Funding Programs For Public Schools

America’s school system and student population remains segregated, by race and class. The inequalities that exist in schools today result from more than just poorly managed schools; they reflect the racial and socioeconomic inequities of society as a whole. Most of the problems of schools boil down to either racism in and outside the school or financial disparity between wealthy and poor school districts. Because schools receive funding through local property taxes, low-income communities start at an economic disadvantage. Less funding means fewer resources, lower quality instruction and curricula, and little to no community involvement. Even when low-income schools manage to find adequate funding, the money doesn’t solve all the school’s

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.

If the education system relies most of their funding from taxes, where do they end up getting the rest of the money. The government and administration grant more money to wealthier areas than low -income areas. Wealthier communities are granted more money because they have a higher percentage of funding coming from property taxes. This leaves the low-income students at a disadvantage. People living in low income areas mainly rent and don’t own their own property. As a result of not having a house or owning property, they have little property taxes. If low -income students are not given enough money for funding a school, the students are suffering. With the lack of money causes students to miss out on college prep classes such as AP classes and Honors classes. These classes are pivotal to the students that want to pursue higher education and a road to success. For example students in the low-income areas are given a poor education. They are not given the resources, or quality teachers in order to achieve success. According to George Miller House Education and the Workforce committee, many students are not educationally ready to graduate and attend higher education (Minority 1). This is another reason why low income students should be provided the same classes as a middle class or a wealthier community. In a study, 2 million students in 7,300 schools had no access to all calculus classes, a staple in many high – achieving high schools (Minority 2). Low-income

“Education is a major driver of development and is a strong instrument for reducing poverty, improving health, gender equality, peace, and stability” (The World Bank) - so why is it that students are often deprived from an extensive education? In Illinois, education funding has been an ongoing problem. Funding for schools is based on the property taxes where the schools are located, causing those who live in lower socioeconomic areas to receive less educational funding. This is unfair because children who live in lower socioeconomic areas are not able to receive the same opportunities and benefits that are acquired when a quality education is obtained. This is why educational funding in Illinois should be distributed evenly so that every

The resources available to an urban, lower income school are to be equal to those available to a suburban, higher income school. Two schools in New York, one from a wealthy school district and one from a poor district, were given computers. The State provided the same number of computers to each school, therefore claiming to evenly supporting each school. However, the school with the poorer children had a larger number of students; the nicer school had twice the number of computers in proportion to the number of their students (Kozol 84). It seems that the biggest factor keeping the children of lower income homes behind is the school funding available. The poorer school district does not have the money to spend on the things a wealthier district may, but there is no real evidence that spending money makes much difference in the outcome of a child's education. In many cases, family and background have a greater influence on how well a child does in school (Kozol 176-77). Richard Kahlenberg, a member of the Century Foundation, says, "Research findings and common sense tell us that the people who make up a school—the students, parents, and teachers—matter more (Lewis 648)

The educational funding problem in Michigan takes root back in 1809, when the first public school was founded. While funding was not an issue at the time, the way schools were funded through local property taxes eventually created a large problem. Fast forward to 1985, Michigan has long moved past the rural cities of the 1800’s and into affluent suburbs and cities. The size and taxation pools of cities have greatly changed from 1809 to 1985, but the way schools were funded remained exactly the same. This lack of change led to a large disparity in school funding from richer districts to poorer districts. Coupled together with local governments’ inability to convince citizens to vote in favor of millages and tax hikes, the disparity ballooned. In 1993, Bloomfield Hills ranked in the 99th percentile of Michigan schools, was spending on average $10,294 per-student, while Standish Sterling ranked in the bottom 1st percentile, spent $3,738 per-student, roughly a $6,500 difference per-student (Roy 2003). This inconsistency greatly disadvantaged students all the way to 95th percentile, where there

