A recent report has indicated that K-12 education spending in the United States has declined since the beginning of the Great Recession, with some states reporting a per-student spending decrease of more than 20 percent.
“States’ new budgets are providing less per-pupil funding for kindergarten through 12th grade than they did six years ago — often far less,” read the September 12 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report. “The reduced levels reflect not only the lingering effects of the 2007-09 recession but also continued austerity in many states; indeed, despite some improvements in overall state revenues, schools in around a third of states are entering the new school year with less state funding than they had last year. At a time when states and the nation are trying to produce workers with the skills to master new technologies and adapt to the complexities of a global economy, this decline in state educational investment is cause for concern.”
The report found that at least 34 states are currently offering funding for the 2013-2014 school year — two years after the official end of the recession — at rates less than when the recession began. Thirteen states currently have per-student funding rates at more than 10 percent less than their pre-recession rates. At least fifteen states are funding schools at a lower per-student rate than they were last year, despite most states reporting an increase in tax revenues.
This is particularly troubling due to the way schools are funded in the United States. Ten percent of a school’s funding comes from the U.S. Department of Education. This is a consistent rate for all able-bodied students, with disabled or special need students receiving a higher rate. Local property taxes contribute between 25 and 55 percent of a school’s funding, while the state foots the rest of the bill. As the housing market has yet to rebound post-recession, property tax revenues — especially in poor rural and inner-city communities — have yet to return to pre-recession levels. With a large number of homes sitting empty, property tax revenues can only increase through an increase of the property tax rate, which would create a heavy burden on those least capable of handling it.
The human cost
This is creating a deficit in areas ill-prepared to deal with the problem. In Chicago, for example, a $1 billion budget deficit for the 2013-2014 school year — which translates into a $112 million cut in district administrative expenses, a $68 million cut in classroom instruction, a property tax increase of $42 million and a $700 million withdrawal from the city’s reserves — forced the district to close 49 elementary schools and one high school that had seen decreases in student enrollment.
“It is not right, it’s not right to close our schools,” said Chicago Public Schools 7th grader Akilra Roberts at a one-day City Hall protest in August. Asked if she had a responsibility to be in the classroom to learn and to prepare for college, Akilra stated, “yeah, that’s what I want to do.”
In Philadelphia, a $304 million deficit threatened to shut down the city’s schools. On the basis of $50 million borrowed against future sales tax collections, the schools opened in time, although the bareboned opening left communities scrambling to gather basic supplies for the schools — such as copy paper, pencils and calculators. «In schools with only one secretary, registering students has been impossible. There are classrooms with 45, 50 and even 60 students,» said Jerry Jordan, president of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers. He said the fund provides a convenient way «to make much-needed contributions. But the School District and its teachers should not be in the position of depending solely on charity to buy pencils and paper for schoolchildren.»
Long-term ramifications
The CBPP report points out that these cuts are actually deepening the recession, saying:
“Local school districts have eliminated 324,000 jobs nationally since July 2008, federal data show. This decline has been unprecedented; normally, local education employment grows each year to keep pace with an expanding student population. In addition, education spending cuts have cost an unknown but likely large number of additional jobs in the private sector as school districts have canceled or scaled back private-sector purchases and contracts (for instance, purchasing fewer textbooks). These job losses shrink the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.
“In the long term, the savings from today’s cuts may cost states much more in diminished economic growth. To prosper, businesses require a well-educated workforce. The deep education spending cuts states have enacted will weaken that future workforce by diminishing the quality of elementary and high schools. At a time when the nation is trying to produce workers with the skills to master new technologies and adapt to the complexities of a global economy, large cuts in funding for basic education undermine a crucial building block for future prosperity.”
In practical terms, the rate of cuts to K-12 educational funding reflects a situation in which quantity has surpassed quality. In cash-deprived districts such as Chicago and Philadelphia, continued teacher training has been cut, as has individual student instruction. After-school programs have been pared back, as has art education. Classroom sizes have doubled or even tripled. Teacher salaries and pensions have been cut, causing highly qualified prospective teachers to seek other career options.
As states refocus their priorities away from their schools, they are directly contributing to the blossoming “brain drain” that threatens this nation — that there may not be enough science- and mathematics-competent professionals in the future to man this nation’s industrial and innovational growth. At its core, cuts to education do not just undermine the present — by forcing job elimination and shutting down vital community services — but the future, as well.
Mahatma Gandhi once said, “the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.” One must ask: what is the measure of this society, based on how it treats its children?