economics of education edst 565 wednesday...

EDST 565 – Course Outline - Version 2.0

1

Economics of Education EDST 565

Wednesday – 16:30 to 19:30

Ponderosa F- Room 203

Dr. Gerald Fallon

E-mail: [email protected]

Phone: 604-822-5822

Fax: 604-822-4244

Dept. of Educational Studies

2125 Main Mall

Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4

General Description:

The term “school finance” is usually not a recommended topic at cocktail parties, but it should

be. School finance is not merely about budgets. It is about the politics, policies and competing

interests that go into deciding who and what matters in education. In this course we will explore

how equity and social justice are intricately connected to decisions about budget sources and

allocations in educational settings. What gets funded or cut? Is it science programs or music?

Why is this? How do we fund special education and what does this say about what is valued and

not by policymakers? This course looks at finance as part of larger socio-political contexts in

Canada and BC. This course will be of interests to teachers, administrators, and those working

on social justice and equity issues in K-12 education.

Aims, Goals, Objectives, Outcomes:

What should practicing school leaders know about the financing of education? Should we

consider a budget as a discourse underlined by a certain understanding of what is public

education, how should it be provided, for what purposes, and for whose benefit? These are the

key guiding questions for this course. By definition, then, this course addresses itself to aspiring

school-level administrators and to school-level administrators as aspirants to more senior

leadership positions in education.

The answer to these questions necessarily involves more than knowledge of how to

manage a school budget technically. First, some sense of how the financing of publicly funded

education fits into the evolving economic context of both private- and public-sector activity is

necessary if school administrators are to understand, engage in, and influence financial decision-

making with more than a “recipe-book” approach. Second, let they find themselves prey to

facile ideas about how much better life in schools would be if government—and school boards—

simply used alternative approaches to distributing available resources, school leaders should

have some general idea of the generic approaches to funding education that are possible and the

advantages and disadvantages of each. They should also understand some of the central issues,

trade-offs, measurement problems, controversies, and dilemmas that transcend any particular

technical approach to distributing available resources, especially the debate around the aims of

public education and issues of adequacy. Closely linked to the debate about the financing of

public education, the aim(s) of education are also subject to an intense debate, especially when

governments re-examine aspects of the provision of public schooling and struggle with defining


2

the need for educational change. In order to participate intelligently within this debate and the

discussion around issues of providing and financing education, educators need to understand the

contested nature of education—how the debate is influenced by fluctuating social, cultural,

economic and political trends that emerge locally, nationally, and globally. Competing claims

have foundations in diverse conceptions of the educated person, the good life, and the good

society. Those conceptions are situated in larger discourses that address foundational issues of

purpose, paradigm, and finances in education.

Next, school leaders should grasp the essentials of issues and research evidence

surrounding devolution of control over educational decision-making to the school level. In short,

they require an informed understanding of questions surrounding site-based management (SBM).

Next, they should understand how school-based management inevitably links to and is delimited

by the approach to site-based budgeting (SBB) chosen by a school jurisdiction. Approaches to

SBB can range from comprehensive devolution of budgetary authority (very rare, at least in

North America) to highly constrained discretion over narrow expenditure categories. In the same

vein, they need to understand both conceptual and technical issues that surround SBB.

These areas of concern define the terrain of this course. Students completing this course

should have a solid working knowledge, appropriately contextualized, of education finance as it

relates to the work of school-level and district-level leaders.

The principal goals of this course will be to foster understanding of:

1. the changing place of publicly funded education in the context of a rapidly

evolving, increasingly globalized, volatile, technology-intensive, knowledge-

based economy,

2. basic alternative approaches to funding education, their rationales in terms of

equity, adequacy, and efficiency, and their applicability to different types and

levels of educational services,

3. issues surrounding alternative revenue sources for education with particular

focus on the property tax and market-driven funding mechanisms,

4. questions and issues surrounding school-based budgeting and management.

Weekly Schedule

Each week will consist of three three-hour sessions (13 sessions in total from September 4th

to

November 27th

, 2013). Most sessions will blend instructor presentation and discussion. Several

sessions, however, will be devoted to case studies, students-led seminars, and presentations by

invited guests on particular subjects such as funding mechanisms.

Format

Instruction will consist of a combination of lectures by the instructor and guest speakers,

participant presentation of cases, and small and large group discussions of financial issues. As a

community of learners, you will be expected to share your personal, professional, and

collaborative queries, explorations, and expertise through group discussions and projects.

Participants will also need to have recourse to the Faculty of Education Library, and other


3

sources, including the Internet, for the purpose of researching and preparing their presentations

and final papers.

