Children can improve our society with the tools provided by older generations as they reach adulthood. A person\u2019s future development depends on their early years of education to forge strong learning abilities and social development.[1]<\/sup><\/a> Under Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), infringing on a child\u2019s right to access to education constitutes a human rights violation.[2]<\/sup><\/a> The right to education is of such high importance that non-governmental organizations (\u201cNGOs\u201d) are dedicated to ensuring this right is met across the globe. For instance, the United Nations created the United Nations International Children\u2019s Emergency Fund (\u201cUNICEF\u201d) after World War II to protect children\u2019s rights and ensure children develop to their full potential.[3]<\/sup><\/a> UNICEF advocates for children\u2019s access to education, including the right to high quality education that meet the demands of our digital age and potential barriers to employment.[4]<\/sup><\/a> Another NGO, Save the Children, seeks to help \u201cchildren in rural America where early learning resources are scarce.\u201d[5]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The United States Department of Education established the Every Student Succeeds Act (\u201cESSA\u201d) in 2015 implementing high academic standards to ensure students\u2019 future success.[6]<\/sup><\/a> However, ESSA has been criticized for failing to acknowledge economic inequality as a limitation for academic success since the program focuses strictly on test scores rather than the financial barriers behind a classroom environment.[7]<\/sup><\/a> Academic scholars have criticized the federal government for passing the responsibility of education to the states, since this has led to the implementation of different accountability systems and inconsistent practices across the country.[8]<\/sup><\/a> The inconsistency of chronically underfunded schools has prompted parents to advocate for their children\u2019s right to equal access to education in the courtroom.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez<\/em>, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to recognize education as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[10]<\/sup><\/a> Mexican-American parents filed a class action claiming economic disparity between San Antonio\u2019s most affluent school district, which spent $594 per pupil, while Edgewood, an urban district with low property tax values, allocated a total of $356 per pupil.[11]<\/sup><\/a> The Court reasoned that a lack of personal resources does not conclusively yield an absolute deprivation of desired benefits, and the Equal Protection Clause does not expressly require identical equal advantages.[12]<\/sup><\/a> Despite the above binding authority, all U.S. states include the right to education in their respective constitutions, where a majority designate education as a fundamental right at the state level.[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n This paper will explain why a hybrid model for K-12 school funding is the most suitable financial system to address children\u2019s abridged right to education in the U.S. Although the hybrid model poses its own challenges, it exceeds the expectations by going beyond a district\u2019s property values by considering malleable factors that mold according to the local neighborhoods it serves.<\/p>\n School funding is distributed according to the local taxes that result from variations on property values.[14]<\/sup><\/a> School financing has shifted from an equity to an adequacy approach, which focuses on children\u2019s right to a certain quality of education and the sufficiency of school funding to meet such demands, while the former only seeks equal allocation of money spent per-pupil.[15]<\/sup><\/a> The precedential case that introduced the adequacy approach to the courts and the legislature was the Kentucky Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Rose v. Council for Better Education<\/em> (1989).[16]<\/sup><\/a> In Rose<\/em>, the court held that the per-pupil spending was unconstitutional under the state constitution because it failed to provide an efficient system where all children received a proper and adequate education.[17]<\/sup><\/a> Furthermore, reports have found a \u201crelation between educational spending and student achievement,\u201d and the results magnify depending on the students\u2019 socioeconomic background.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Kindergarten through twelfth grade education (K-12) is funded by a combination of local, state, and federal money.[19]<\/sup><\/a> Most of the funding comes from state and local sources, in which government representatives implement different formulas to allocate funds wherever they consider fairly.