Funding and Teaching to the Test

Article Analysis

The topic of the article by Heise (2006), “The Political Economy of Education Federalism,” published in the Cornell Law Faculty Publications, looks at the relationship between two forces: federalism and educational funding. In his article, Heise (2006) argues that the distribution of school funds is influenced by political and social factors, and that this influence has a direct bearing on curriculum development. This article is pertinent to the position that funding for resources supporting curriculum development is politically and socially influenced, with those in power controlling the amount of funding allocated to schools, which in turn impacts the district's curriculum.

Analysis

Sampling Procedures

Heise’s (2006) study is qualitative; the method involved analyzing policy documents, historical funding data, and case studies from different states. The selection of these documents and case studies is not clearly articulated in the study and the exact sampling method appears to be focused on gathering complete overview of the existing political and social influences on educational funding. Because it is not clearly described, the sampling procedure has some limitations. The selection of case studies, for example, may not fully capture the diversity of educational experiences across the entire country as by their nature case studies describe only a small portion of the total experience. On top of this, the reliance on historical documents up to 2006 leaves out any recent changes in policy and funding practices within roughly the last two decades.

Data Analysis Techniques

The article uses historical and legal analysis techniques to look at the relationship between federalism and educational funding. Heise (2006) takes a thematic approach to finding the recurring patterns and themes in the data documents and case studies. This is an excellent qualitative approach, as it allows for an in-depth understanding of the issue, but empirically speaking it does not provide any of the statistical evidence associated with quantitative research and analysis. This does not mean the study lacks generalizeability; for the analysis on a thematic level is deep and compelling and has ramifications for the wider public. But, because Heise (2006) does not pursue statistical methods, the study is limited in terms of its ability to measure the extent and impact of political and social influences on funding on a quantitative level.

Findings and Conclusions

Heise (2006) finds that based on the documents and data analyzed that federalism definitely impacts school funding by creating disparities in terms of how money is spread. The conclusion is that political and social factors have a direct impact, and that these factors can be identified as lobbying by interest groups and political priorities of state governments, both of which have a large bearing of influence on the distribution of federal money for schools. The findings show that schools located in politically influential areas tend to receive more funding, which means they are able to develop a better and fuller curriculum. However, the study has several gaps. It does not address the role of federal funding initiatives or the impact of private funding sources.

Implications for Further Study

The article does not suggest any options for future research; however, it does make several recommendations regarding the issue of school funding and the importance of federal influence in policy-making. Nonetheless, future studies could incorporate quantitative data to validate Heise’s (206) findings with statistical evidence, which would be updated by a couple of decades. Research could also look at the effect of federal policies vs. private funding on curriculum development. A longitudinal analysis could show long-term effects of political and social influences on educational funding.

Discussion

The relationship between political and social influences on educational funding goes back quite some time in America (Banks, 2015). Those who fund schools tend to have a say in how those schools go about teaching. The more funding, the more say. In the 21st century, however, the ideal is to have equity in education—and this is why the influence of political and social forces on funding is so important. Some schools are getting more funding than others thanks to policies that prevent marginalized districts from excelling. For example, as Heise (2006) indicates, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a politically motivated policy that aimed to standardize education and hold schools accountable, but not all schools could compete (Jackson et al., 2015).

Heise's (2006) findings are relevant to the position that funding for curriculum development is influenced politically and socially because it shows how political lobbying and social advocacy contribute to inequities in education. Money is distributed unevenly. Outcomes follows as one would expect. Then there is the problem of teaching to the test (Jennings & Bearak, 2014), which only helps to perpetuate the system of influence.