How are schools funded?

Local property tax funding of education gives all of a community’s residents, not only the parents of school-aged children, an incentive to monitor the local public schools and see that they provide a good education. Homeowners in districts with successful schools are rewarded with rising property values, whereas residents in districts with unsuccessful schools experience falling property values.

Each resident has an individual incentive to either support the status quo if it is producing good results, or work for change if it is not. Local property tax funding thus gives school personnel an incentive to provide high quality and efficient schools. School districts also must compete with one another or risk losing students, as well as tax dollars, to better-performing districts. (Written By: Caroline M. Hoxby Ph.D., found on http://www.heartland.org )

In searching for answers to the question of how are schools funded, the above quotation/information is one of the first things I came across. Initially, it clarified the fact that most schools are funded from the local property taxes, but then I began to wonder, if the author presents this idea as such a logical concept, why are there always so many people, who do not have children in the local school system, that are unwilling to pay school taxes, or high school taxes. Is it just that people don’t really see a high correlation between their local school systems and their property values? or what about the population of people in a certain town that are not property owners? Even if they do not have to pay property taxes, don’t they sometimes have a vote in education-related issues?

In trying to figure out if property tax based funding is the norm for all schools in our country, I came across a brief history of funding, including this interesting piece, “In a landmark ruling on San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, issued in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court denied this contention. By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require equal funding among school districts.” (http://www.dekalbcounty-il.com/propertyvsincome.htm)

While this is probably widely known by many, I didn’t know specifically about this court ruling regarding the equity of our educational system. I find it rather disturbing. As I read more, I found that equity among school systems, both within a state and from one state to another, is not a given. While this is something that is very apparent in our countries myriad schools, it is another thing to actually read the words and realize the no one is claiming that our country offers equality of education. I am curious, what are others thoughts on this matter? Do you think everyone deserves an equal education? Is it unrealistic to strive for such a thing?

Here is an interesting link I found that contains information on school systems state by state, including finance info among other things. I couldn’t possibly explore the whole site, but I did find some good resources. It has historical information as well as current news and issues relating to education, finance, reform, etc.

Another thing I have been thinking about as I consider school funding is the variance that exists between public, private, and charter schools. In a way, it is easier for me to understand public vs. private schools and their funding, but when it comes to charter schools, the lines around funding seem to get very blurry. Are charter schools gov’t funded, yet also allowed to accept private support? If so, this doesn’t really seem fair to me. If this is the case, it seems to put public schools at such a disadvantage. I did read about funding for charter schools, but did not find anything about rules regarding private funding for public schools. Any ideas on this matter?

To Be and To Have…thoughts

    While I really enjoyed watching “To Be and To Have” in class last week, it was also one of those movie’s that grew on me more as I thought about it afterwards.  What I started to think about more after the fact was the way the cinematography did not intrude on the characters or the story at all.  Even though the film was a documentary, it didn’t feel like the usual documenatary.  The absence of a narrative voice, side commentaries from the characters in which they reflect on their actions, and an obvious camera presence all seemed to contribute to the intimate connection the viewer is allowed to feel to the classroom.  To use a word I dislike and hardly ever use…it felt “authentic.”

In this authenticity, there is also a sense that the director/producer is not trying to portray anything negative or to look down on this tiny school house in rural France.  I like this aspect of revealing the school as it is, revealing the students for who they are, and the teacher, Msr. Lopez, for exactly who he is.  While we must assume a certain viewpoint and editing of footage, there is no sense of dramatization or misrepresentation through the camera lens.  If anything, this one room schoolhouse is given a sort of warm glow through this documentary.  It is such an intimate portrayal that I was left feeling like I wanted to be a part of this small learning community, who commuted together, learned together, played and fought together.  It is such a distinctly different learning environment than we are used to seeing/experiencing here in the U.S., that I can see how American viewers might at first look down on this different type of education.  By the end of the movie, however, I would find it hard to believe anyone would feel negatively about the teaching and learning that occurs.

