On 17 Jan 2022, Ubiquitous <webermark@polaris.net> posted some
news:ss4ob4$dal6$24@news.freedyn.de:

> Sources in his family say Biden looks and smells like shit.

Introduction

As the coronavirus pandemic rages across the United States, the nation�s
public schools are confronting the budgetary impacts of a second major
economic crisis in just over a decade. Like the Great Recession of 2008,
declining revenues and diminishing rainy day funds are pressuring states
to reduce support for their PK-12 public school systems. Some states, such
as New York, Georgia, and Texas, have already enacted sizeable �pandemic
cuts� in their state budgets.[1] These cuts fall hardest on the poorest
school districts with the greatest need and, as in the Great Recession,
create a structural deficit that will impact state and district budgets in
future years. While the cuts may be offset by one-time federal COVID-19
relief, the federal funds are largely intended to supplement existing
state and district budgets to cover the additional costs related to the
pandemic, not to fill gaps resulting from reduced state support.

The pandemic is also a public health crisis. As such, it requires
increased technology to allow students to engage in remote learning and
creates a plethora of new expenses connected to safe school reopening.
According to one estimate, the average district needs an additional $1.8
million to cover the cost of cleaning, additional staff, personal
protective equipment (PPE), transportation and child care.[2] That does
not include the as yet unknown costs of remediation and academic support
for students whose schooling has been disrupted, along with the cost of
social and mental health supports for students dealing with economic
hardship, family loss and the psychological stress of COVID-19.

This edition of Making the Grade draws upon data from 2018, the most
recent year available. The report evaluates the condition of public school
funding in the states preceding the onset of the pandemic in early 2020.
This analysis demonstrates the alarming condition of school funding in
most states, leaving school districts, especially those segregated by
poverty, ill-equipped to weather the coronavirus crisis. What the pandemic
has made strikingly evident is the glaring funding disparities that have
persisted for years, if not decades. Poor households have
disproportionately suffered the devastating health and economic impacts of
COVID-19. As this report shows, children from these households are more
likely to attend schools that are under-resourced and unprepared for
transitioning to the new realities of virtual instruction, school health
and safety protocols and unprecedented remediation for lost learning time.

The devastating effects of COVID-19 follow on the heels of a slow and
uneven recovery from the 2008 Recession. In 2020, some states had yet to
climb out of the funding hole left by the Recession, only to face the next
fiscal crisis, one likely to extend for several years. As Making the Grade
2020 makes clear, most states face the challenges of COVID-19 with
outmoded, unresponsive school funding systems that fail to meet the needs
of their most vulnerable students.

How Fair is School Funding in Your State?

Making the Grade analyzes the condition of public school funding in all 50
states and the District of Columbia. Using the most recently available
data from the 2017-18 school year, this report ranks and grades each state
on three measures to answer the key question: How fair is school funding
in your state?

The three fairness measures are:

Funding Level � the cost-adjusted, per-pupil revenue from state and local
sources (Fig. 1);
Funding Distribution � the extent to which additional funds are
distributed to school districts with high levels of student poverty (Fig.
2);[3]
Funding Effort � the funding allocated to support PK-12 public education
as a percentage of the state's economic capacity (GDP) (Fig. 3).
The rankings and grades on these measures provide crucial data to inform
policymakers, business and community leaders, teachers, and parents and
students about the equity and adequacy of public school funding in their
state. Making the Grade is designed to assist state lawmakers, advocates
and others working to improve the level and distribution of funding in
their state's public schools.

For a brief overview of how these measures were constructed, see the Fact
Sheet.

For more detailed explanation of the data and analyses, see the Technical
Appendix.

What Is Fair School Funding?

We define fair school funding as the funding needed in each state to
provide qualified teachers, support staff, programs, services and other
resources essential for all students to have a meaningful opportunity to
achieve the state�s academic standards and graduate high school prepared
for citizenship, postsecondary education and the workforce. A fair school
funding system is the basic foundational building block for high-
performing, effective K-12 public school systems. Fair funding has two
basic components: a sufficient level of funding for all students and
increased funding to high-poverty districts to address the additional cost
of educating students in those districts. These two components are
dependent on a third: the effort made by state legislatures to provide
sufficient revenue to support the public school system.

Why the States?

Unlike other countries, the U.S. has no national education system.
Instead, states, under their respective constitutions, have the legal
obligation to support and maintain systems of free public schools for all
resident children. This means that the state is the unit of government in
the U.S. legally responsible for operating our nation�s public school
systems, which includes providing the funding to support and maintain
those systems.

All states fund their schools through a statewide method or formula
enacted by the state legislature. These school funding formulas or school
finance systems determine the amount of revenue school districts are
permitted to raise from local property and other taxes and the amount of
funding or aid the state is expected to contribute from state taxes. In
annual or biannual state budgets, legislatures also determine the actual
amount of funding districts will receive to operate their schools. Some
states, including New Jersey, New York, and Illinois, fail to provide in
their budgets the amount of state aid required by the state�s own funding
formula, a condition called formula underfunding.

