The Importance Of Budget Crisis In Schools

Studies have shown that art programs help the development of the brain by improving “mental representations of what is observed or imagined; symbolic, allegorical and metaphorical representations; careful observation of the world; and abstraction from complexity”(How the Arts). So why would the school board or government allow budget cuts in school art programs if it helps improve a child's development of the brain? Even though language arts and mathematics are important and basic courses that every student may need in the future, art programs should not have budget cuts because it helps improve a child’s learning ability and understanding of the world around them. It also helps students and children in low income communities that may not have

Today, Susan Hansen, Admissions Director of East Liberal Arts College, wishes to increase tuition and reduce financial aid available to students (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman, 2009, p. 110). Moreover, she has expressed that “increasing tuition and reducing the amount of financial aid will solve the schools financial problems” (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman, 2009, p. 110). This will be done by “increasing an effective tuition from $15,000 to $25,000” (Brickley et al., 2009). She also projects that the tuition increase enrollment from 400 to 600 students (Brickley, Smith and Zimmerman,

The topic of this paper is the states’ decreasing financial support of higher education, the reaction and response from institutions who have lost funding, and the creative ways public institutions are locating additional streams of revenue. States have been the primary backer of public institutions, but since the recession states have shown less commitment financially while still heavily regulating higher education. As a result some institutions have had to change their practices while others have challenged their state’s regulations all together. Many have speculated that state funding may never return to its former highs. Rather than make an enemy of the state, some schools have discovered new and unconvential ways of raising funds for their institution.

The state of California has long been reliant on the University of California system to provide its resident companies with skilled and educated business, technology, and science leaders. Highly regarded as one of the top educational systems in the world, the University of California boasts a high number of distinguished and respected faculty members in almost every field of study. However, while most private colleges and universities have learned how to streamline their processes in order to better respond to stakeholder needs, public educational institutions, such as the University of California, have not been willing to control their bureaucratic growth resulting in a rise of tuition rates and a decline in the level of student satisfaction. In her article for the TIME magazine, Kate Pickert writes that as recently as November of this year the University of California has approved a plan that could raise tuition rates by up to 28% (Pickert). Pickert also points out that the tuition rates at the University of California have more than tripled since 2001. The University of California has blamed the increased tuition on the state of California budget cuts caused by the economic downturn of recent years. However, a closer examination of the University of California faculty and administration data makes it obvious that the higher rates of tuition are cause by the inability and

America’s education system has been in a state of distress for the past decade, but garnished headlines recently as the student loan debt crisis reached over a trillion dollars. In conjunction with that, tuition is no longer the only obstacle a student faces when considering their future. As generations come and go, universities have slowly, but surely, been angling their education in a way to favor profit over knowledge. Because of the new direction higher education models are taking, Magdalena Kay questions her readers, “is there a problem with students, with teachers, with administrators, or maybe

Of all of the hardships facing college students in this day and age, debt one of the greatest. There is a trillion-dollar debt that United States' students are drowning in, and it has become not only a burden on the shoulders of those who have the debt, but in fact, every taxpayer in this country suffers because of this debt. We, as a county, have created the concept of "free money," specifically when talking about loans, credit cards, etc. Without immediate consequences, it is not an immediate threat to those who obtain it. This "free money" can be directly attributed to inflation and a rise in the price of a collegiate education. My parents, who graduated from college in 2001, are still agonized with paying off their collegiate debt. I do

College tuition has been increasing over the years and recent American college graduates have been in great debt. People have been debating over what the cause is for years, but there are two particular differing causes we’ll be focusing on. The Editorial Board is a very diverse staff of writers from USA Today who’ve had experience in journalism covering serious newsworthy topics and events and received degrees in journalism. According to the article, “Making College More Expensive”, the Editorial Board states that as a whole, American college students and graduates owe about $1.2 trillion. The democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, have plans to make college affordable and aid students with their debt by making taxpayers pay more so that the money can go into Pell grants. Barmak Nassirian thinks otherwise. Nassirian is a nationally known policy analyst at the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and a federal aid expert who serves as a voice on higher education issues. In his article, “Tell States to do Their Share”, Nassirian believes that state disinvestment is the cause of college tuition increase because public colleges are becoming privatized. The Editorial Board and Nassirian use the three major appeals to persuade the audience to their reasonings for the college affordability problem. They further their purpose by trying to prove to the audience that their point is valid.

