Editing Education in the United States (section)

===Funding for K–12 schools===
[[File:Funding of K-12 schools map.png|thumb|Funding of K through 12th grade schools by [[school district]] as of 2016]]
[[File:State and local spending on education.png|thumb|right|State and local spending on education as of the 2015–16 school year]]
[[File:State government spending on education.png|thumb|Percent of state government revenue spent on education in 2013]]
According to a 2005 report from the OECD, the United States is tied for first place with [[Education in Switzerland|Switzerland]] when it comes to annual spending per student on its public schools, with each of those two countries spending more than $11,000.<ref name=OCED05>{{cite web|url=https://www.oecd.org/general/oecdcallsforbroaderaccesstopost-schooleducationandtraining.htm|title=OECD calls for broader access to post-school education and training|date=September 13, 2005|publisher=Oecd.org|access-date=September 21, 2013}}</ref> However, the United States is ranked 37th in the world in education spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp|title=Education Spending Statistics|publisher=nationmaster.com|access-date=December 29, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111112103702/http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp|archive-date=November 12, 2011|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Government figures exist for education spending in the United States per student, and by state. They show a very wide range of expenditures and a steady increase in per-pupil funding since 2011.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/public-school-spending-per-pupil.html|title=Public School Spending Per Pupil Increases by Largest Amount in 11 Years|date=May 18, 2021|website=United States Census Bureau|access-date=July 9, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2020/comm/school-system-spending.html|title=U.S. School System Spending Per Pupil by Region|date=May 11, 2020|website=United States Census Bureau|access-date=July 13, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66|title=How much money does the United States spend on public elementary and secondary schools?|website=National Center for Education Statistics|publisher=US Department of Education}}</ref>

Changes in funding appear to have little effect on a school system's performance. Between 1970 and 2012, the full amount spent by all levels of government on the K–12 education of an individual public school student graduating in any given year, [[adjusted for inflation]], increased by 185%. The average funding by state governments increased by 120% per student. However, scores in mathematics, science, and language arts over that same period remained almost unchanged. Multi-year periods in which a state's funding per student declined substantially also appear to have had little effect.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140319192756/http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa746.pdf |archive-date=2014-03-19 |url-status=live|title=State Education Trends: Academic Performance and Spending over the Past 40 Years|last=Coulson|first=Andrew|date=March 18, 2014|website=[[Cato Institute]]|access-date=March 2, 2016}}</ref>

Property taxes as a primary source of funding for public education have become highly controversial, for a number of reasons. First, if a state's population and land values escalate rapidly, many longtime residents may find themselves paying property taxes much higher than anticipated. In response to this phenomenon, California's citizens passed [[1978 California Proposition 13|Proposition 13]] in 1978, which severely restricted the ability of the Legislature to expand the state's educational system to keep up with growth. Some states, such as Michigan, have investigated or implemented alternative schemes for funding education that may sidestep the problems of funding based mainly on property taxes by providing funding based on sales or income tax. These schemes also have failings, negatively impacting funding in a slow economy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/05/a_tax_increase_for_michigan_sc.html|title=A tax increase for Michigan school funding is possible only if school districts cut costs, says Flint Journal columnist Peter Luke|last=Luke|first=Peter|date=May 27, 2008|work=The Flint Journal|access-date=2008-06-12|archive-url=https://archive.today/20080531230920/http://www.mlive.com/flintjournal/voices/index.ssf/2008/05/a_tax_increase_for_michigan_sc.html|archive-date=May 31, 2008|url-status=dead}}</ref>

One of the biggest debates in funding public schools is funding by local taxes or state taxes. The federal government supplies around 8.5% of the public school system funds, according to a 2005 report by the [[National Center for Education Statistics]].<ref name="nces_revenues"/> The remaining split between state and local governments averages 48.7% from states and 42.8% from local sources.<ref name="nces_revenues">{{cite web|url=http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubs/npefs03/tables.asp|title=Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, Table 1|publisher=National Center for Education Statistics|access-date=June 4, 2014}}</ref>

Rural schools struggle with funding concerns. State funding sources often favor wealthier districts. The state establishes a minimum flat amount deemed "adequate" to educate a child based on equalized assessed value of property taxes. This favors wealthier districts with a much larger tax base. This, combined with the history of slow payment in the state, leaves rural districts searching for funds. Lack of funding leads to limited resources for teachers. Resources that directly relate to funding include access to high-speed internet, online learning programs, and advanced course offerings.<ref name="Rural Education, 2011">Rural Education, 2011</ref> These resources can enhance a student's learning opportunities, but may not be available to everyone if a district cannot afford to offer specific programs. One study found that school districts spend less efficiently in areas in which they face little or no competition from other public schools, in large districts, and in areas in which residents are poor or less educated.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2000/wp2000_04.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100615225026/http://chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/working_papers/2000/wp2000_04.pdf |archive-date=2010-06-15 |url-status=live|title=''Using Market Valuation to Assess the Importance and Efficiency of Public School Spending'', Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago}}</ref> Some public schools are experimenting with recruiting teachers from developing countries in order to fill the teacher shortage, as U.S. citizens with college degrees are turning away from the demanding, low paid profession.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/05/arizona-teachers-filipino-schools-low-pay|title=The job Americans won't take: Arizona looks to Philippines to fill teacher shortage|last1=Greene Sterling|first1=Terry|date=September 5, 2018|work=[[The Guardian]]|access-date=September 5, 2018|last2=Joffe-Block|first2=Jude}}</ref>

