Money Matters: Examining Cost Studies, School Funding, and Tax Structures at Annual Access Conference

“A strong democratic and economic future for our country depends on the capacity of our schools to provide all students with a chance to succeed, and adequate school funding is necessary to build the capacity to deliver that excellence,” said Mike Petko, senior policy analyst at the National Education Association (NEA). School finance and related issues remained an important feature at this year’s National Access Network conference, “Schools for Our Future: Ensuring Quality Education for All Children,” co-sponsored by the Public Education Network, Education Law Center, and Rural School and Community Trust.

Michael Rebell, executive director of The Campaign for Educational Equity at Teachers College, and Bill Mathis, superintendent of the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union, discussed cost studies in a “Costing Out: An Update and Strategy Conversation” plenary, skillfully moderated by Jay Worona, general counsel to the New York State School Boards Association. Rebell explained the four major types of cost studies and Mathis gave an overview of the current status of state cost studies across the nation. The two discussed the accuracy of various methodologies, with Rebell recommending using multiple methodologies to provide greater legitimacy to the figures. Mathis reminded the audience that most cost studies are commissioned by the states themselves, and despite attacks from critics on costing out methods, Rebell insisted that these studies present a more transparent alternative to “three men in a room,” as the backroom budget negotiations of the governor and the Senate and Assembly leaders of New York are described. Even the most vocal critics admit, Rebell said, that money matters, as long as it is spent well.

A wide-ranging panel explored privatization options in “Assessing Voucher, Charter, and Private Management Options.” Rebecca Jacobsen, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute, compared arguments both for and against charter schools, noting that exempting schools from regulatory oversight can lead to needed reforms, but can also lead to mismanagement. Her research finds that test performance is the same or slightly lower for charter schools than comparable public schools, while teachers are less likely to be certified, but more likely to be young and come from selective universities. Paul O’Neill, senior counsel and senior vice president for Edison Schools, emphasized the importance of ensuring high quality education in charter schools. A unified board of directors with savvy and strong ideas and a strong authorizer who is willing to pull the plug when necessary are essential for charter school success, he said. Susan Nogan, senior policy analyst at the NEA, on the other hand, recounted briefly the many efforts by voucher proponents to influence policymakers to adopt voucher programs. Voucher advocates claim to seek vouchers as a remedy to inadequate schools, she said, and, identify themselves as applying market-based principles for efficient education.

The importance of underlying economic and tax structures to school funding was the focus of the “The Hidden Charybdis of School Finance Reform: Economic and Tax Policy.” Among many insightful comments from all three speakers during this in-depth seminar, Mike Petko described the competition for resources between tax and economic policy. To ensure equal educational and economic opportunity for all, he said, we must accomplish three things: 1) make taxes fair; 2) level the playing field for businesses; and 3) fund schools adequately. Greg LeRoy, executive director of Good Jobs First, reminded the audience that public education must be protected from tax giveaways to corporations, keeping in balance the fact that education is the number one site development advantage for those same corporations. Fairness, said Matt Gardner, state tax policy director at the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, does not have to be sacrificed for adequacy. Rather, we should work to broaden the tax base and make state taxes more progressive and transparent, he suggested.

These sessions emphasized the importance of adequate funding to quality education, and next year’s conference will continue to explore making the money matter.

Prepared by Katherine Lu, June 22, 2006