Assessment

Assessment will involve the following methods:

1. Contribution to class discussion 10% - All classes

2. Critical Issue Focus Paper (45% ― maximum 10 pages): Equity and Adequacy

Over the last two decades, senior levels of government in Canada have downloaded debt-driven

budgetary constraint toward provinces, municipalities, local health and social-service delivery

units, and school boards with the result that publicly-funded local agencies including school

boards have been confronted with increasingly difficult budgetary and program choices—and

decreased discretion to make them. At the same time school boards have been confronted with

major identity changes from provincial restructuring initiatives—as well as growing fiscal

pressure from their mandate to provide adequate and appropriate services to special-needs and

at-risk students. Indeed the question of overall funding adequacy has been reshaping traditional

ideas of equity in Canadian provinces as elsewhere. All of this adds up to a hard balancing act

and hard choices that go with it. Given the fiscal, economic, and political realities of our time,

should provincial reforms and local-board budgeting practices channel a greater proportion of

scarce resources into increasing equity (e.g., fewer special-interest, magnet, and “accelerated” or

“gifted” programs and schools, more equal overall per-pupil financial and resource support but

also more resources channelled to remedial and special education, and so forth)—or into

providing higher quality educational programs to the “more able?” Why? What are the probable

fiscal, program, and social consequences of your position? In no more than ten double-spaced

pages, expose and critique the most fundamental underlying issues in the equity and adequacy

debate as you currently understand them with particular attention to their financial dimensions.

This is not a research assignment. Above all, you are to take a reasoned position, supported with

sound arguments and research literature for or against realignment of resources in one or the

other of these two basic directions, increased concentration on “excellence” or on “equality.” As

you do so, you will need to present some notions of what might constitute a reasonable and

politically sustainable view of “adequate and equitable” funding. The paper is due on October

31st, 2013.


4

Evaluation of Critical Issue Focus Paper:

Clarity and consistency in presentation

of issues 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Insight and originality 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Organization 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Presentation — English form and style,

correct use of A.P.A. style 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Quality of critique:

1. clear presentation of principal values

and assumptions 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

2. sound and lucid argumentation 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

3. treatment of counterarguments 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

4. success in exposing equity/excellence/adequacy

dilemmas, problems, and possibilities 0 2 4 6 7 7.5 8 9 10

3. School Budgeting Process in your School District (45%—maximum 10 double-spaced pages

due on December 2nd

, 2013)

Describe your school-district approach to budgeting for the 2012-13 budget year. Pay particular

attention to:

the main sources of funding:

o public sources (government) and how the allocation to your district is calculated

(funding formula)

o private sources (international students, entrepreneurial activities, etc.)

the consultation process followed by your school district

how and on what basis (in terms of equity, adequacy, and/or equality) the budget has

been constructed and financial allocation made within your school district (consult the

official minutes of your Board of education)

a critique of the process followed for the construction of the school district budget: what

was the nature and content of the input provided by various stakeholders? What


5

educational values are being promoted in the budget: adequacy, equity, and/or equal

treatment?

Evaluation of Budget Process Paper:

Clarity and coherence of budgetary process

description 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Plausibility and appropriateness of process 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Organization 0 1 2 3 3.5 3.75 4 4.5 5

Presentation — English form and style,

correct use of A.P.A. style 0 2 4 6 7 7.5 8 9 10

Overall quality of budget process:

1. clear presentation of principal values

and assumptions 0 2 4 6 7 7.5 8 9 10

2. description and critique of the stages of the 0 2 4 6 7 7.5 8 9 10

budget process

Order of Marking Standards

A Level (80% to 100%)

A+ is from 90% to 100%. It is reserved for exceptional work that greatly exceeds course

expectations. In addition, achievement must satisfy all the conditions below.

A is from 85% to 89%. A mark of this order suggests a very high level of performance on

all criteria used for evaluation. Contributions deserving an A are distinguished in

virtually every aspect. They show that the individual (or group) significantly shows

initiative, creativity, insight, and probing analysis where appropriate. Further, the

achievement must show careful attention to course requirements as established by the

instructor.

A- is from 80% to 84%. It is awarded for generally high quality of performance, no

problems of any significance, and fulfillment of all course requirements. However, the

achievement does not demonstrate the level of quality that is clearly distinguished

relative to that of peers in class and in related courses.


6

B Level (68% to 79%)

This category of achievement is typified by adequate but unexceptional performance

when the criteria of assessment are considered. It is distinguished from A level work by

problems such as:

• one or more significant errors in understanding

• superficial representation or analysis of key concepts

• absence of any special initiatives

• lack of coherent organization or explication of ideas

The level of B work is judged in accordance with the severity of the difficulties

demonstrated.

