Pell Proxy Grant

Speaker Ryan has proposed freezing Pell Grants at their current levels for ten years and would eliminate the mandatory spending funds of the program. Do you support this or other proposals to reduce per student Pell?

One incorrect argument one hears, usually within the policy community, is attributable due to a design quirk, the year-round Pell Grant program provided 50 percent additional edges than meant as students unwittingly received two full Pell Grants in an exceedingly single year. Costs were thus higher than expected. Perhaps the most misrepresented claims regarding the year-round Pell Grant came from the Obama administration, that argues that the program “has nonetheless shown any evidence” that it inspired students to accelerate their studies. Several perceive that year-round Pell Grants cost way more than budget consultants and policy manufacturers expected, implying that sudden prices were unreasonable. It seems those higher costs were not attributable to some feature of the year-round Pell Grant. Still, several are under the impression that a year-round grant should not increase the cost of the overall Pell Grant Program at all. “After all, students who use two years’ worth of grant aid on two years’ worth of classes theoretically would receive the same amount of Pell Grants whether they take one year or two to complete those course” (2). Despite the fact that summer Pell Grants were cut by the Obama administration starting in 2009-2010, there are no synchronal facts that demonstrate that the grants were not useful. In conclusion, the

Abstract: This paper will discuss the Federal Pell Grant and the legislation behind it as well as the Higher Education Act of 1965 and it’s reforms since then. This appears purpose is to show the faults within these programs and to then show possible ways people have tried to reform it. The final part of this paper will be my opinion on how the legislation can be fixed along with using data and information from recent research done on the subject. It is the hopes that these recommendations will then be used to further stabilize this piece of legislation in the future.

Students are forced to decide whether to attend a school in a failing public system, or to attend a parochial school. State stipends are limited to $2,250, which is not enough to cover tuition costs of traditional private schools. The stipends provided by the state are enough to cover the costs of tuition at religiously affiliated schools. Most students who are aware of this program decide not to enter into the public system, which in the long run facilitates the destruction of the public system.

The educational system of the united states is not capitalizing on the full potential of its people. Jonathan Kozol in his article “Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid”, discusses the drastic difference in the quality of education based on a family’s income. Kozol discusses how economic disparities usually coincide with race, but focuses on the economic gap of education. Malcolm Gladwell’s podcast “Carlos doesn’t remember”, gives a story and a personal touch, to the issues low income students face. Kozol writing and Gladwell’s podcast, both show that the quality of a child’s education is pure chance. A lottery of being born into a high or low income family dictates the outcome and capitalization of a child’s future.

This demonstrates that if Sam’s school had got more funding then Sam may have received a proper education, and would have learned the intellectual skills that could help him to obtain a high paying job. Unlike many other people in richer parts of America who are able to achieve a lot in life due to their education, Sam’s lack of wealth ruins his future. Another example is one that hits closer to home- in terms of educational funding, the Illinois system is corrupt, and one of the districts that suffers most is that of Chicago Public Schools. In an interview with Ryan Young from CNN and an anonymous Chicago Public School teacher over the recent strike over budget cuts and the overall lack in school funding, the teacher states, “We care about the students. We want funding for our schools so our children can have supplies… gym, art, and PE., just like the kids in the suburbs do.” This is a direct representation of what is occurring in the Chicago Public School system today as a consequence of budget cuts and unequal funding. In general, the lack of school funding gives poorer children disadvantages when it comes to supplies that can help them to thrive. Also, budget cuts weaken the capacity of schools’ to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers. In fact,, funding cuts lessen the ability of the schools to help prepare children better for their future, such as improving teacher

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)

These practices help maintain the status quo, helping low-income families remain poor. Moreover, it requires these low-income families to depend on government assistance, such as low-income housing and welfare. The reliance on assistance programs groups the poorest people in the same housing projects and communities, overwhelming schools with low-income students. Not only do these real estate practices concentrate the poorest in an area together, they also drive the often whiter, more affluent families out. The majority of poor feel they have no opportunity to transcend class restrictions, and the property taxes that fund our schools do not alleviate their stress. Further, homogeneous collections of poor means that school populations are rarely as diverse as we believe.

According to the U.S. Department of Education, the Title I funding program is depicted as a policy that “provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that all children meet challenging state academic standards” (“Title I, Part A Program”). The program was intended to close the gap between low income students and others with sufficient income. The policy was introduced January 12, 1965 and passed on April 9, 1965. Throughout time, Title I funding has been thought to be efficient ad successful, however, there is new evidence and data contradicting this statement. Title I funding negatively affected students because it

The Department of Education’s Pell Grant program costed the taxpayers 31 billion in the fiscal year 2015 which doubled compared to 2007. It’s nearly impossible to get denied for a loan today all it takes is a simple click. College Investor Robert Farrington says to many students simply "scroll down and click 'I Agree'" without realizing what they are agreeing to. We put such a strong need for education, but when it comes to educating borrowers and parents we fail. Does anyone really understand the fine print when it comes to borrowing amounts and future payment plans and interest rates?

The documentary ‘Going Clear’ is focused on the Church of Scientology. Some of the important figures in the documentary included Paul Haggis, Lawrence Wright, Sara Goldberg, Spanky Taylor, and Marthy Rathbun (Going Clear). In this documentary, these former scientologists were interviewed about their personal experiences, where they revealed information about what actually happened behind the doors of the Church. The documentary was based on Lawrence Wright’s book, ‘Going Clear: Scientology, Hollywood and the Prison of Belief’ and was a compilation of the opinions of several former scientologists about the true colors of Scientology and Hubbard’s history (Going Clear).

Morals (n.) Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct, the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc. Jem and Scout, in the book To Kill A Mockingbird, are two siblings who befriend a young boy named Dill. Throughout the book, these three learn valuable lessons from Jem and Scout’s father, Atticus, and many other characters. Mrs. Dubose, an important character, is rude and does not agree with Atticus’s views. She tells Jem this and Jem gets very angry and tears up her beautiful camellia, Snow-on-the-Mountain. As a result, Atticus makes him read to Mrs. Dubose as a distraction from the pain of being severally sick. Mrs. Dubose later dies, and Atticus tells Jem that she was a morphine

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

“ Historically, low-income students as a group have performed less well than high-income students on most measures of academic success” (Reardon, 2013). Typically low-income families come from low-income parts of the state making a school that does not have as much funding as a higher economic schools does lack in resources for their students. The school then has lower paid teachers and administrators, with lower quality supplies. This results in a school which typically has faculty who do not perform as well as the well-funded schools. “The law fails to address the pressing problems of unequal educational resources across schools serving wealthy and poor children” (Hammond, 2007). Students from low and high income families will not be able to achieve the same education because their education simply is not the same.