How Should We Fund American Public Schools?
A Summary of Research and Discussions for the Southwest Allen County Schools District
Administration and Board of Trustees
Prepared by the Mike Downs Center or Indiana Politics
Research and discussions conducted in the summer and fall of 2015
Summary delivered December 15, 2015
The way Americans fund public schools is complex, so it is understandable why Americans do not understand very well where the money comes from to pay for school buildings, buses, teacher salaries, and school lunches. Much of this confusion stems from principles of American democracy that can be found in public education such as community-based governance, equality of educational opportunity, the need for high educational standards, and not leaving any student in a failing school. Americans may agree on the importance of each of these, but the sources and investments of funding community-based schools, equality of educational opportunity, and high educational standards bring significant conflict. Further, school funding has many sources and moving parts that take different patterns depending on the needs and preferences of states and localities throughout the country.
The Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics conducted research and facilitated discussions about how public schools should be funded for the Southwest Allen County Schools District (SACS) administration and Board of Trustees. The research revealed three approaches to the funding of public education. The facilitated discussions provide insight into what the residents in the SACS district think of the approaches and the trade-offs that come with each.
The first approach assumes that all Americans deserve an equitable and adequate education.
This is done best by funding from federal and state governments which can use common standards to be certain education goals are met
The second approach assumes that people should be allowed to decide where to go to school rather than being locked in to what might be a failing local school or pay tuition to a private school, which many families could not afford without public support
The third approach assumes that reinvigorating community control of schools would lead to greater social engagement in school policies and success. It would replace distant governing bodies and administrators with self-governing parents and educators
Residents had three opportunities to participate in discussions in-person and three opportunities to participate in on-line forums.

Deer Ridge Elementary School, December 2, 2015, 7:00 PM

Lafayette Meadows Elementary School, December 3, 2015, 7:00 PM


Woodside Middle School, December 8, 2015, 7:00 PM

On-line 1, December 10, 2015, 7:00 PM

On-line 2, December 11, 2015, 1:00 PM

On-line 3, December 14, 2015, 7:00 PM
Attendance at the events was small (fewer than 25 people total) with some events having no participants. For this reason, findings will be brief and should be interpreted cautiously.
Finding 1: Participants understand the value of the first approach, but believe that public education, especially in SACS should be about more than achieving adequacy. Additionally, there were concerns about the testing that is part of this approach.
Finding 2: Participants saw the second approach as drawing resources away from a strong public school system. They recognized the need for approach 2 in some school districts, but not SACS due to its high performance.
Finding 3: Participants saw the third approach as the best option because it put control in the hands of the SACS community. Participants also expressed concern about this approach because doing it well requires community involvement which appears to be lacking based on the turnout for these discussions.
This report, unlike the report regarding the role of public education in the 21 st
Century from last academic year, is being kept brief due to the limited public participation.