B+ is from 76% to 79%.

B is from 72% to 75%.

B- is from 68% to 71%.

C Level (67% to 60%)

C+ is from 64% to 67%

C is from 60% - 63%

The Faculty of Graduate Studies considers 60% as a minimum passing grade for graduate

students. See the UBC Calendar for details. Students should check the University Calendar for

information on what constitutes “Satisfactory Progress” for masters and doctoral students. In

general, a grade of 68% must be maintained to remain in good standing. See the Faculty of

Graduate Studies section of Calendar for more information.

Common criteria for all assignments

All assignments should be double-spaced using Times or Times New Roman, 12-point font.

Conventions of written English language usage should be followed. All submissions should be

checked for spelling and grammar and proofread. APA style should be used for all citations,

quotes and reference lists. Guidelines for APA style can be found at

http://www.library.ubc.ca/pubs/apastyle.html. Papers should be well organized, with an

introduction and conclusion, and use headings and subheadings as appropriate. Assignments

should be submitted as e-mailed attachments unless otherwise arranged with the instructor.

Please keep a copy of all submitted assignments.

Continuous Class Work

Course participants are expected to attend all classes, to come well prepared, and to participate in

all class discussions and activities. Preparation for class includes critically reading the required

http://www.library.ubc.ca/pubs/apastyle.html


7

readings and preparing notes prior to class. Critical reading means paying attention to the

meanings of words and phrases, the author’s purpose, and how authors build their argument. It

also means paying attention to how you respond emotionally and cognitively to the readings—

how do you feel after reading them? What do you agree with and why? What do you disagree

with and why? What passages stand out for you and why? Quality contributions in the class are

more important than quantity. Contributions to the class community include respectfully offering

your own views; listening respectfully and reflecting upon the views of others; drawing others

into the discussion; asking questions for clarification; responding to any conflicts in a mature

fashion; having patience with ambiguity and confusion; communicating any concerns about the

course to the instructor.

Policy Regarding Late Assignments and Class Absenteeism

All assignments are due on or before the date stated in the course outline. If you cannot meet a

deadline, notify the instructor in advance and explain why you are unable to meet the deadline.

Negotiate an appropriate revised due date. Classes are designed to provide opportunities for

students to learn through interaction with the instructor and other students, and possibly with

guest speakers. When classes are missed this learning is irreplaceable, therefore attendance and

participation are important in order to optimize the course experience. Students are asked to

notify the instructor in advance if they are unable to attend a particular class. Students who miss

a class may be asked to complete an additional assignment to demonstrate proficiency with the

content missed. Students who miss two or more classes may be asked to withdraw from the

course.

Email and Phone Calls

If you do not get a return email within 24 hours, please email again. I check emails and phone

messages from Monday to Friday and respond quickly.

Disability and Accommodation

If you have an impairment that requires accommodation in this course, please speak to me or

provide me with documentation and recommendations from the Disability Resources Centre.

Policy Regarding Academic Misconduct

The integrity of academic work depends on the honesty of all those who work in this

environment and the observance of accepted conventions such as acknowledging the work of

others through careful citation of all sources used in your work. Plagiarism -including self-

plagiarism - and other forms of academic misconduct are treated as serious offences at UBC,

whether committed by faculty, staff or students. You should be aware of the sections of the

University Calendar that address academic integrity (http://students.ubc.ca/calendar/) and

plagiarism (http://www.vpacademic.ubc.ca/integrity/policies.htm/). The UBC library also has a

useful web-based Plagiarism Resource Centre that explains what plagiarism is and how to avoid

it (www.library.ubc.ca/home/plagiarism/). If you have questions or concerns about any of 5 these

policies or conventions in relation to how they apply to the work you do in this course, please

discuss them with the instructor.


8

Topic Outline:

I. The Overall Economic Context

1. Law of supply and demand and relationship to rationale for public funding of education:

o supply and demand

o rates of return on educational investments

o education versus other public investments

o educational production and cost functions:

theory

limitations

o globalisation, technology, and the future of publicly funded education.

2. The private sector in education:

o rationale for private provision

o private funding

rationale across different educational levels

forms

implications

o public funding of private schools in Canada

theory

critique.

3. Taxation:

o major current and historical issues surrounding taxation for school purposes as

they relate to funding elementary/secondary education in B.C.

o alternatives to local property taxation for school purposes (extended reliance on

consumption or income tax, lotteries, for-profit entrepreneurial activities, etc.) and

their impacts on issues of equity.