While the scenery rarely strayed from the small classroom, and the pace of the movie is slow, it is not a slow that caused boredom (at least not for me).  The characters, even if they were 5 years old, were developed enough to create genuine viewer interest, and the soft-spoken tone of Msr. Lopez’ voice seemed to move everything along continuously.  The focus on one-on-one interactions also seemed to dominated the movie.  We continuously see Msr. Lopez in discussion with specific students, whether in the classroom, on the playground, or even on a field trip.  I think these intimate conversations add greatly to the overall feeling of intimacy in the movie as well as help maintain flow and interest.

Msr. Lopez becomes a sort of hero in this film.  He is a teacher that is wholly dedicated to his job and his students, and in turn, these students obviously have a great deal of respect for him.  As a future educator, my biggest question was how he initially gained this respect?  It is hard not to think a lot of it has to do with his personality and his close relationship with the children.  He made it look easy to manage that schoolroom, but I am fascinated when I think about how hard it really could be.  The challenge of managing different ages and therefore levels of learners is huge in itself.  I wonder if his age and gender had much to do with the way he conducted himself and the respect his students had for him?  Was he always such a calm, nurturing teacher, or was this somthing he himself learned over years of teaching?  I sometimes worry that I will find myself in a classroom and feel like I don’t have the right personality to manage it.  Then I also think that, well, maybe this is something I will develop over time, my classroom personality.  As much as I think it through, I feel I will learn so much once I step into my first real classroom and begin dealing firsthand with the real issues I will encounter.  In this sense, I see where the importance of determining our personal teaching philosophies will be useful.  It will be important to figure out personal biases, strengths, weaknesses, and limitations before we enter an environment that will challenge them.

Student vs. Teacher-Centered: the big debate

The main article for this week focused on the difference between teacher and student centered education philosophies and really helped to clarify the two for me.  In an effort to try and prove how the progressive/contstructivist (student-centered) philosophy that dominates schools of education does a poor job of equipping future teachers, author George Cunningham manages to paint a clear picture of both cultures.  There is much discussion about the downfalls of a student-centered classroom, with particular emphasis on how poorly reading and math skills are affected.  While I appreciate Cunningham’s thorough examples that helped me to understand different teaching approaches to both reading and math, I was left wondering about the implications of a student vs. teacher-centered philosophy in the art classroom.  The other main question that kept returning to me during this article was:  Do certain students learn better in a teacher-centered class while others, in turn, function better in a student-centered classroom?  My instinct is to immediately say yes, among the range of learners in this world, there are certainly some who would function and perform better in one type of learning environment over the other.  I am interested to know what you all think about being able to group learners into either category??  While there is an obvious debate over student or teacher centered philosophies and which is better, I have not yet heard talk of accepting a mixture of the two.  Is it simply not feasible to blend the two in the classroom?  It doesn’t seem like a novel idea to me, so I am interested to hear more from actual teachers who are implementing a student-centered classroom and how it is working.
In one of the shorter articles from this week, a chemistry professor writes about changing over to a more student-centered teaching method and specifically, suggests how to incorporate this method gradually.  This leads me to believe that many teachers out there are indeed using some kind of blend of these two education approaches.  I would love to observe a classroom that is truly student-centered and see how I feel about the approach after witnessing it in action.
At this point, I realize I have completely digressed from what we are really supposed to be addressing in response to this article.  Regarding Cunningham’s main points, I disagree.  I do not believe that the progressive/constructivist viewpoint of the majority of education schools is the wrong theory to promote and teach.  While I found his arguments about the documented progress (or lack of progress) in the subjects of reading and math to be particularly thought provoking, I was not wholly convinced that education schools are in the wrong in promoting a student-centered approach, as he repeatedly declares.  While I feel unqualified to comment much on the teaching of reading or math, I think I might feel uncomfortable for example, teaching the approach Cunningham describes in place of long division.  Again, I find myself wondering why a blend of two approached cannot be used here.  Why not teach traditional long division, while also incorporating more applicable “authentic” problems for students to solve.  Apparently, in the debate over teacher vs. student-centered education, one should choose one side or the other.  Cunningham makes it clear he is against the “radical constructivism” of most education schools.  I have to admit, I was somewhat disturbed to read several of his recurring comments that degrade education schools for promoting “critical” and “reflective, democratic teaching”.  He seems to hold student achievement so high that he denounces what I felt was one of the most important things I learned before graduating from high school—how to think critically about information we receive.
I found his extreme criticism of the theories promoted in education schools very problematic.  While Cunningham alludes to his disdain for such theory throughout his article, it became almost comical when he launches into his criticism of the classes at UNC-Greensboro.  After describing some of their courses on critical pedagogy, all I could think was that I wanted to take something like that!  In disagreement with Cunningham’s view, I would ask him for what purpose is higher education, if not to challenge our minds with such ideas as described in the UNC-G Critical Pedagogy course (education and power, crisis of democratic culture etc.)  While these ideas may not be DIRECTLY applicable in the classroom, as he states, they are important issues for future teachers to explore as elements of our larger national education system.  I agree that education students need practical experience and teaching as well, but why isn’t a melding of the two acceptable or even most desirable?  To me, it is.  If we had education schools that adopted strict teacher-centered pedagogy, as Cunningham suggests, we would be giving future teachers prescriptive plans for the classroom, effectively crushing all opportunity for creative, unique, and dynamic teaching.  This is not the teaching environment that I want to inhabit, and I hope most students of education value their future professions enough to disagree with many of Cunningham’s ideas as well.