State and local revenue account for, on average, approximately 92% of
total funding for public education. The federal government, primarily
through programs targeted for low-income students and students with
disabilities, contributes the remaining 8%.[4]

Why Does Fair School Funding Matter?

Fair, equitable and adequate school funding is the basic building block of
a well-resourced and academically successful school system for all
students. A strong funding foundation is even more critical for low-income
students, students of color, English language learners, students with
disabilities, and students facing homelessness, trauma and other
challenges. These students, and the schools that serve them, need
additional staff, programs and supports to put them on the same footing as
their peers. The research on the needs of vulnerable student populations
for extra academic and academically related programs and services is
compelling, as is the growing evidence that increasing investments in
these students improves their achievement and other outcomes.[5]

Table 1. Making the
Grade 2020

Funding Level

A state�s funding level is measured by analyzing the combined state and
local revenues provided through the state school finance formula, adjusted
to account for regional variations in labor market costs.

A state�s funding level grade is determined by ranking its position
relative to other states; the grade does not measure whether a state meets
any particular threshold of funding level based on the actual cost of
education resources necessary to achieve state or national academic
standards.[6]

Figure 1 shows, even after adjusting for regional cost differences, the
extreme divergence in school funding levels across states, with the top
states providing upwards of 50% more and the bottom states providing 30%
less than the national average funding level of $14,548 per pupil. Figure
1a shows a clear geographic pattern, with states in the Northeast and
Midwest generally having higher funding levels than those in the South and
West.

Funding Distribution

The hallmark of a fair school funding system is that it delivers more
funding to educate students in high-poverty districts. This means states
providing equal or less funding to high-poverty districts are
shortchanging the students most in need and at risk of academic failure. A
central feature of fair school funding is providing higher levels of
funding to districts serving large concentrations of students from
households with incomes below the federal poverty line.

Figure 2 depicts funding distribution in each state as measured by the
funding allocated to high-poverty districts relative to low-poverty
districts.[7] States allocating more per pupil funds to high-poverty
districts have a �progressive� distribution system, resulting in a higher
grade on the funding distribution measure. States that do the opposite �
where low-poverty districts receive more funding � have a �regressive�
distribution system and earn a lower grade. States with similar funding
levels in high- and low-poverty districts have �flat� distribution
systems, clustered in the �C� grade range.[8]

As with funding level, states are also highly divergent in the
progressivity of their funding distribution. Alaska provides 73% more, and
Nevada provides 33% less, funding to high-poverty districts than to low-
poverty districts. (Fig. 2)

Only 16 states have even modestly progressive school funding systems with
at least 5% more funding, on average, in high-poverty districts. School
funding is flat (+/-5%) in 17 states, meaning there is no appreciable
increase in funding to address the need for additional resources in high-
poverty districts. The remaining 15 states have regressive funding
systems.

Funding Distribution v. Funding Level: There is no consistent correlation
between funding level and distribution across states. States with
progressive funding distribution may have low funding levels � Utah and
New Mexico, for example. And states with regressive funding distribution
may have relatively high funding levels, such as Connecticut and
Pennsylvania.

Figure 2a presents state funding profiles. Use this customizable tool to
compare and contrast funding level and funding distribution among states.
Figure 2b provides district-level revenue data to allow a deeper dive into
funding patterns in each state.

Funding Effort

Figure 3 ranks states on effort as measured by the percentage of state
wealth or gross domestic product (GDP) allocated to support the PK-12
school system.[9] Depending on a state�s overall wealth, every tenth of a
percent (0.1%) of state GDP invested in PK-12 public education can have a
big impact. For example, that figure is $33 million in Vermont � the
nation�s smallest economy - and up to $3 billion in California � the
nation�s largest. Figure 3 juxtaposes a state�s relative effort (compared
to the national average) with its per capita GDP to contextualize how the
effort index interacts with the state�s relative wealth to produce high or
low funding levels.

High Effort, High Capacity: States such as Alaska, Connecticut, New York,
and Wyoming are high capacity states with high per capita GDP, and they
are also high effort � using a larger than average share of their overall
GDP to support PK-12 education. They generate high funding levels. (Fig.
3)

High Effort, Low Capacity: States such as Arkansas, South Carolina, and
West Virginia have lower than average capacity, with low GDP per capita,
but they are high effort states. Even with above average effort, they only
yield average or below average funding levels.