4. Fiscal equity in education finance (with special attention to recent developments in

British Columbia):

basic concepts of equity

horizontal

vertical

reconceptualizing measurement of equity

equalization

conceptual roots in horizontal equity

alternative approaches—assumptions and results

Canadian approaches to equalization

special cost and need grants

conceptual roots in vertical equity

alternative approaches: assumptions and results

some Canadian examples, and special grants in British Columbia.

5. Perennial, recent and current issues in elementary and secondary school funding in :

o adequacy

relationship between adequacy and equity


9

the challenge of defining and measuring adequacy

o Bill 34: enduring financial impacts

replacement of half the local share from provincial source with

correspondingly greater exposure of public education revenues to

economic fluctuations, and

o transportation

o program mandates and funding levels

II. School-Level Issues

6. Site-Based Management:

o rationale

o issues

board control and school-level discretion

horizontal and vertical policy coherence

relationship to site-based budgeting

o conceptual issues

what is being delegated

to whom

why

balance of power


10

Part I: The Overall Economic and Policy Context

Session 1: September 4th

, 2013.

Pre-assignment for September 4th

, 2013

In preparation for the first class, each participant needs to bring the budget of his/her school

district along with the statistics pertaining to the final operating grant full‐year summary

(2012/13 School Year) for his/her school district which can be found at:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/funding/12-13/welcome.htm

Pre-Class Readings for September 4th

, 2013

a. McGrath, S. (1993). Equity and Efficiency in Educational Finance: An

Operational Conundrum. Available at:

http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/vol1/mcgrath2.html

b. Garcea, J. and Munroe, D. (2011). Reforms to Education Funding Frameworks

in Canadian Provinces (1991-2011): A Comparative Analysis. Available at:

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2011/garcea-munroe.pdf

c. Donnelly, M.L. (2010). The State of Equity in Canadian Education. Available at:

http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/state-equity-canadian-

education.pdf

d. Knoeppel, R. and Brewer, C.A. (2011). Education Reform, Equal Opportunity

and Educational Achievement: Do Trend Data Adequately Report Progress?

Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/903/902

Primary Goals, Key Concepts & Exploration Questions:

Introduction and general course administration:

o Purpose and objectives

o Structure

o Personal and/or group assignments

o Assessment

Participants’ personal knowledge of the school finance and its impact on the work of

educators:

o What are the main reasons to know explore the financial dimensions in the

provision of public education?

o What do we already know?

o What would we like to know more about?

o What is your understanding of the notion of equity in the context of school

finance?

Websites relevant to BC school finance:

o Summary of Key Information on School Districts:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reporting/docs/SoK_2011.pdf

o BC School District Revenue and Expenditure Tables:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/accountability/district/revenue/


http://www.mun.ca/educ/faculty/mwatch/vol1/mcgrath2.html

http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2011/garcea-munroe.pdf

http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/state-equity-canadian-education.pdf

http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/state-equity-canadian-education.pdf

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/903/902




11

o Monitoring of K-12 District Financial Accountability:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/accountability/district/

o K-12 Funding Allocation System:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/welcome.htm

o Final Operating Grant Full‐Year Summary per School District ‐ 2012/13 School

Year: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/funding/12-13/welcome.htm

Discussion about overarching value issues in the financing of education with particular

reference to introductory readings on the notion of equity and finance.


, 2013.

Pre-assignment for September 11th

, 2013

In preparation for the second class, each participant/team needs to write a brief essay (maximum

3 to 4 pages) about their understanding of the notions of equity and adequacy in the provision

and funding of public education. Each essay will be presented and debated in class. This is the

first step toward the preparation of your Critical Issue Focus Paper on Equity and Adequacy due

on October 31st, 2013.


, 2013

a) Addonizio, M. F. (2003). From Fiscal Equity to Education Adequacy: Lessons from

Michigan. Journal of Education Finance, 28(4), 457‒483. Available at the UBC

Education Library:

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=

887d124e-5341-4df8-a456-f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23

b) Baker, B.D. (2005). The Emerging Shape of Educational Adequacy: From Theoretical

Assumptions to Empirical Evidence. Journal of Education Finance, 30(3), 259‒287.

Available at the UBC Education Library:

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=

887d124e-5341-4df8-a456-f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23

c) Verstegen , D. (1998). Judicial Analysis During the New Wave of School Finance

Litigation: The New Adequacy in Education. Journal of Education Finance, 24(1) 51‒69.

