-->

Asking students to pass a certain number of SOL tests in order to receive a particular diploma seems to bring many questions to the ethical and legal table.

Although the state funds school systems on a per pupil ratio, the fact remains that students in Virginia receive varying amounts of funding support locally. A Fairfax County student will receive, over the course of his K-12 education, several thousand dollars more than a student in a rural district without a strong tax base.

Although SOL tests did not create this inequality of funding, by requiring all student to pass at the same standards while providing uneven funding seems unethical.

Before SOLs, college looked at the local grades, SATs, student activities, etc. Now a college, given the choice of two otherwise equal students will most likely favor the student with the advanced diploma/higher SOL scores, so the state actively perpetuates the funding inequality into the university setting.

The counterargument that a student doing well in high school will pass the SOLs and receive an advanced diploma, thus not affecting his college chances, brings one to question the purpose for SOL testing. If a student with excellent grades would most likely pass the tests, then why bother to take the SOL test? Are they not meant to provide us with a measurement of student knowledge? If so, then colleges/employers would certainly consider scores in their decisions.

Legally, parents of students affected by poor test scores could ask why Virginia education funding is unequal, when state asks each child to pass the same test, regardless of support.

Inner city or poor rural school districts, faced with losing accrediation due to consistantly low SOL scores might be prompted to challenge the state Board of Education in court. All school systems may obtain the 3 year supply of SOL remediation/training money or devise their own methods of improving the test scores, yet the obvious fact remains that districts without the tax base to increase funding will be at a disvantage in the long run.

Finally, teachers currently working with a variety of students from different socio-ecomonic background, are now asked help students pass tests, despite a disparity in the state's education funding methods (locality funding). For the teachers, this disparity translates into having or not having a teacher's aide, effective teacher training, and quality classroom materials.

Regardless of additional monetary support in key areas of the state, the fact remains that Virginia is asking everyone (school systems, teachers, and students) to do the same thing (SOL test scores) with unequal educational support....

High expectations can be an effective educational strategy, but for the state to set equal consequences for everyone involved without equal educational support is ethically wrong.

I welcome your comments.

I agree with every point you made, and would be interested in some "official" responses.

Dear Mr. Stuart:

You raise some interesting questions about the adequacy and equity of public education funding, illustrated by your example of a locality with a strong tax base providing more local dollars per student than a locality without a strong tax base. What may not be apparent, however, is that state funding policies and formulae address localities' differing abilities to pay for public education. The funding formula for the Standards of Quality (SOQ), the foundation education program for public schools in Virginia, is specifically designed to address localities' differing abilities to pay for public education. In addition, there are programs that target at-risk student and other special populations. As a result, a locality that is fiscally stressed receives more state dollars per student than a locality with a strong tax base.

It may be helpful to look at how the state funds public education. The Standards of Quality (SOQ) are established by the Constitution and prescribed in the Code of Virginia. SOQ funding makes up approximately 85 percent of state funding for public education - $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2000, which begins in July 1999. The SOQ accounts include basic aid (including transportation, operation and maintenance, and administration), vocational education, gifted education, special education, remedial education, and textbooks among other programs. Most of the SOQ funding, approximately 80 percent, is for salaries and fringe benefits.

The amount of a locality's basic aid is based largely on the required number of instructional positions (as specified in Standard 1 of the Standards of Quality) and the salaries to support those positions as well as recognized support costs necessary to operate schools. Other components in the funding formula include student enrollment data, prevailing expenditure data, fringe benefit rates, inflation factors, and textbook costs. This information is used to determine the basic operating cost per student.

SOQ funding for a locality is primarily this basic operating cost per student multiplied by the average number of students for that locality. It also includes funding for programs in special education, vocational education, gifted education, and remedial education. Additionally, SOQ funding includes the one-cent state sales tax dedicated to public education. The amount of sales tax a locality receives is based on its school-age population.

These total costs are split between state and local funds, depending on the locality's composite index. The composite index is determined by a formula that takes into account the locality's local tax base per student and per capita relative to statewide averages. On average, the state's share of SOQ funding is 55 percent, and the local share is 45 percent, but an individual locality's share of the cost may be as high as 80 percent or even as low as less than 20 percent. This is one way that state funding addresses differences in localities' ability to pay for public education.

The SOQ funding methodology is designed to provide assurance that the state is meeting its obligation in providing adequate funding to localities for a foundation program in public education that meets the state's requirements for public school programs. Localities may provide funding beyond what is deemed adequate, if they choose, and most do.

In addition to the SOQ funding, the state provides funding for incentive-based programs that go beyond the foundation program. The programs generally address a specific need, such as programs for instructional materials to support the Standards of Learning, teacher training, or remediation. They include programs for at-risk students, early reading intervention, and primary class size reduction. Free lunch data is used to determine the level of funding for many of these programs. The programs are voluntary, but to receive funding the locality must agree to offer the program, meet the program requirements, and, for most programs, provide matching funds. However, the local match for these programs is also based on the locality's composite index. These programs are designed to address the differing abilities of localities to address the needs of special populations and at-risk students. The budget for fiscal year 2000 is $464.5 million for incentive-based programs.

In summary, state funding for public education addresses the issues of adequacy and equity. In fact, litigation was previously brought against the state asserting funding disparities for those localities deemed to be fiscally stressed. The courts determined that the Commonwealth's funding methodology is equitable.

I hope this information sheds some light on the very complex issues related to the adequacy and equity of public education funding. Should you have further questions, or if you would like additional information, please let me know.

Diane Atkinson
Assistant Superintendent for Policy and Public Affairs
Virginia Department of Education
(804) 225-2403