Political and Social Influences on Curriculum Funding in U.S. Schools

Introduction

Education in America has a history as conflicted as the country itself. Divided over important questions — such as whether power rests with states at the local level or with the central government at the federal level — the nation erupted into war in the mid-19th century. The mid-20th century saw another kind of conflict. What will the mid-21st century bring? The issue of education is merely an extension of the fundamental tensions at the heart of this nation's history: who holds control, where does power reside, and how is money used to exert influence? In politics, everyone can see how PACs are used to circumvent rules intended to limit the effects of money. In education, this dynamic is less apparent — but it should be. As a District Math Specialist, I have seen firsthand how true this is across regions. Curriculum development differs from school to school, just as staff and student outcomes differ.

The central problem — and the thesis of this paper — is this: funding for resources that support curriculum development is influenced politically and socially. Those in power can control the amount of funding given to schools and districts, which directly impacts the curriculum within those districts.

Analysis of Literature

There is too little critical examination of the systems that perpetuate the norms that students and teachers alike experience in schools. There is too much acceptance and not enough challenging of the system. My own experience is one of working within a broken system, constantly trying to revise curricula based on whatever the latest development in political circles happens to be. There is an obvious disconnect between what the Department of Education identifies as problems and solutions, and what I observe firsthand as I work to support teachers and students in my district. The curricula are not being developed satisfactorily; teachers are frustrated by the lack of student progress; and students are frustrated by the lack of consistency and coherence in what they are being taught. Every so often, a new instructional approach is recommended to replace an older one, requiring everyone to relearn their practice — and there is considerable frustration because no one can clearly explain why the new way is better or what specific problems it is meant to solve.

The literature on this topic helps explain why this pattern persists. Critical examination is what is needed — this is the crux of Freire's (1996) argument. The politics of education, to a great extent, control the levers that shape the educative experience. As in politics, there are gatekeepers in education. Not everyone is meant to advance; the system is designed with chokepoints where a select few move forward while the rest remain unable to access the upper levels of society and power (Apple, 2012). The reason inequities exist in schooling is simply that inequity has been built into the socio-political hierarchies of the American system (Apple, 2012). It requires systems thinking to see this clearly — but within the overall system are smaller systems that operate like gears and cogs, each dependent upon the others, turning in such a way that the outcome never changes. It is the institutional character of education, as described by Tyack and Cuban (1997), that explains how these gears and cogs were assembled within the larger machinery of American society. Political action reflects the engineering of that machine. This action is the influence on curriculum; no matter the reform, the same chokepoints remain — even if they appear in slightly different forms from one generation to the next. Only the select few get through (Urban & Wagoner, 2004).

The impact of political decisions on curriculum development is made explicitly clear by Baker et al. (2016). Their report examines political decisions regarding school funding over a period of two decades, identifying both periods of progress and periods of retrenchment. The overall finding is that changes in funding policies at the political level affect opportunities for educational equity and student achievement, which in turn influences how curriculum priorities are established. Baker et al. (2016) state clearly that school finance reforms can improve student outcomes, as empirical evidence suggests — outcome disparities correlate with funding disparities. Jackson et al. (2015) and Lafortune et al. (2018) reach the same conclusion. Nonetheless, the evidence indicates that politics still plays a determining role in who receives funding, where, and for how long (Jennings & Bearak, 2014). Policies like No Child Left Behind were supposed to address these issues by standardizing testing — but this was more like placing a bandage over a deeper wound. Rather than leading to greater curriculum development, it produced a system in which teachers taught to the test because they were incentivized to do so (Jennings & Bearak, 2014). The approach was flawed, even as Baker et al. (2016) later underscored the genuine need for funding reform. At the core of this issue is the fact that curriculum development can still be rendered ineffective due to political and social pressures — at both state and federal levels — for schools to perform well on standardized assessments.

This is why the work of Darling-Hammond (2013) and Sahlberg (2021) is important: both demonstrate a continued need for policies that explicitly promote equitable access to resources and support for teacher development. Their research shows that curriculum reforms must center on addressing disparities rather than perpetuating them through poor policy (Adamson & Darling-Hammond, 2012). The politics of learning is further exposed by Tyack and Cuban (1997), who show how different social groups mobilize to shape policy — with resulting school reforms that fail to account for the institutional nature of schools themselves (Tyack & Cuban, 1997).

Society consists of groups and subgroups, and every group can have its say in American society. This is Tyack and Cuban's (1997) central point. However, whereas Tyack and Cuban argue that social movements produce policy that does not actually address schools' needs, Banks (2015) argues the opposite — that these social movements are beneficial for promoting greater inclusivity and equity. Banks's (2015) ultimate argument is that the groups controlling the levers, which Freire (1996) identifies as the gatekeepers of society, politics, and education, must be countered by minority groups who have a stake in curriculum development. Change will not come from the top down, but from the bottom up.

