (p. 11). As long as some schools are able to still have finances which are above the stipulated minimum, which the state and federal government help schools to attain, then inequality in school financing will still be present in the contemporary society.
School Financing Reforms
In United States, school financing dates back several centuries. School financing traditionally was a local affair and responsibility. This, however, was changed through several reforms like the adoption of Tax Increment Finance (TIF) in the 1950s (Bossard, 2011) and programs like No Child Left Behind (NCLB) which was part of the reforms in the 1980s. School financing has seen significant reforms which are motivated by the need to enhance the level of learning outcome in the country and also ensure that all students are entitled to equal education opportunities (Dawoody, 2008).
Dawoody (2008) explains that education in the society had conventionally been a task allocated to state and local governments. Revenues usually collected at these levels were used to fund school systems present in the state jurisdictions. This, however, has not been efficient due to disparities in revenue based on property value which has created an inequality in funding of education in the society. This translated to schools, located in lower revenue resources school districts, to suffer in their effort to provide quality education to their students and also remain relevant in the society. The desired learning outcome is to produce learned members of the society who can efficiently and effectively compete for the available opportunities in the society. The individuals should also be able to provide sustainable solutions to the dynamic and complex social, economic, and political problems present in the society by applying the skills and knowledge they have acquired.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a federal program which is motivated by the need to ensure that inequality is achieved in the field of education in the contemporary society. The relief from the federal government is given through federal dollars and issued in grants. Schools in the country have to demonstrate success which is measured through student tests. This allows them to become eligible for federal funding. Schools which are unable to meet the requirements attached to the funding program have their funding cut. Thus, in the long run, they end up closing down. The approach taken by the government, according to Dawoody (2008), is linear in nature as it links performance to being funded. What have not been taken into consideration are the complexities, which the interacting forces that are directed towards education financing in United States, are resulting into. Education in the country is shifting towards test-based initiatives, which negatively influences the ability of students to attach what they have learned in school to real life experiences.
The negative consequences of school financing in the society are attached to the linear political system present in the society, particularly the linear budgetary process. The shift that is being experienced in school financing is not efficient and effective in attaining the desired outcome, but merely results to inequality in education. Gerald Seib (2008), a Wall Street Journal columnist, noted that “A political system that expects failure doesn’t try very hard to produce anything else,” (p. 1). This means that like any other political program, school financing in the contemporary society has to be recognized as a political process. School financing, therefore, has to adhere to the political interest in the society which will increase the levels of political power that the society has to offer. Inequality in the society is a source of political power which makes eradicating it results to a decrease in political power. The linear approach attached to funding of schools in the society is not politically motivated by eradicating inequality in education. However, the same allows enough to be achieved in order to develop a perception that equality can be achieved.
Dawoody (2008) suggests that if school financing by the relevant authorities was motivated to introduce equality in education and minimize the negative consequences, there are several measures that need to be put in place. Dawoody (2008), in his article, states that “the government must transform its thinking from a linear approach toward a systemic complex approach. In order to do so, funding of public projects and programs must encompass a new perspective that is invigorating, adaptive, complex and sensitive to changes in the environment” (p. 3) which will make the program effectively control inequality in education.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program, a reform agenda motivated by the need for equal education chances for students in the society by use of federal funding, instead leads to schools lacking funds, thus closing due to poor performance. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program enhances the chances of one failed opportunity to magnify another problem in the society. When a school district is perceived to be performing low due to lack of adequate funds, which negatively influences the teaching and technical capacities offered, they are penalized. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program provides provisions to be followed in penalizing such school districts, which means that federal funding is withheld to the school districts. To continue functioning efficiently and effectively, the school districts rely on local funding to get the finances they need to provide educational services in the society (Dawoody, 2008).
Dawoody (2008) explains that the reliance of schools on local resources to provide efficient and effective education and improve performance is not successful in the long run. This will only see the levels of performance of the schools further deteriorate, which translates to further decrease in the federal funds which the schools are receiving. In the long run, poor performance will force the schools to shutdown due to limited access to finances to operate the schools.