Available at the UBC Education Library:

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=887d124e-

5341-4df8-a456-

f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0

LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=507655771


Notions of educational purposes/aims of public education as reflected in the BC School

Act: Do we have an adequate and/or equitable level of funding to achieve these purposes?

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96412_01

The equity-adequacy nexus in school finance.




http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNOtaivUbKk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6srUqvpbBIr6meS7imt1Kwqp5oy5zyit%2fk8Xnh6ueH7N%2fiVa%2bosE62qbRLsqikhN%2fk5VXj5KR84LPjfvKc8nnls79mpNfsVbOmtVCwqLdJtpzkh%2fDj34y73POE6urjkPIA&hid=23

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/viewarticle?data=dGJyMPPp44rp2%2fdV0%2bnjisfk5Ie46bNOtaivUbKk63nn5Kx95uXxjL6srUqvpbBIr6meS7imt1Kwqp5oy5zyit%2fk8Xnh6ueH7N%2fiVa%2bosE62qbRLsqikhN%2fk5VXj5KR84LPjfvKc8nnls79mpNfsVbOmtVCwqLdJtpzkh%2fDj34y73POE6urjkPIA&hid=23

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=887d124e-5341-4df8-a456-f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23




http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=887d124e-5341-4df8-a456-f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23&bdata=JmxvZ2luLmFzcCZzaXRlPWVob3N0LWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=507655771




http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/96412_01


12


, 2013.


, 2013

a) Fallon, G. & Paquette, J. (2008). Devolution, Choice, and Accountability in the Provision

of Public Education in British Columbia: A Critical Analysis of the School Amendment

Act of 2002 (Bill 34)". Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 75,

1–16. [Online] http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/fallonpaquette.html.

b) Fallon, G. & Paquette, J. (2009). Introducing a Market Element into the Funding of

Public Education in British Columbia: A Critical Policy Analysis of Section 6.1 of the

School Amendment Act, 2002. McGill Journal of Education. 44(2), 143–162. Available

at: http://www.erudit.org/revue/mje/2009/v44/n2/039029ar.pdf

c) McGregor, G. (2009). Educating for (whose) success? Schooling in an age of neo-

liberalism. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(3), 345–358


Exploration of the history of the policy changes in the field of school finance in British

Columbia.

Impacts of a neoliberal understanding of globalization and the new economy on publicly

funded education

Changing contexts: the emergence of market-based educational reforms and their impact

on ways of funding public schools:

o What are the key features of market-based educational reforms? What

assumptions do form the basis of funding public schools in such a context?


, 2013


, 2013

a) Vancouver Board of Education 2012/2013 Fiscal Framework. Available at:

http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2012-

2013%20Fiscal%20Framework%20(web).pdf


Budgeting (Case Study ―Fiscal framework 2012-13 of the Vancouver School Board):

Team work – Developing an understanding of the different dimensions of the budget

process.

Each team will analyse the fiscal framework of the VSB for the year 2012-13 and

develop a visual on a flip chart that will address the following questions (40 minutes

preparation and 20 minutes discussion):

o What are the main sources of funding for the VSB? What is the percentage of

public funding as opposed to private sources of funding? Do you agree with the

policy that provides the VSB alternative means to generate revenue for

http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/fallonpaquette.html

http://www.erudit.org/revue/mje/2009/v44/n2/039029ar.pdf

http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2012-2013%20Fiscal%20Framework%20(web).pdf

http://www.vsb.bc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/2012-2013%20Fiscal%20Framework%20(web).pdf


13

educational expenditures over and above that provided by Block Funding by the

Province?

o What are the revenue and spending items included in the fiscal framework?

o What are the variables being considered in the calculation of the level of funding

available to the VSB and in the allocations of financial resources?

o What are the assumptions underlying the fiscal framework? Do you see evidence

of equity and adequacy in the allocation process of financial revenues?

o Do you think that the cost of providing education in the VSB outstripped the

funds provided by the province and/or generated through private sources? Do you

think that the VSB is responsible in generating the needed supplementary

revenues to avoid a shortfall? Why?

*It is strongly suggested that each member of a team read carefully the fiscal framework and

develop responses to each questions in advance.

Where would you cut if the revenue from the Offshore Tuition Fees would diminish by 5

million dollars and why? How or in which ways would you consider issues of equity and

adequacy in resizing the budget?

Where would you allocate the extra funding if the revenues from the Offshore Tuitions

Fees would increase by 5 million dollars, why and on which assumptions?