[20]<\/sup><\/a> For instance, in the fiscal year 2021, the federal government only provided 11% of education funding in the country, while 44% was raised through local revenue and 45% was provided by states via their revenue streams.[21]<\/sup><\/a> State revenues consist of various sources such as individual income taxes, businesses\u2019 general sales, and estate taxes.[22]<\/sup><\/a> Local funding entails the collection of local property taxes, in other words, the amount of money the government receives from the money spent and earned by people living in each locality.[23]<\/sup><\/a> Therefore, funding varies widely \u201camong school districts based on the wealth of families living in them.\u201d[24]<\/sup><\/a> This allocation disparity furnishes inconsistent preparation and access to resources for K-12 students because it all depends on their socioeconomic background.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n The Education Commission of the States (\u201cECS\u201d) is a non-profit organization that completes research and reports on U.S. education public policy.[26]<\/sup><\/a> The ECS has identified four general formulas that states have applied to finance their education: (1) the student-based foundation, (2) the resource-based allocation, (3) the guaranteed tax base, and the (4) hybrid model.[27]<\/sup><\/a> With the student-based foundation, districts receive a fixed amount per student but may receive additional funding for students with higher education needs.[28]<\/sup><\/a> The resource-based approach provides all districts with a minimum base amount for resources such as staffing, which is a ratio of students to staffing.[29]<\/sup><\/a> With the guaranteed tax base, funding is \u201cdetermined by a formula that equalizes the taxes paid on the base amount of property within the district.\u201d[30]<\/sup><\/a> In short, the state provides more funding to lower \u201cproperty-wealthy\u201d districts.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Lastly, the hybrid model is a combination of all the above models but may also include additional factors depending on the state implementing this approach that may range differently.[32]<\/sup><\/a> For instance, state and local representatives may consider student-to-teacher ratios, the academic resources to comparatively compete with wealthier districts, or any supplemental funding needed for non-English speaking students or students with disabilities.[33]<\/sup><\/a> Essentially, the hybrid model permits local and state agencies to create a system that goes beyond the value of property taxes per neighborhood.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n According to ECS research, 33 states relied on a student-based foundation model, 10 used a resource-based allocation, 5 used a hybrid model, and 2 used a guaranteed tax base model.[35]<\/sup><\/a> Preparing a funding scheme is no easy feat when districts needs may vary greatly among each other.[36]<\/sup><\/a> The adequacy approach has shed light on education inequality from a socioeconomic perspective by illustrating how a fixed budget per-pupil may not be the solution if it fails to address underlying obstacles that limit students\u2019 academic preparation.[37]<\/sup><\/a> By diversifying the adequacy approach to four general formulas, the U.S. recognized that the equity approach is not the proper pathway for equal access to education as mandated under Article 26 of the UDHR.[38]<\/sup><\/a> Nevertheless, the question of whether property and personal taxes should be considered when calculating school fundings still receives different responses between the courts and parents, as referenced in San Antonio<\/em>.[39]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n In 2021, Ohio implemented a hybrid model for school funding where both state and local governments provide the majority of funding, and the remainder is from the federal government.[40]<\/sup><\/a> Beforehand, Ohio relied on a student-based foundation approach.[41]<\/sup><\/a> The uniqueness of this system is that it no longer provides a fixed amount of funding to districts but relies on a \u201cbase cost\u201d to subsequently determine a unique<\/em> amount allocated to each district depending on its economic needs.[42]<\/sup><\/a> This model allows the state government to \u201ccounteract local inequities in wealth by sending more dollars to poorer districts.\u201d[43]<\/sup><\/a> Ohio\u2019s hybrid model allows it to fluctuate depending on the socioeconomic makeup of each district and the state and local revenue available.[44]<\/sup><\/a> Districts expect to receive an 11.9% funding boost by the year 2025.[45]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n It is possible that the needs of Ohio\u2019s hybrid model will clash with its contemporaneous goal of providing funding for private institutions.[46]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 In July 2023, Ohio passed legislation enabling an $86 million budget for universal school vouchers, meaning that these vouchers can be used to pay private school tuition.