Bossard (2011), on the other hand, points out that the reforms that introduced Tax Increment Finance (TIF) have negatively influenced equality in education that it sought to address in the first place. McGuire and Papke (2008) state that the contemporary society should seek to understand the influence that Tax Increment Finance has on school districts because it is the school districts which receive the largest portion of property tax revenue. Bossard (2011) explains that:
Even if TIF does not take revenue away from the school district, the school district could still be adversely affected if economic development attracts more students. As the number of students increases, the school district may need to hire more teachers and expand facilities … To pay for these additional costs, the school district would have to raise its tax rate and collect more tax revenue from property outside of the TIF district. This would impose an additional financial burden on taxpayers within the school district but outside the TIF district … If the number of students and expenditures both increase, and the school district raises the tax rate, expenditures per pupil could remain the same. Otherwise, if the school district is not willing to raise the tax rate, expenditures per pupil would decrease. Either way, the school district is faced with a difficult financial decision (pp. 2-3).
School districts traditionally were known to collect their revenue from local sources. This restricted them to tax capacity of the property tax base which the schools could get. Tax revenue in the society is linked to the wealth available in a society. Therefore, poor school districts have a limited finance source, which affects their ability to offer effective educational services to their students (Rolle, 2008). Variations could be experienced across school districts in the society, which causes lack of equality in education in the United States. Picus, Goertx, and Odden (2008) argue that state governments were pressured to alleviate the existing differences in property tax, raise the capacity of school districts, and provide local property tax relief. As much as TIF was introduced to ensure that an equal platform is presented in the society in terms of school financing, it is inefficient in achieving the desired results and more often ends up making the situation worse.
Other Equity Issues of School Financing
Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010), in their report, measure the fairness of school financing measures present in the environment. The scholars argue that education in the United States is facing challenges which are influenced by decentralization and concentrated levels of poverty present in the contemporary society. The K-12 public education in the United States is highly decentralized as the 50 states have different mechanisms of management. The 50 states have also established approximately 16,000 school districts and 100,000 schools, which are supposed to bring education closer to the members of the society. The schools are funded through financing systems, which vary from one state to another across the 50 states.
The second source of challenge, according to Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010), are the poverty levels present in the society. Schools rely on local mechanisms to finance their activities as a result of property tax. This, however, is influenced by the wealth present in a given community. This means that schools established in poor neighborhoods have limited access to funds, which can enhance their educational service delivery. Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010) point out that the concentration of poverty in school districts across the states is a worrying issue in the society. Fourteen states serve at least 10% of their student populations in districts with poverty level rates estimated to be over 30%.
Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010), in their report, points out that the fairness of school funding in the society developed a definition for what they consider to be fair school funding. According to them, fair school funding is a “state finance system that ensures equal educational opportunity by providing a sufficient level of funding distributed to districts within the state to account for additional needs generated by student poverty” (p. 7). This means that the existing school financing mechanisms need to be able to achieve equality in terms of funding the schools in order to be considered to be fair. Fairness in school financing will enhance the ability of students from different backgrounds to be able to access similar educational opportunities.
In measuring the fairness of funding measures present in the United States, Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010) utilize four different but linked measures. The four measures are funding levels, funding distribution, effort, and coverage. Funding levels involves measuring the overall level of state funding across the school districts present in the states. A comparison of the average states per student revenue is then calculated. Funding distribution incorporates measuring the distribution of funding across local school districts which are present in the state jurisdictions. Effort, as a measure of fairness of school funding measures in the country, takes into consideration the differences in a state’s spending capacity and the state’ fiscal capacity. Effort is, therefore, the ratio of state spending to state per capita gross domestic product (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010).
Coverage measures the proportion of school children who are attending public schools and those attending other educational institutions which are not public schools. This brings out the states effort to ensure that students who attend public schools get the same level of education as those attending private schools in the society. Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010) conclude that the school financing mechanisms which are adopted in the United States are not anywhere near enhancing the level of fairness in education. They are inefficient and ineffective in achieving the desired results that would see that every child receives equal education opportunities (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010).