The one limitation of Banks's (2015) approach is that money will still inevitably play a part. Urban and Wagoner (2004) show that financing has always been central to what can be accomplished in schooling — the allocation of funds has always been the primary obstacle. The literature reflects a division in thinking: those like Urban and Wagoner (2004) who understand the power money holds over curriculum development, and those like Apple (2012), Tyack and Cuban (1997), and Freire (1996) who argue that the deeper issue is power and leverage. Education exists within a system of inequity, and until that system is changed, meaningful reform remains unlikely. This perspective helps explain why Jackson et al. (2015) found no simple positive correlation between school spending and student achievement: money alone does not facilitate positive change. There still needs to be a coherent understanding of how to develop curriculum effectively — and the leading voices in education today are far from agreement on this point.

Funding is obviously a problem, because nothing can be accomplished without resources (Lafortune et al., 2018). The racial and ethnic gaps in education outcomes are real (Reardon et al., 2019), and the data are clear on this point. Yet the conclusions researchers draw are shaped by theoretical lenses that need not be the only ones applied. Adamson and Darling-Hammond (2012) conclude that teachers matter most — but they also acknowledge that funding plays a role, since higher salaries tend to attract more credentialed educators. Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) reiterate a similar point, but add a distinctive conclusion: the problem is inherently one of too many stakeholders and policymakers attempting to appease all of them simultaneously. Levin (2008) proposes reforms that are more idealistic than realistic — and that, in essence, is the recurring problem with reform efforts to date. Sahlberg (2021) presents what may be the most realistic scenario: using Finland as a case study, he suggests distributing funding equitably across schools and investing in teacher professional development, then evaluating outcomes. Sahlberg (2021) makes the case that if it works in Finland it can work anywhere — but that remains to be seen in the American context.

Addressing the Problem

To address this problem in my own context, I would focus on curriculum within my district. The systemic problems are larger than any one person can resolve alone, but within my immediate sphere of influence I can help with curriculum design in ways that better serve students in need.

Differences in school funding affect everything: what materials schools purchase, which teachers they hire, how staff are trained, what professional development teachers receive, what support is provided to students with special needs, and what students are expected to learn. All of these variables have contributed to a considerable degree of inequity in student outcomes across my district. Schools with resources develop reputations that attract the best professionals; schools without resources take what they can get. Students are directly affected. A solution may be found in what Sahlberg (2021) recommends, but implementing it would require a total reordering of the system — something no single person can accomplish. The more achievable starting point is to create new lessons that affirm that every student matters and that give all students a genuine opportunity to succeed.

These lessons should represent many different kinds of people, stories, and ideas. Math is not as straightforward as some people assume. For instance, one technique for learning arithmetic is the abacus memorization method, in which students use their fingers to add, subtract, and multiply quickly by memorizing the physical feel of the abacus — a remarkable and effective approach. In Japan, there are entirely different multiplication methods that work well. In the United States, there is no clear consensus on the best approach. The goal should be to simplify and identify what genuinely benefits students most. This means examining what is currently taught to determine whether it reflects the diversity of people and ideas in the real world. Consulting teachers, community members from different backgrounds, administrators, parents, students, and community leaders can help identify new content that reflects the world as it truly is. Math is a reflection of the real world — and that connection needs to be emphasized throughout the curriculum. Piloting new lessons in select schools first will help identify what works before broader implementation, ensuring that all students feel they belong and are motivated to learn.

The second element of the approach draws on Freire's (1996) argument that it is essential to teach young learners how to question the world around them. Lessons should help students understand why inequities exist and how to work toward solutions. Community-based projects are an effective way to connect learning to action. Rather than relying solely on standardized tests, assessment should capture the many ways students demonstrate knowledge. Math can and should be connected to the real world — through simple projects that allow students to contribute to their community in a meaningful way. The goal is to build connections between students and their community so that the community becomes something worth investing in, so that over time talent, funding, and potential are not concentrated in a single direction. There is untapped potential in my district, but it is not being cultivated — partly because the curriculum is oriented toward passing tests rather than toward building meaningful skills, and no one has adequately explained to students why passing those tests matters. There is no clear relationship between the classroom and the real world. Math, with modest curricular innovation, can serve as a genuine bridge between the two.

Teacher training on this approach would begin by asking teachers to reflect on their own lives — how they use math personally, what projects they would find meaningful, and how they might design an activity that improves the community while reinforcing mathematical concepts. Examples might include a building project, a community cleanup, a support initiative, an education outreach effort, a garden, or an animal shelter project — any authentic context that requires applied math. The goal is to tie mathematical learning to real-world purposes.

To build stakeholder support, I would promote a clear, shared vision of what we are trying to accomplish and explain the underlying logic. I would develop materials — such as informational fliers — to communicate this message broadly. Importantly, this would not be a top-down initiative that I control. Rather, it would be about bringing stakeholders together in a genuinely systems-thinking way, where each participant sees themselves as part of an integrated whole, capable of contributing to the larger vision through resources, support, or professional expertise.