Session 5: October 2nd

, 2013

Pre-Class Readings for October 2nd

, 2013

b) BCTF (2009.) More Shortfalls than Ever”— Growing Evidence that the Funding

Formula Does not Cover the Costs of Public Education. Available at:

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2009EF01.pdf

c) BCTF, (2012). 2012–13 Operating Grants— Too Little to Offset District Budget

Shortfalls. Available at:

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2012-EF-01.pdf

c) Duncombe, W. (2006). Responding to the Charge of Alchemy: Strategies for Evaluating

the Reliability and Validity of Costing-Out Research. Journal of Education Finance.

Available at: http://cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/publications/charge_of_alchemy.pdf


Explanation of the budget process in B.C. / PowerPoint presentation

Example:

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2009EF01.pdf

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Publications/Research_reports/2012-EF-01.pdf

http://cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap/publications/charge_of_alchemy.pdf


14

Team work – Reconstructing the budget of your school district for the year 2012-13.

o Sources of budget information:

Summary of Key Information on School Districts:

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/apps/imcl/imclWeb/Home.do


BC School District Revenue and Expenditure Tables:


Monitoring of K-12 District Financial Accountability:


K-12 Funding Allocation System:


Final Operating Grant Full‐Year Summary per School District ‐ 2012/13

School Year: http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/k12funding/funding/12-

13/welcome.htm

Each team will analyse the budget process followed by their school district for the year

2012-13 and reconstruct the process by addressing the following questions (this is the

first step for the development of your paper dealing with the budget process in your

district):

o Based on your reading of the minutes of the meetings that took place within the

budget process in your district, what were the main principles driving the budget

process (equality, adequacy and/or equity) and how were they reflected in the

budget process?

o What were the main sources of funding for your school district? What was the

percentage of public funding as opposed to private sources of funding?

Do you agree with the policy that provides your school district alternative

means to generate revenue for educational expenditures over and above

that provided by Block Funding by the government?

o What were the main spending items included in the budget? How were they

chosen and for what reasons?

http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/apps/imcl/imclWeb/Home.do








15

o What were the variables being considered in the calculation of the level of

funding available to your school district in the allocation of available financial

resources?

o Was there a shortfall and if so, why? o Do you agree with the underlying principles that drove the budget process in your

district? Why?

Session 6: October 9th

, 2013.

Pre-Class Readings for October 9th

, 2013

a) Cibulka, J.G. (1987). Theories of Education Budgeting: Lessons from the Management of

Decline, Educational Administration Quarterly, 23(1), 7 ‒40. Available at:

http://eaq.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/23/1/7.full.pdf+html

b) Paquette, J. (1990). Funding a New Social Contract in Ontario Education. Economics of

Education Review, 10(1), 45‒55. Ava http://ac.els-

cdn.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/027277579190039R/1-s2.0-027277579190039R-

main.pdf?_tid=4188520e-e354-11e2-8cb9-

00000aab0f02&acdnat=1372796364_57c12943974d6e35855286da1bfed549


Theories of School District Budgeting

School Finance and Diversity

o Which budget theories should we adopt as conceptual framework in school districts

budgeting? Why?

o Do you think that it is possible to develop financial models of funding public

schools supportive of the social purposes of addressing diversity in public

schools? Why?

Reconstructing a school district budget - sharing and discussion: each team will table and

discuss their ways they have used in reconstructing the budget of their school district.

Teams are encouraged to critique each other work.


, 2013.

‒ No Class: Critical work on the Issue Focus Paper (due on October 31st at 16:00) ‒

http://eaq.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/23/1/7.full.pdf+html

http://ac.els-cdn.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/027277579190039R/1-s2.0-027277579190039R-main.pdf?_tid=4188520e-e354-11e2-8cb9-00000aab0f02&acdnat=1372796364_57c12943974d6e35855286da1bfed549





16

Session 8: October 23rd

, 2013.

Pre-Class Readings for October 23rd

, 2013

a) BCTF, (2012). Education Funding Brief 2012 - BC Teachers’ Federation. Available at:

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/Briefs/2012EdFundingBrief.pdf

b) Shields, C.M. (2004). Dialogic Leadership for Social Justice: Overcoming Pathologies of

Silence. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 109‒132.


a) Notion of underfunding of public education in B.C.

Guest speaker: Dr. Larry Kuehn, Director of Research and Technology

Dr. Kuehn has particular interests in education policy, technology, and social issues. His

responsibilities include the BCTF International Solidarity Program. He has taught English in

Kitimat, Kettle Valley, and Kamloops, and was president of the BCTF, 1981-84. Dr. Kuehn is

the co-author of the book, Pandora’s Box: Free trade, corporate power, and Canadian

education. He has written extensively on issues related to education and globalization, and trade

agreements, and on the social impact of information technology in education. He has a Doctor of

Education degree from UBC.