====Judicial intervention====
===== Federal =====
The reliance on local funding sources has led to a long history of court challenges about how states fund their schools. These challenges have relied on interpretations of state constitutions after a [[United States Supreme Court|U.S. Supreme Court]] ruling that school funding was not a federal obligation specified in the [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]], whose authors left education funding and the management to states. ([[San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez]], 411 U.S. 1 (1973)). The state court cases, beginning with the [[California]] case of [[Serrano v. Priest]], 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971), were initially concerned with equity in funding, which was defined in terms of variations in spending across local school districts. More recently, state court cases have begun to consider what has been called 'adequacy.' These cases have questioned whether the total amount of spending was sufficient to meet state constitutional requirements.

From 1985 to 1999, a United States district court judge required the state of Missouri to [[Missouri v. Jenkins|triple the budget of Kansas City Public Schools]], although in the end, test scores in the district did not rise; the racial achievement gap did not diminish; and there was less, not more, integration.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Ciotti|first=Paul|title=Money And School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregation Experiment|publisher=Cato Institute|date=16 March 1998|url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html|access-date=9 July 2021}}</ref> Perhaps the most famous adequacy case is [[Abbott v. Burke]], 100 N.J. 269, 495 A.2d 376 (1985), which has involved state court supervision over several decades and has led to some of the highest spending of any U.S. districts in the so-called [[Abbott districts]]. The background and results of these cases are analyzed in a book by [[Eric Hanushek]] and Alfred Lindseth.<ref>[[Eric Hanushek|Eric A. Hanushek]] and Alfred A. Lindseth, ''Schoolhouses, Courthouses, and Statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010, {{ISBN|978-0691130002}})</ref> That analysis concludes that funding differences are not closely related to student outcomes and thus that the outcomes of the court cases have not led to improved policies.

===== State =====
Judicial intervention has even taken place at the state level. In ''[[McCleary v. Washington]]'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/843627.opn.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111165030/http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/843627.opn.pdf |archive-date=2012-01-11 |url-status=live|title=McCleary v. Washington State}}</ref> a Supreme Court decision that found the state had failed to "amply" fund public education for Washington's 1 million school children. Washington state had budgeted $18.2 billion for education spending in the two-year fiscal period ending in July 2015. The state Supreme Court decided that this budget must be boosted by $3.3 billion in total by July 2019. On September 11, 2014, the state Supreme Court found the legislature in contempt for failing to uphold a court order to come up with a plan to boost its education budget by billions of dollars over the next five years. The state had argued that it had adequately funded education and said diverting tax revenue could lead to shortfalls in other public services.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Cavaliere|first=Victoria|title=Washington's Supreme Court holds state in contempt over education|journal=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-washington-education-idUSKBN0H629R20140911|access-date=September 13, 2014|date=2014-09-11|archive-date=September 12, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140912030054/http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/11/us-usa-washington-education-idUSKBN0H629R20140911|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2023, the [[Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania]] ruled in ''[[William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education]]'' that the [[Pennsylvania General Assembly]] had created "manifest deficiencies" between high-wealth and low-wealth school districts with "no rational basis" for the funding gaps. The ruling stated that the [[Pennsylvania Constitution]]'s Education Clause was "clearly, palpably, and plainly violated because of a failure to provide all students with access to a comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education that will give them a meaningful opportunity to succeed academically, socially, and civically."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Hanna |first1=Maddie |last2=Graham |first2=Kristen A. |last3=McGoldrick |first3=Gillian |date=2023-02-07 |title=Landmark Pa. school funding case decided: The state's system is unconstitutional |url=https://www.inquirer.com/news/school-funding-lawsuit-pennsylvania-result-20230207.html |access-date=2023-02-08 |website=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]] |language=en}}</ref>

====Pensions====
While the hiring of teachers for public schools is done at the local school district level, the pension funds for teachers are usually managed at the state level. Some states have significant deficits when future requirements for teacher pensions are examined. In 2014, these were projected deficits for various states: Illinois -$187 billion, Connecticut -$57 billion, Kentucky -$41 billion, Hawaii -$16.5 billion, and Louisiana -$45.6 billion. These deficits range from 184% to 318% of these states' annual total budget.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/21/public-pensions-in-perilous-straits/6684383/|title=Dire Straits for some state pensions|last=Racioppi|first=Dustin|date=March 23, 2014|newspaper=USA Today|access-date=March 23, 2014|pages=6B}}</ref>