Sarah Chaise of New York, NY asks:

Fairness and the spirit of public education outlined by Thomas Jefferson and others says that we should spend the same amount of money per pupil. Do either the local or federal approaches address this issue? If not, why not?

Chester Finn responds:

The issue isn't the amount of money going into a school--though obviously some must--but the amount of learning that's coming out. What Thomas Jefferson would want is for all kids to get to go to great schools and to have the opportunity to achieve at high levels--to be held to high standards. We need to focus school reform on the results--what students are learning--instead of inputs like spending. Some high-spending schools get lousy results. Some low- spending schools get awesome results.

The federal role has always--and in my view appropriately--been focused on needy and at-risk children. But most states are moving towards some type of funding equalization. That's fine by me, but please don't expect that changing our school spending will per se yield better education for our kids. We've been putting more money, more teachers, more everything into our schools for decades with damn little to show for it by way of improved results. We've got to radically change the system or else more money is never going to help our kids.

Jane Hannaway responds:

According to the United States Constitution, the states have the responsibility for education. States, in turn, have delegated the administration of the schools to local school districts. The level of funding for schools varies tremendously across states, as well as within many states. Much of the disparity in funding across states is related to state wealth; disparities within states are due to differences in local property tax revenues which is the largest source of education support. Federal involvement in K-12 education is relatively recent and most of the federal effort is focused on addressing the needs of specific disadvantaged students. Its central purpose is to improve equality of educational opportunity. Federal funds are intended to supplement and not supplant state and local funds. For example, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the largest federal program, is targeted to schools serving low-income children. Federal monies are also available to provide services for handicapped students, migrant students and homeless children. Thus, federal monies are structured, not to equalize funding per se, but rather to attempt to ensure that particular needy students get extra services so they can compete on a more equal footing as individuals.

As a general rule, more centralized funding -- e.g. either at the state or national level -- is likely to be more equal than funding allowed along more decentralized lines. Critics would contend, however, that centralized control would follow centralized funding resulting in a loss in efficiency. Views about the merits of centralized versus more decentralized funding are often based on the values of individuals.