Low Effort, Low Capacity: States such as Arizona, Florida, and Idaho are
low capacity states that also make lower than average effort to fund
schools. They generate low funding levels. (Fig. 3)

Low Effort, High Capacity: States such as California, Delaware, and
Washington are high capacity states that exert low effort towards funding
schools. If these states increased their effort even to the national
average, they could significantly increase funding levels. (Fig. 3)

Advocating for Fair School Funding

Making the Grade 2020 documents the persistence of unfair school funding
as public schools were on the precipice of the coronavirus crisis. In many
states, funding had become so unfair that a growing grassroots movement of
students, parents and educators was demanding fair pay for teachers,
increased focus on social and emotional learning, and weighted student
funding formulas. There were also signs of a new wave of meaningful and
impactful school finance reforms in state legislatures.[10]

Since March 2020, campaigns for school funding reform in many states have
pivoted to protecting current levels of state aid from �pandemic cuts,�
even if those funding levels were already inequitable or inadequate. As a
result of COVID-19, advocates have shifted to demanding that legislatures
hold the line and not repeat the widespread disinvestment in state support
for K-12 public education that occurred in the Great Recession.

Visit our tools for advocates to view downloadable state profiles

As Making the Grade 2019 shows, our public schools are underfunded through
the persistence of state finance systems that are flawed, outmoded and
budget-driven. Public school underfunding is now so chronic and severe
that a growing movement of parents, students, teachers and concerned
citizens is demanding reform in many state capitols.

But the nation�s school children cannot afford to simply play defense in
the coming years. It is imperative that the needs of vulnerable students
be lifted-up and prioritized, especially when they need more, and not
fewer, resources. Advocates must work to hold lawmakers to account on
already agreed upon school funding reforms � such as in California,
Kansas, Washington and Massachusetts � to ensure implementation remains on
track. They must also keep push for follow through on promised reforms �
such as in Maryland, Illinois, Nevada and New Mexico. And they must insist
on a path to full funding of existing formulas on the books � such as in
New York and New Jersey. The focus during the pandemic must remain on the
most important school funding goal: systems built on the actual cost of
educating all students to meet state standards. The pandemic must not be
allowed to derail those efforts. In fact, the impacts of COVID-19 only
raise the stakes.

The information in Making the Grade 2020 is a stark reminder that school
funding is unfair because most states fail to adequately fund the
education of all students and do not account for the extra educational
needs of low-income and other at-risk children. Against this backdrop,
threats to public education funding in the middle of an economic and
public health crisis must be met with a strong and sustained demand that
states not reduce � and in fact must increase � the investment in their
public schools, not only to meet the unprecedented, short-term demands of
COVID-19, but also to advance fair school funding over the long haul.

Endnotes

[1] See ELC�s Tracking State Aid Cuts in the Pandemic project.

[2] Association of School Business Officials International and The School
Superintendents Association, What Will it Cost to Reopen Schools?

[3] This measure does not include figures for Hawaii and the District of
Columbia which operate as single district systems. Vermont is also
excluded because, as of 2014, the state does not report finance data at
the same district aggregation as used for the Census SAIPE estimates. See
the Technical Appendix for more information.

[4] See Table 1. Stephen Q. Cornman, Lei Zhou, Malia R. Howell & Jumaane
Young, Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary
Education: FY17: Finance Tables. National Center for Education Statistics
(2020).

[5] Mary McKillip and Theresa Luhm, Investing Additional Resources in
Schools Serving Low-Income Students: Evidence for Advocates, Education Law
Center, (April 2020).

[6] The variables used to construct the per pupil state and local revenue
totals for districts has been modified in this report to reflect reporting
inconsistencies related to charter schools. In some states, districts
receive state and local revenue to support charter students, but those
students are not included in enrollment totals, resulting in an inflation
of per pupil revenue. To correct this, district-level payments to charter
schools reported as expenditures are subtracted from the revenue total.
For more detail, see the Technical Appendix.

[7] The United States has no established �opportunity to learn� standards
that define the resources needed to ensure students have the opportunity
to achieve common outcomes. It is, therefore, not feasible to determine
the cost of those resources and funding levels across states.

[8] Poverty is measured using the Census definition due to reporting
inconsistencies for the National School Lunch Program, the more commonly
used metric of school poverty. Census poverty is a more severe measure
than either free lunch (130% of Census poverty) or reduced lunch (185%)
eligibility. We define high-poverty districts as having a 30% Census
poverty rate among school-aged children and low-poverty districts having a
5% poverty rate. For more detail, see the Technical Appendix.

[9] Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services
produced by each state�s economy. In this report is serves as a measure of
each state�s capacity to raise revenue to fund schools.

[10] Weighted student formulas allocate funding to districts using student
enrollment counts. Each student receives the �base cost� and then
additional funding is provided to account for the educational needs of
students with specific characteristics, for example low-income students,
English language learners, students with disabilities, etc. The additional
costs for these categories of students are expressed as a �weight� or
percentage of the base cost. For an example of how a weighted student
formula is developed, see Linking Standards to Resources: New Jersey�s
School Funding Reform Act of 2008. Education Law Center, (March 2017).