Article PDF | | 
View on Single Page
INITIAL RESULTS OF REALLOCATING RESOURCES
Implementation of student-based budgeting in all three sites is still in the early stages. Results vary across the districts, due in part to differences in the formulas each has developed and implemented.
However, an analysis of the reallocation of resources among schools reveals substantial improvements in equity, with more schools now receiving allocations close to the weighted average expenditure (the district’s average dollar expenditure, weighted for the mix of students at each school). In Houston, a drastic redistribution of funds has produced significant interschool equity, with only one in four schools now deviating from the weighted average expenditure by more than 5 percent. Cincinnati made significant changes to its formula over the first four years, resulting in gradual but substantial equity improvements.
In all three districts, there are now more dollars in school-site budgets, and there is more spending flexibility at the school level. All the districts report more discussion at school sites on what activities and staffing positions add value to student learning and make staffing decisions based on these considerations. For example, some schools in Cincinnati eliminated counselors and visiting teachers and used the money in other ways because they felt they could spend those dollars more effectively. Two of the three districts have witnessed another benefit of student-based budgeting: it encourages schools to keep students, particularly those they might have considered “hard to educate” under staff-based budgeting. In these schools, the ideals of equality embedded in Brown still live.
Central Office Review or Results and Equity
In addition to providing schools with the resources they need to educate all students effectively, districts that promote equity also provide supports to schools in an equitable manner. Districts typically provide many one-size-fits-all supports for schools, from instructional guidance to curriculum materials to professional development. Often, though, the schools that need the most support get the least. These schools suffer from inequalities at least as great as the segregated schools Brown sought to abolish.
An equitable system, one that adheres to the ideals of Brown, would not provide the same level of support for each school; rather, some students, teachers, and schools require and would get more and different supports and resources than other students, teachers, and schools.
We believe it is possible for school districts, particularly their central offices, to support schools more effectively, efficiently, and equitably. The Central Office Review for Results and Equity (CORRE) is designed to help school districtleaders improve support to schools by participating in a five-step analysis of the work of the central office.
Often, central office departments, units, and even individual employees implement policy, interact with schools and school personnel, and provide services that are inconsistent with the system’s objectives. Sometimes, central offices do not themselves deliver the supports they sponsor but, instead, act as brokers for services from outside vendors. The CORRE enables a district to examine the effectiveness and coherence of operations across departments, units, and levels and to help central office staff act in concert with the larger system’s overall goals. After the CORRE, the central office might still provide various services to different individuals and groups, but it would do so after careful reflection and in proven support of its goals.
By participating in the CORRE, district leaders can improve supports to schools in a particular area and can learn a process for dealing with issues that might arise in the future. The CORRE helps school districts engage in a cycle of continuous improvement; ask important questions; and incorporate information, reflection, and feedback into their decisions, policies, and practices.
The CORRE process is carried out by a team of district leaders and consultants from outside the district who are experienced in content areas, systems and culture change, and leadership for learning. During the six-month period of the review, the team chooses a particular focus issue, examines quantitative and qualitative data about it, and evelops plans for improvement. The process is supported by several tools intended to help guide the process, not to exhaustively define it; the CORRE is customized for each district. Once the process has been worked through, it can be repeated, either focusing on different issue areas or following through on the initial efforts.
We are currently implementing CORRE in three medium-to-large urban districts. Although the process is still in an early stage in each district, we are seeing that the tool can help districts move toward a more equitable system of support for students and schools.
Hopes for the Fourth Generation
As we commemorate the compelling legacy of Brown and its impact on American legal and social history, we acknowledge our failure to make more progress in abiding by the ideals of the decision. It’s likely that the nine justices of the Warren Court would be dismayed at the modest progress society has made in integrating our schools and communities. The two generations of schoolchildren who have lived through this period of stagnation and halting progress have suffered from this mixed record. The third and current generation watches warily as we launch a new effort, led by school districts, to achieve greater equity.
Thus we forge on under a new obligation to improve learning conditions for children attending historically neglected and underfunded schools. Our commitment to these children calls for high expectations for achievement, uniform and exacting proficiency and content standards, and families and communities that are fully engaged in the educational process. If we have the will and stamina to genuinely pursue these goals, we can improve the prospects that Brown’s fourth generation of children will graduate from school ready to succeed in college, the modern workplace, family life, and civil society – a society that more closely approaches its declared ideal of equal protection, opportunity, and success for all.
———————————————–
References
Bickel, A. 1964. “The Decade of School Desegregation: Progress and Prospects,” Columbia Law Review 64.
Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No. 89 v. Dowell. 1991. U.S. Supreme Court, 498 U.S. 237.
Brown v. Board of Education. 1954. U.S. Supreme Court, 347 U.S. 483. Opinion available online at http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/36.htm
Brown v. Board of Education II. 1955. U.S. Supreme Court, 349 U.S. 294.
Grady, M. K., and C. V. Willie. 1986. Metropolitan School Desegregation: A Case Study of the St. Louis Area Voluntary Transfer Program. Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press.
Green v. County School Board of New Kent County. 1968. U.S. Supreme Court, 391 U.S. 430.
Meador, D. 1959. “The Constitution and the Assignment of Pupils to Public Schools,” Virginia Law Review 45.
Milliken v. Bradley. 1974. U.S. Supreme Court, 418 U.S. 717.
Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken II). 1977. U.S. Supreme Court, 433 U.S. 267.
Ogletree, C. J. 2004. All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton.
Orfield, G. 2004. “Brown Misunderstood.” In The Unfinished Agenda of Brown v. Board of Education, edited by the editors of Black Issues in Higher Education with James Anderson and Dara N. Byrne. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Orfield, G., and C. Lee. 2004. “Brown at 50: King’s Dream or Plessy’s Nightmare?” Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Available online at
Plessy v. Ferguson. 1896. U.S. Supreme Court, 163 U.S. 537.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. 1971. U.S. Supreme Court, 402 U.S. 1.
Woodward, C. V. 1974. The Strange Career of Jim Crow, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Note on Web addresses: Links cited here may no longer be active.