[47]<\/sup><\/a> Hence, it allows low-income parents to choose public or private schools for their children.[48]<\/a> Although Ohio public schools received a $1.54 billion increase in funding, the state will also be investing $2 billion in these school vouchers alone.[49]<\/sup><\/a> Policy makers are uncertain the financial impact this will have because they don\u2019t know how many Ohioans will rely on these vouchers after its financial limitations have been loosened to cover more families.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Illinois\u2019 hybrid model, known as the Evidence-Based Funding for Student Success Act (\u201cEBF\u201d), was enacted in 2017.[51]<\/sup><\/a> The goal of the EBF is to send more resources to financially vulnerable students to foster a well-rounded learning environment for all students.[52]<\/sup><\/a> The formula works in three stages: Stage 1 determines the cost of educating all<\/em> students for each district (\u201cAdequacy Target\u201d), then Stage 2 measures each district\u2019s local resources for comparison to the Adequacy Target previously calculated.[53]<\/sup><\/a> Lastly, Stage 3 reflects the pending funding needed by each district to meet the student body\u2019s needs, provided by additional state funds.[54]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Since 2017, this model has increased funding to public schools by $1.6 billion dollars provided to previously underfunded districts.[55]<\/sup><\/a> This model has managed to close the funding gaps between wealthier districts and increase the funding for districts that educate a majority of students of color and from low-income families.[56]<\/sup><\/a> However, policy analysts have criticized this model as dysfunctional because student achievement has \u201cfailed to grow at the rate the \u2018evidence-based\u2019 funding model promises.\u201d[57]<\/sup><\/a> Additionally, the Illinois Governor\u2019s has failed to increase the state\u2019s minimum funding since it is not feasible to meet the needs\u2019 of the schools with the current $350 million funding stipulated by law.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Ohio and Illinois\u2019 application of their respective hybrid models demonstrates that such a formula is the most effective method out of the four general formulas when achieving an adequate approach to school funding.[59]<\/sup><\/a> Ohio strives to provide unique<\/em> amounts of funding depending on a district’s economic needs.[60]<\/sup><\/a> Likewise, the model from Illinois has made progress in closing the unequal funding gap between wealthy and poor districts.[61]<\/sup><\/a> The impacts that these models have provided to many communities in both states would have been limited, if not nonexistent, by recurring to the other general formulas.[62]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n For instance, the resource-based approach would ensure that schools are only provided with the basic or minimum funding to function properly.[63]<\/sup><\/a> However, it would not seek to go beyond closing any economic gaps like Illinois\u2019 Stage 3.[64]<\/sup><\/a> For example, because the resource-based approach relies mostly on assumptions<\/em> about how much staff a given school needs and the corresponding salary that should be given to the school to fund them.[65]<\/sup><\/a> Attempting to implement Illinois\u2019 changes via the resource-based approach would fail because such a formula would constrict a school\u2019s decision-making based on salary deficiencies for teachers and supervisors.[66]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n Implementing a hybrid model will not provide the end-all solution for the U.S. to properly abridge the unequal funding per district, as expected under the UDHR.[67]<\/sup><\/a> However, from the financial schemes available, the hybrid model is the most appealing solution for our present society. Monetary resources are finite, and there is a possibility that Ohio\u2019s hybrid model may run into that obstacle in the future as it seeks to close the gap for poor communities via vouchers for both public and private schools.[68]<\/sup><\/a> The Governor of Illinois has already faced backlash for this same issue.[69]<\/sup><\/a> The hybrid models from Ohio and Illinois began their course in 2021 and 2017.[70]<\/sup><\/a> It is too early to determine the shortcomings via a scheme that allocates malleable amounts of funding to financially vulnerable school districts.[71]<\/sup><\/a> Such an uncertainty does not outweigh the benefits that a hybrid model yields in school funding and its appeal for it to be potentially applied in more states in the future.<\/p>\n The importance of education mustn\u2019t be overlooked. High quality education provides children with tools to forge their success and to mold their goals. Property wealth should not be a contingent factor on how much a child has the right to learn in their studies. In the U.S., each state has the right to develop a funding strategy as they deem proper.