Rauner Education Essay

Similarly the republicans in the 2000’s were forced to face the unbalance of school funding. By 2002 the Republican Party had regained the governor’s office and further gained the majority the Texas state Senate and the House of Representatives. George W, Bush now governor of Texas was faced with the same issue of equalizing school funding, the Robin Hood Law was seen as unconstitutional causing a change in school funding. If the Texas state legislature failed to act on the issue of school funding the courts would cut of school funding. Governor Bush faced with a reduced states budget cuts roll back subsidies for state

money for both school and states, because school can cut down the number of teachers to hire and

Not only do students lose opportunity in learning from these areas, but the law is also underfunded which the defeats the purpose as well as contradicting itself in the sense that students won’t be achieving the goals set by this law. By 2011, more than 50% of schools were labeled “failing”, and lawmakers saw the need for a change, but weren’t able to produce a bill. That year, the Obama administration offered states a reprieve from many of the law’s mandates through a series of

Nelson Mandela once stated, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”. Arizona understands how powerful and important education is which is why they are going to correct their way by fixing their public education funding. They plan to do this by passing Proposition 123. Proposition 123 is a ballot that will settle a years-long lawsuit, and provide money that Arizona’s K-12 public schools will have access to without raising taxes. There are those who are hesitant about it and are voting no. However, I believe this is a fantastic idea because this is a stepping stone to a better funding, teachers deserve better pay and resources are extremely important when it comes to learning.Knowing Arizona is ranked 49th out of 51 states per pupil in K-12 spending you would

Education should not be denied because of financial reasons. Children shouldn’t be denied an education because of their “wealth status”; they should be guaranteed an equal, fair education.

Some of the concerns that ultimately issued Proposition 51 to be put into the ballot extends to a variety of issues between the state and more local levels. The first issue that came to many legislator’s attention was how local agency spending on schools were affecting the needs of students based on money that was being spent prior to 2016. Andrew Ujifusa’s article “California Rolls Toward Implementation on Overhauled K-12 Funding Formula” points out

The U.S. House of Representative Bill 610 is sponsored by Representative Steve King and the House committee is Education and the Workforce. This bill was put into place for “distributing Federal funds for elementary and secondary education in the form of vouchers for eligible students and to repeal a certain rule relating to nutrition standards in schools” (Smith.) The significance behind putting this bill into place is to provide a “better” way of education an to get rid of the “waste” we “currently” have in our eduational system. The U.S. House of Representatives should not pass Bill 610 because it detroys many basic American rights set in the Constitution, cuts all “special” classes and other educational funding, and cuts free/reduced lunches

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

Not everyone like the superintendents are for Senate Bill 1. Some people oppose the bill because they do not like it. There are many reasons why people would vote for the bill along with many reasons that someone may oppose the bill too. But the ultimate goal of this bill is to “raise each one of Illinois’ 860-plus school districts to individual adequacy targets—or the amount of money needed to properly educate every student—through increased funding from the state” (Masterson). But getting to this point has a lot of controversy. One of the major factors that people may not like this bill is that they don’t want to bailout the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago Public Schools are the only school district in the state providing

Changes in responsibility that may be proposed to help offset such legal rulings in New Jersey and in other areas going through similar difficulties would be to render whatever budget cuts the state must propose equitably among all school districts in the region. There was very little equity in where the decrease in school spending took place in New Jersey. it directly affected the most impoverished, at-risk students close to one billion dollars in 2011 (Megerian, 2011). Had the state powers who implemented the government cuts done so equally throughout the state, it is possible that it would not have to been taken to court and ordered to pay back money to students who were

Currently, state law mandates that teachers must put in at least 9.4% of their income into the state pension. Chicago Public schools currently covers 7 percentage points, meaning that teachers only pay 2.4% of their income into the state pension. Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s solution would have teachers contribute 7% of their incomes to state pensions, and the schools pay 2.4% (Emanuel to CPS Teachers: 'Be Part of the Solution). My solution would be to have teachers contribute 3.6% of their income instead of 7%. I would also get members of the city council, the mayor and myself to reduce our own salaries in an act of good faith.

Democrats and Republicans should challenge the No Child Left Behind Act. Even though the No Child Left Behind Act has good intentions to help children, there are many hazardous strategies involved. The No Child Left Behind Act may do more harm than good. The strategies in the No Child Left Behind Act do not contain research evidence to support the law. The No Child Left Behind Act guidelines that were published in December, 2002 by the United States Department of Education, insist that parents of students in poorly performing schools be allowed to transfer them to a different school, even if it causes overcrowding somewhere else.

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

In the House the K-12 subcommittee, education appropriations subcommittee, and the education committee reviewed it. In the Senate the appropriations, education, and appropriations subcommittee on education reviewed the bill. Both of the bills were “killed” in one of the committees it was read to. This shows that there is still a need for more advocacy for this bill to be passed.

In today’s economic environment even the wealthiest states and districts are having to cut funding for education, while districts which were already teetering on the edge are now in an even worse position. In some schools children have to face not having enough books, paper for copies, severe overcrowding,