ED 6150: In response to a Baldrige classroom culture…

As we already established in class last week, much of the text on the MCPS website we are looking at has a very business-like tone. As I read on, I found even further evidence of this. In the section entitled, “An Introduction to Baldrige,” we discover that these educational theories are based on business criteria developed by former Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Baldridge. Apparently, someone decided to adapt them for an educational setting at some point, though the connection is fairly unclear. There is one sentence in particular that is rather disturbing. In describing the origination of the Baldrige initiative, the website says, “Designed to help American business and industry gain a competitive edge in the global market, the Criteria reflect current best thinking on organizational practice.” I couldn’t help but be bothered by this correlation between business organization and education. In a way, I guess this viewpoint makes sense, however, if one accepts that the American public school system is designed to churn out a very specific kind of student. Students that unquestioningly accept American ideals and learn to promote them are the gems of a public school system in a country that uses its’ schools to manufacture consent. While this sounds extreme, it is important to question what is being taught and promoted in public schools. On this MCPS website, there is a mixture of governmental agenda and student friendly, “learner-centered” jargon that sometimes disguises it. What at first appears as forward thinking and even somewhat progressive educational ideas are countered with idealistic and unrealistic claims about what Baldrige will do for students.

In thinking specifically about “classroom culture”, I think there are some valuable points within this Baldrige system. It stresses the importance of creating a classroom culture that best fosters students learning needs, and also about establishing this culture from day one. I agree with this idea, but can also see how it might be hard to tell teachers so prescriptively how to manage their classes. I think much of the classroom culture must begin with and come from the teacher. Being that every teacher is different and has his/her own distinct ways of managing a class, there will be very different ways in which classroom culture is established and maintained. In its’ discussion of establishing ground rules, there is a link to a picture of ground rules for an art classroom. It seems to be an elementary classroom, from the looks of it, and includes classic rules such as: treat others as you would like to be treated, listen carefully when the teacher is talking, follow directions etc. While these are fine rules, what about the Baldrige system guarantees that students will follow these rules more than in a “normal” classroom? Is the idea that if the students are asked to come up with these ideas in collaboration with the teacher at the beginning of the year, they will be more likely to follow them? On a smaller scale, this was implemented at Cook last semester when the students were asked what we needed to have in a successful classroom, and rewarded when they followed those rules. Their behavior did not seem as perfect as the MCPS website alludes student behavior to be under such a system. That is one of the biggest criticisms I had with this website. It seems to sugarcoat everything in order to make the Baldrige system appear to be the perfect solution to all classroom woes. There is a link to a word document that covers some basics of establishing ground rules that I found pretty straightforward and helpful. I appreciated this part of the website simply because it was realistic; and while I appreciated some of the ideals of classroom management that the MCPS site emphasized (classroom that fostered trust etc.) as a future teacher, I could not relate so well to its’ failure to acknowledge an imperfect system.

As a government run site promoting a public school system, I have to admit the overall tone makes sense. I wouldn’t expect a site like this to highlight problems or failures of a district, so the optimism has a place. I am curious to look around now and compare this to other school district sites. I don’t know that many other sites will really go into this much detail and depth about a learning initiative or mission such as Baldrige. I’ll report back any interesting findings…