Educational Funding Levels For Public Schools Essay

Barry, C., and Wysong, C. 2010. School-Finance Reform in Red and Blue. Where theMoney Goes Depends on Wh

New York City consists of five boroughs, Manhattan, the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island. The borough that I reside in is Brooklyn. Brooklyn has approximately 2.592 million people inhabiting this district and approximately 23.4 percent of individuals who reside in Brooklyn, NY come from a low-income household or in other words come from poverty. With catholic and private schools being expensive, people have to rely on the education system to provide their children with a good education. In this paper I will be discussing the public school education system ranging solely up to high school in Brooklyn New York and giving a general idea of the New York education system as well.

The United States has many conflicts, one of them is funding on public education. Despite the fact that funding on public education will not help students succeed academically with the money provided to the schools, every school deserves to get as much money because students will receive more proper education and will be more successful students in the future.

School funding is a mix of different funding sources like federal, state, and local. About ninety percent of funding for education comes from state and local community. K-12 education has failed to keep up with high enrollment. Schools must spend to counter effects of poverty while many European countries alleviate these conditions through government spending. Currently more than forty percent of low income school get an extremely unfair share of state and local funds. Low income school are receiving inadequate funds for their school, whereas other schools in the United States are unfairly distributing their state and local funds. That is unfair to the low income schools because those schools really need the money for school books, field trips, etc. Funding for public schools has been quite unequal for years, but even though Americans are fully aware of this issue no one does anything to solve it. Researchers are trying to show them both sides of this unequal funding issue in public schools in order to help balance the distribution of educational funding.

There is an abundance of importance in the public school system. Most successful careers start with elementary, middle and high school education. So it is safe to say it is vital to maintain a major funding for all public school’s systems across the country. Of course funding isn’t the only broken piece of a perfect school system because not every school is in an appropriate environment. There are many factors that follow what type of funding each school gets and also how much. Many schools are placed in low income or areas in poverty, this causes students to have harder learning environments. The question is what would be a strategy to fix the gap in public school funding and where and how do you spend it? This could be solved by smart public school allocation, better pay structure for

Approaching the halfway point of the program brought me to the Introduction to School Finance EDA 6240, which focused on the fiscal management of the organization and utilizing resources to maximize an environment conducive to learning. Because public education is a responsibility of each state, funding public education is crucial to creating a productive and successful society. The Florida Education Funding Program (FEFP) equalized funding for education regardless of how wealthy one area is over the other. An important component of the FEFP is the full time equivalent (FTE), which represents a student who was present during the Survey FTE week. Money is earned for each one of the FTEs. Learning about the base student allocation, the amount

“Unequal School Funding” is the practice in which a school district’s funding is based on unequal property taxes within the district. Public education be financed by Unequal School Funding in forty-nine states. The amount of revenue a school district can raise

One of the problems in the debate over funding and choosing reforms is whether these reforms will be effective or not. The future expectations play a heavy role in making these decisions. In the neoliberal society we live in today, sometimes speculative logic drives decisions leading to disasters. Without objective metrics to test the effectiveness of reforms, no legislation for change will be enacted. The data available currently is too general such as student population, age distribution, and graduation rates (Bailey). The School Funding and Budget Stability Act of 2016 provides $15 million for institution effectiveness which should be spent on implementing the following analytical tools & metrics:

Many students entering college may discover that they are not prepared for college curriculum courses. These students enter college courses facing a major issue. They find that high school has not adequately prepared them for the difficulty of college level courses. These students lacked the sufficient basis in being well equipped for advanced careers and college entry. These students have suffered a great inequality prevalent throughout high schools since several high schools do not receive equivalent aid. The unequal funding in high schools prevents students from attaining the same education that other students in different areas may receive. Unequal school funding in secondary schools

Purpose: To persuade the class to recognize the issue of teacher shortages, consider the proposed ways to correct the issue, and work to rectify the situation.

Cory Turner of National Public Radio, writer of Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem, has the answer; “…45 percent local money, 45 percent from the state and 10 percent federal…why is it that one Chicago-area district has $9,794 to spend on each of its students, while another, nearby district has three times that? Two words: property tax,” (Turner 2). The authors of Equity Is the Key to Better School Funding, Marin Gjaja, J. Puckett, and Matt Ryder, say, “Giving kids in high-poverty areas an equal opportunity to succeed requires spending more money on those students,” suggesting that in those low-income areas, local and state government regulations alone and predominately will not be beneficial (Gjaja, Puckett, and Ryder 1). Property taxes when associated with funding for education are insufficient in low income areas, and in return are insufficient for the school. Leaving local and state governments with the responsibility of fulfilling a majority of education costs is a concept we should correct. Turner also mentions that one Arizona school has four-day weeks to save money from electricity bills, as a result of poor rates of property taxes. Budget cuts also contribute to the impairment of districts with lower property taxes and lower income families, an implied point from Michael Leachman’s article, Most States have Cut School Funding, and Some

Education is the most important possession a person must have. It is the keys to success, wealth, and knowledge. It is the only possession that cannot be taken away from a person and it will open up the windows of opportunities. Education will help us grow as an individual, have better understanding of life, and give us a financial stability; but what happens when education get cuts down. By making budget cuts to education, is this helping out education or letting it down. In the news article, “Highlights Impact of Budget Cuts to Education” by State School Chief Jack O’Connell, his claim is that governor should not cuts down education budget, but instead protect education and invest it in the future.

Results taken from the executive summary of the Education Law Center in New Jersey show that a small percentage of states who have funding systems put in place and provide greater funding to high poverty districts remain the most progressive states yearly. Whereas a larger percentage of states have funding systems where districts with higher poverty rates receive less funding, these states remain the most regressive. (School funding disparities persist, analysis shows).

Iowa is very unique when it comes to school finance. We use the single count date for the purpose of funding the state’s school districts. This is a count of the number of students in attendance on October 1st. This is when the federal government requires a count of the number of students eligible for the free and reduced price lunch program for purposes of Title I funding. An advantage to using the single count date is that it is reasonably easy and it also helps to cut down on administrative costs. There are many disadvantages to using this system. The single count date does not give districts any type of financial incentives for holding onto

Schools have a number of various sources. The primary sources are federal, state, and local funding. The majority of funding comes from state and local sources; whereas a small percent (usually 9-12%) comes from the federal level. The method by which schools receive funding is through the taxation process. At the state level, taxes are levied from taxpayers, both corporate and citizens via sales and income tax. At the local level, school funding comes from property taxes. Let’s explore the how the various sources of school funding. “According to the National Center for Education Statistics, state and local funding accounts for approximately 93 percent of education expenditures” (Woodruff, 2008, ¶ 2). Let’s examine these various sources of revenue and funding and different formulas for allocation along with their pros and cons.