Rolle (2008) argues that equity, which can also mean fairness, is more complex than normally perceived in the society. Fairness can be regarded as the distribution of education resources to schools and school districts, without favoring one over another. There are, however, competing perspectives which can also be applied in perceiving what is equity and fair. Horizontal equity is the act of treating schools with similar qualities similarly, while vertical equity is the act of treating schools with different characteristics differently.
There are several assumptions underlying the principles of acceptable equity in financing schools present in the environment (Rolle, 2008). The assumptions are motivated by the need to promote student achievement and elevate levels of education outcome in the society. Rolle (2008) points out that the first assumption is that the equitable distribution of finance and human resources to schools in the society play a significant part in reducing the existing differences in terms of student achievement in the schools. Student academic outcome is attached to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and geographic location of the students. The second assumption is that efficiency in utilizing the school finances and other resources enhance levels of equality in education in the country. The last assumption relates to equitable distribution of resources. Moreover, efficient use of the resources promotes standards of accountability in the society, hence improving performance in terms of growth and development in schools (Rolle, 2008).
Dawoody (2008) concludes that school financing mechanisms, which are present in the contemporary society, should “be modified so that funding will no longer be linearly linked to shallow measures of performance as a precondition. Competition for limited funding can be replaced collaborative problem-solving for sake of promoting one another based on mutual causality” (p. 8). This means that the desirable equal educational opportunities can be achieved, but only if the measures which are put in place are sustainable, effective, and efficient. The rigidity of the school financing programs which are implemented by federal, state, and local governments should take into consideration a lot of factors other than aiming to attach performance to funding. Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010) support this by stating that there are a lot of questions that still need to be answered with regards to school financing equality in the society. All the available data and statistics point to the notion that the implemented programs enhance inequality in education.
School financing plays an important role in determining equality in opportunities in the society in terms of education. This literature review paper explores articles which explain the school financing mechanisms present in the United States. Understanding the nature of school financing in the contemporary society is important in developing and implementing sustainable programs, which enhance equality in education. Literatures suggest that previously implemented mechanisms employed in school financing enhance the levels of inequality in education, which they are formulated to reduce. More efficient and effective programs should be developed and implemented to enhance the levels of equal education opportunities in the society.
Bossard, J. A. (2011). Tax increment financing, spillovers, and school district revenue. Proceedings of The Annual Conference on Taxation, 104, 178-184.
Card, D., & Payne, A.A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 49–8.
Dawoody, A.R. (2008). A complexity response to funding public education. The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1-9.
French, P. (2009). Assessing the impact of perceived school board effectiveness on financing K-12 education in Tennessee. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 21(1), 105-124.
Gamkhar, S., & Koerner, M. (2002). Capital financing of schools: A comparison of lease purchase revenue bonds and general obligation bonds. Public Budgeting & Finance, 22(2), 21.
Hammond, L.D. (2010). Flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our Future. Teachers College Press.
Kirsch, I., Braun, H., Yamamoto, K., & Sum, A. (2007). America’s perfect storm: Three forces changing our nation’s future. Policy Information Report, Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
McGuire, T. & Papke, L. (2008). Local funding of schools: The property tax and its alternatives. Ladd, H. & Fiske, E. (Ed.). In Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, (pp. 357-372).
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Data snapshot. Retrieved on February 8, 2014 from
Picus, L., Goertz, M, & Odden, A. (2008). Intergovernmental aid formulas and case studies. Ladd, H. & Fiske, E. (Ed.). In Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy (pp. 257-275).
Rolle, A. (2008). Strengthening the link between effective school: Expenditures and state funding mechanisms. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice.
Rubenstein, R., & Sjoquist, D. L. (2003). Financing Georgia’s schools: A premier. Fiscal Research Center Andrew Young School of Policy Studies Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia FRC Report, 87, 1-56.
Seib, G. (2008). Pump prices hurt Americans not just in pocketbook. The Wall Street Journal, 1-9.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s