, 2013.

Pre-Class Readings for October 30th

, 2013

a. Fazekas, M. (2012), School Funding Formulas: Review of Main Characteristics and

Impacts, OECD Education Working Papers, 74, OECD Publishing. Available at:

http://www.oecd-

ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k993xw27cd3.pdf?expires=1372871012&id=id&accna

me=guest&checksum=3EACF913A66C6049AF87FEB9FD01671E

b. Paquette, J. (2004). Interdivision Fiscal Equity in Saskatchewan, 1985-2000: An Analysis

of Spending Equity and Wealth Neutrality, Journal of Educational Finance, 30(2), 139‒

175. (Pay a special attention to the discussion the analytical framework used in this

study).

c. Toutkoushian, R. K. and Robert, M. (2007). An Alternative Approach to Measuring

Horizontal and Vertical Equity in School Funding, Journal of Education Finance, 32(4),

395‒421. Available at the UBC Education Library:

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=27&sid

=887d124e-5341-4df8-a456-f7631bda4cf2%40sessionmgr13&hid=23

d. Levacic, R. and Kenneth Ross (1999), Principles for Designing Needs-based School

Funding Formulae, in Ross, K. N. and R. Levacic (eds.), Needs-based Resource

Allocation in Education. Via Formula Funding to Schools, International Institute for

Educational Planning, UNESCO, Paris. Available at:

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118426eb.pdf (chapter 3: page 25 to 49).

http://www.bctf.ca/uploadedFiles/Public/Publications/Briefs/2012EdFundingBrief.pdf

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k993xw27cd3.pdf?expires=1372871012&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=3EACF913A66C6049AF87FEB9FD01671E





http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118426eb.pdf


17

These readings address the different dimensions of funding formula from the perspective of

vertical & horizontal equity; equalization; adequacy; and societal functions in different policy

contexts. One reading will be assigned to each team (the class will be divided in four teams).

Each team will prepare a brief written summary to be shared with the rest of the class (the

summary can include visuals and/or tables):

Team one: School Funding Formulas: Review of Main Characteristics and

Impacts.

Team 2: Interdivision Fiscal Equity in Saskatchewan, 1985-2000: An Analysis of

Spending Equity and Wealth Neutrality - Pay a special attention to the discussion

the analytical framework used in this study.

Team 3: An Alternative Approach to Measuring Horizontal and Vertical Equity in

School Funding.

Team 4: Principles for Designing Needs-based School Funding Formulae -

chapter 3: page 25 to 49.


Concepts:

Fiscal equity in education finance

basic concepts of equity

horizontal

vertical

measurement of equity

equalization

conceptual roots in horizontal equity

alternative approaches—assumptions and results

special cost and need grants (these concepts will be revisited in more detail

during session 10 on November 6th

, 2013)

conceptual roots in vertical equity

alternative approaches: assumptions and results

special grants in British Columbia.

The Moore Case in British Columbia and its financial impact on the

notion of vertical equity

Exploration Questions:

To which extent must the Province consider both horizontal and vertical equity in the

allocation of funding?

To which extent a school district focus mainly on vertical equity adjustments beyond

a basic per-pupil amount?

Is possible in theory and/or politically to achieve absolute fiscal equalization in public

education?

What would be the principles for designing need-based school funding formula?

Do you think that we have a need-based school funding formula in B.C.? Why? Do

you see a connection between the claim of underfunding of public education in B.C.

and the discussion about the necessity of a need-based funding formula as addressed

by some scholars?


18

Session 10: November 6th

, 2013.

Pre-Class Readings for November 6th

, 2013

a. Levacic, R. and Kenneth Ross (1999), Principles for Designing Needs-Based School




http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118426eb.pdf (chapter 5: page 91 to

117). b. Moore v. British Columbia. Available at: http://www.ldao.ca/wp-content/uploads/Jeffrey-

Moore-Supreme-Court-decision-2012.pdf


Concepts:

Fiscal equity in education finance (continued): special cost and need grants

o conceptual roots in vertical equity

o special grants in British Columbia:

o The Moore Case in British Columbia and its financial impact on the notion

of vertical equity:

The Moore Case: Summary of Key Points (PowerPoint

presentation: 15 minutes)


To which extent students with learning disabilities need to be accommodated so that

they can fully benefit from educational services? Should we consider the duty to

accommodate as providing an extra or special service or rather as providing the

measures needed for students to benefit equally from the education public system? If so,

to which extent the measures must be adequate to ensure meaningful access? Is there a

limit?