The funding of public education has long been an issue for the state government of Texas. Starting before Texas was even a state, public education funding was at the forefront of politician’s minds. In 1836, one of the reasons Anglo-Texans wanted to become independent from Mexico was Mexico’s lack of a public school system (An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas, 2016). This drove the desire of President Mirabeau B. Lamar of the Republic of Texas to create legislation that would grant public schools land (A Brief History of Public Education, n.d.). This act set aside four leagues of land per county for the use of free education centers and thus began the funding of public education by the state government (An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas, 2016). In the last 177 years, the Texas Legislature and the Texas Education Agency have created numerous acts and laws regarding the funding of education, but it has been in the last 50 years that this topic has become highly contested, resulting in several lawsuits and endless efforts (by the school districts) to equalize the distribution of funds to Texas school districts (Texas School Finance Hisory, n.d.). In sum, the complex issues and policies that surround the funding of public education are derived from a combination of the legislature, bureaucratic agencies, and local governments in the form of school districts.

Taxation of society for public services (such as school) is based on the assumption that everyone should contribute equally and fairly to reach the common good of all. People are taxed according to their income in an attempt to create unity and fairness in tax distribution. Taxation creates the revenue that allows schools to function and provide services. Without it, there would not be educational equity as we see today. The public decides how the funds will be allocated for educational purposes. As a result, there is a public interest in overseeing the policies and strategies schools enact. Taxation leads to advantages and disadvantages within the school system. One disadvantage is that more wealthy schools have larger resources and services. In a study completed by Jordan, Chapman, & Wrobel (2014) of taxation for schools in Arkansas concluded that using a system of equalization of funding across schools of tax revenue created favorable results for all schools including better services for students in need and increased resources (p. 337). Overburdening administration and other personnel with compliance and monitoring can create an unnecessary use of funds in an effort to meet compliance. Consequently, monitoring ensures that the public interest is being met. Creating a common good framework has both advantages and disadvantages, including having to make uncomfortable concessions on values, but ensuring values

In this article, the authors are looking to see what relationships are in equal and political in the school districts in the funding sector. They use a model that looks at household incomes to complete an investigation with empirical evidence on how income is distributed for educational funding. When there is inequality in-between school districts the poorer communities do not receive as much funding in their public schools. The richer communities have better schools, because there is more money to go around. In this article, it talks about increases in taxes, and the average

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

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.

Leaving middle school can be very exciting for most of the young adults as they turn over their life into high school. High school can be a very long path, with great memories, and great experiences. But not everyone goes through the same thing everyone expects too. A big issue that is according to now in new generations of young teens in high school is teens dropping out of school. Many teens take the decisions of not continuing in going on with high school because they are around bad influences that cause them not to go to school. In addition having no support from parents or family members. The school funding can also be a problem, they may not have enough funds for programs to keep students busy after school.

The schools that need the money the most aren’t getting it. Schools located in the inner city of other poorer parts of the country won’t have a tax base as big as schools in other parts of the countries. This naturally makes it so that money available to schools located in poor parts. This isn’t a small problem either, the number of students who live in poverty is rising. Studies show that over half of the children live under the poverty line (Kasperkevic). The state government, however, has a way to combat this problem. Using a formula schools divert funds to these schools, however, many states have altered this formula to cut back on the funding that these schools get. (Kingdon and Teal) So not only are there less funds to go around due to cuts; the funds the do exists aren’t going to the schools that need it the most. This also means that the schools impacted

It has been no secret that this past election has directed some major attention on public education. Not only has the spotlight been on the relationship between growth and performance, there has been an increasing focus on the funding for public education- where does it come from and how/who is it allocated to? Typically, school districts that tend to show lower performance rates are those that fall beneath the poverty line or title one schools. President Barack Obama, in order to combat this unfortunate manifestation of inequality, signed the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), in December 2015. This legislation was created, “with the intention of equalizing access to education for all students in the United States, regardless of race or socioeconomic status” ("Every Student Succeeds Act.").