[72]<\/sup><\/a> ECS\u2019s research demonstrates that there is no fixed solution to address this inconsistent right to education in the country.[73]<\/sup><\/a> A frequent problem is the overwhelming reliance on state and local taxes, which is a risk because these sources are potentially unstable.[74]<\/sup><\/a> That is because such taxes originate from income and sales, and their stability is uncertain during financial crises like a recession.[75]<\/sup><\/a> Ohio\u2019s hybrid model has proved to be a success so far.[76]<\/sup><\/a> A hybrid model foreshadows more promise than a per-pupil approach.[77]<\/sup><\/a> A model that can be sustained by malleable factors that fill in the gaps to ensure adequate education is a vision in the right direction.[78]<\/sup><\/a> However, the promise of adequate funding may be unfulfilled if the needs exceed the minimum funding a state must abide by a statute.[79]<\/sup><\/a> Adequacy over equalization seems to be the right direction, but this goal will be limited if economic disparity outweighs the funding needed to cover such a gap.[80]<\/sup><\/a> The U.S. can protect children\u2019s right to education by increasing the number of states using a hybrid model to fund their K-12 education.<\/p>\n [1]<\/sup><\/a> What\u2019s the Importance of Early Childhood Education? <\/em>WALDEN UNIVERSITY, https:\/\/www.waldenu.edu\/online-masters-programs\/ms-in-early-childhood-studies\/resource\/what-is-the-importance-of-early-childhood-education#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20human%20development,including%20cognitive%20and%20social%20development (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [2]<\/sup><\/a> Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/em>, United Nations, https:\/\/www.un.org\/en\/about-us\/universal-declaration-of-human-rights#:~:text=Article%2026,Elementary%20education%20shall%20be%20compulsory (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [3]<\/sup><\/a> UNICEF history: Reimagining the future for every child since 1946, <\/em>https:\/\/www.unicef.org\/history#:~:text=The%20United%20Nations%20International%20Children’s,had%20played%20in%20the%20war (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [4]<\/sup><\/a> Education: Every child has the right to learn, UNICEF<\/em>, https:\/\/www.unicef.org\/education (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [5]<\/sup><\/a> Education<\/em>, Save the Children, <\/em>(2023), https:\/\/www.savethechildren.org\/us\/what-we-do\/education#:~:text= Every%20child%20deserves%20the%20opportunity,major%20indicator%20of%20future%20success (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [6]<\/sup><\/a> Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)<\/em>, U.S. Department of Education, https:\/\/www.ed.gov\/essa?src=policy (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [7]<\/sup><\/a> Elizabeth Donoghue, 4.5: Every Student Suceeds Acts (replacing NCLB), <\/em>LibreTexts Social Sciences, https:\/\/socialsci.libretexts.org\/Courses\/Fresno_City_College\/Education_30%3A_Introduction_to_Education_(Perez)\/04%3A_Educational_Reform\/4.05%3A__Every_Student_Succeeds_Act_(replacing_NCLB) (last visited Oct. 12, 2023).<\/p>\n [8]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n [9]<\/sup><\/a> Mark Walsh, After 50 Years, a U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Educational Equity is Still Debated<\/em>, EducationWeek, Mar. 20, 2023, https:\/\/www.edweek.org\/policy-politics\/after-50-years-a-u-s-supreme-court-decision-on-educational-equity-is-still-debated\/2023\/03 (last visited Nov. 10, 2023).<\/p>\n [10]<\/sup><\/a> San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez<\/u><\/em>, 411 U.S. 1, 4, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 1282 (1973).<\/p>\n [11]<\/sup><\/a> Id<\/em>., at 1285-86.<\/p>\n [12]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 1291.<\/p>\n [13]<\/sup><\/a> Chelsea Lauren Chicosky, Restructuring the Modern Education System in the United States: A Look at the Value of Compulsory Education Laws<\/em>, 2015 BYU EDUC. & L.J. 1, at 1-2 (2015).<\/p>\n [14]<\/sup><\/a> Michael Heise, State Constitutions, School Finance Litigation, and the Third Wave: From Equity to Adequacy, 68 TEMPLE L. REV. 1151 (1995).<\/p>\n [15]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 1153, 1162.<\/p>\n [16]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em> at 1163.<\/p>\nBackground<\/h2>\n
1. Shaping K-12 Education through \u201cAdequacy over Equity\u201d Approach<\/h3>\n
2. Funding Scheme of K-12 public school districts<\/h3>\n
Discussion<\/h2>\n
1. A Hybrid model is best to counteract local inequities: Ohio\u2019s Hybrid Model (Est. 2021)<\/h3>\n
2. A Hybrid model serves a student\u2019s needs beyond a fixed budget: Illinois\u2019 Hybrid Model (Est. 2017)<\/h3>\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n