To which extent can a school district accommodate the special needs of students in

light of provincial government cuts to provincial funding? What would be the impact

of this duty to accommodate on the funding formula addressing financial issues

related to the accommodation by public school district of students with special

needs?


http://www.ldao.ca/wp-content/uploads/Jeffrey-Moore-Supreme-Court-decision-2012.pdf

http://www.ldao.ca/wp-content/uploads/Jeffrey-Moore-Supreme-Court-decision-2012.pdf


19

Part II: School-Level Issues

Session 11: November 13th

, 2013.

Pre-Class Readings for November 13th

, 2013

a) Grubb, N. (2009). Correcting the Money Myth: Re-Thinking School Resource. Phi Delta

Kappan, 91(4), 51‒55. Available at:

http://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/pdf23_24/pdf/2009/PDK/01Dec09/4

5673352.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=45673352&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4k

SeprE4yOvqOLCmr0uep7RSrqe4Ta%2BWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGrtE%2

Bwp7dMuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA

b) Yin Cheong, C. (1993). The Theory and Characteristics of School-Based Management, .

The International Journal of Educational Management, 7(6), 6‒17. Available at:

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/229136572/fulltextPDF?acco

untid=14656

c) Levacic, R. and Kenneth Ross (1999), Principles for Designing Needs-based School




http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001184/118426eb.pdf (chapter 6: page 120 to

136).

d) McConaghy, T. (1989). The Quiet Revolution: School-Based Budgeting, The Phi Delta

Kappan, 70(6), 486‒487.

e) Ouchi, W. G. (2006). Power to the Principals: Decentralization in Three Large Schools,

Organization Science, 17(2), 298‒307. Available at:

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/25146033.pdf?acceptTC=true

These readings address the different dimensions of school-based budgeting and management.

One or two readings are assigned to a team (the class will be divided in four teams). Each team

will prepare a table in which they will outline the relevant information found in their articles

addressing all or several of the following issues related to the conceptualization and

implementation of school-based budgeting and management:

Concepts:

Characteristics of a School-Based Managed School?

Degree of Board/District Control and School-Level Discretion

Site-Based Budgeting & Management: Issues and Problems

o what is being delegated

o to whom

o why

o balance of power

Teams:

http://content.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/pdf23_24/pdf/2009/PDK/01Dec09/45673352.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=45673352&S=R&D=aph&EbscoContent=dGJyMNXb4kSeprE4yOvqOLCmr0uep7RSrqe4Ta%2BWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGrtE%2Bwp7dMuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA




http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/indexinglinkhandler/sng/au/Cheng,+Yin+Cheong/$N?accountid=14656

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/pubidlinkhandler/sng/pubtitle/The+International+Journal+of+Educational+Management/$N/29800/PagePdf/229136572/fulltextPDF/$B/1?accountid=14656

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/229136572/fulltextPDF?accountid=14656

http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/229136572/fulltextPDF?accountid=14656


http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/25146033.pdf?acceptTC=true


20

Team 1: Principles for Designing Needs-based School Funding Formulae -

chapter 6: page 120 to 136.

Team 2: Power to the Principals: Decentralization in Three Large Schools

Team 3: Correcting the Money Myth: Re-Thinking School Resource & The Quiet

Revolution: School-Based Budgeting.

Team 4: The Theory and Characteristics of School-Based Management.


Concepts:

a) Site-Based Management: The North American Experience and Current Issues.

Degree of Board/District Control and School-Level Discretion

Introduction to Site-Based Budgeting: Issues and Problems

o what is being delegated

o to whom

o why

o balance of power


How would you define the problematic being addressed by the introduction of site-

based budgeting and management? What are the claims made by the proponents of

site-based budgeting and management? Do you agree with these assumptions?

What are the characteristics of a school-based managed school?

Can a move toward school-based budgeting and management enhance the degree of

equity and adequacy in the allocation of financial resources? Why?

What would be the benefits of shifting management and financial decision-making

responsibilities from the district office to principals, teachers and community

members?

Do you think that site-level budgeting has the potential to encourage innovation,

enhance organizational effectiveness and improve financial equity among schools?

Why?

What could be the rationale for switching to school-based budgeting in your district?

Do you see any advantages for doing so from an adequacy and equity perspective?

Session 12 & 13: November 20th

and 27th

, 2013.

Presentations by each team of their work on the school district budgeting process in their

respective workplace. Each team has 30 minutes followed by a 15 minutes period for

questions and discussion.

Evaluation of the course

economics of education edst 565 wednesday...

Documents