We have become driven to accept the burden of debt and have developed into a norm in American adulthood. In some aspects, it has made the seriousness of the occurring debt to become of less significance. This sense of pettiness allows the opportunity of attending a university less approachable because the cost could be seen as a liability. It’s prevalent, that countries that have created a system to benefit their citizens have promoted progressive changes. United States are more than capable; countries such as Australia have greater income equality and borrow a similar amount as Americans, but don’t pay until earning over forty thousand dollars (Dynarski 1). This ensures if one doesn’t feel limited in their society, it heartens the best of minds. In the competitiveness of globalization, education must be deemed as a right instead of a luxury. In general, our culture has become dis-unified in the topic of education and has ought to look elsewhere to be

This journal article written by William Zumeta in April, 1992, is an extensive argument to suggest state policymakers would be wise to conduct research to maintain healthy colleges and universities to address the increasing demands of demographics and economics at state level. In addition, Zumeta suggests the private sector should be included more in state planning and addresses the effects of the public sector tuition policies. According to Zumeta, “The goal of state policy in higher education after all must be to serve the broader public interest as fully as possible with limited resources.” Although this journal article is dated, Zumeta and his colleagues challenged state policymakers to include the private sector in forming appropriations

The recent presidential election brought about a new round of discussion concerning the possibility of free state college tuition. Since Barack Obama first mentioned the idea in 2015, conflicts of interest have arisen surrounding the debate. Many people think that free state college education would enable more Americans to receive and then use an education at a higher level than in years past. Other argue that there will be many disadvantages to free state college education that would far outweigh the benefits. Providing free state college education to all American citizens would not only lend to the enormous debt of our nation, but would offer assistance to families without real need of financial assistance, and would contribute to the laziness and lack of motivation of the future generation of United States Citizens.

A complex system has many parts working together for a common goal. If one part hinders, the whole system can fail. A team is only as good as it’s weakest link. Therefore, the group must work their hardest to succeed as a whole. In Oskaloosa, we have many areas that could be considered as the weakest link whether it be a student, a faculty member, or a team. Many parts could be fixed to make a stronger community here at OHS. The main area being the budgeting. Many sports, programs, and areas of our school suffer due to poor choices in budgeting. The school could better distribute its money throughout all of the areas and programs.

Higher education is turn was directly affected by the shift in priority of legislature. While this is not a new concept it does reinforce how closely tied both are. Regarding capacity concerns the initial 2009 survey results noted 28 public flagship universities stated they had not capped their enrollment, 29, at public regional universities; while 12 reported they had capped enrollment. Of the 12 states that capped enrollment the majority of them were in the most populous states such as California, New York and Texas. Reviewers noted concern over if the community colleges will be able to handle the influx in high school and adult students with universities capping enrollment. Their concern is that it may not. The survey respondents showed disagreement in this area as well. That paired with the fiscal challenges noted in the survey prompted strong views from the reviewers. The article notes in“FY1981, 22 states contributed at least 50% of community colleges’ revenues, accounting for 55% of community college enrollments. By FY2001, only 7 states contributed at least 50% of community colleges’ revenues, accounting for 8% of community college students.” (Katsinas, D 'Amico, & Friedel 2014). By 2007-2009 this was not the case; education across the board suffered major midyear budget cuts across all states. These budget cuts affected how facilities were being managed at intuitions of higher learning. Funds for maintenance were being prioritized and

First, because executive compensation is so high in higher education, it leads the public to question whether pay is really based on performance. One-third of public university presidents now make more than $500,000 according to the Chronicle of Higher Education (Cheng 582). This leads to the common accusation that university presidents are paid like bureaucrats. Presidents of public university’s salaries may not be performance based because even though governing boards hire and fire or determine compensation, most presidents are held to certain objectives distinct to their university such as the wishes of faculty, community, students and alumni. Therefore presidents don’t usually have one clear objective. This makes it hard to evaluate performance because it must be based on each institution’s needs and data availability. There is no set of principles commonly agreed on and consistently used to evaluate performance. But rather, compensation in an earlier period is the strongest indicator for payment in a later period. (Cheng

Making higher education available to every student was President LBJ’s one of the top priorities. However, this policy has tremendously backfired, as student debt, instead of eroding inequality has fueled the further growth of socioeconomic inequality. Through the government-sponsored student loan program, taxpayers took the risk, bankers reaped the reward. Since the banks had no liability due to government backing, they started charging the college students high interest rate that would be nearly impossible for the debtors to pay back. While, this vicious policy was slightly altered during President Clinton’s era to hold the banks more accountable, it was not until after the crisis of Great Recession when major steps were taken. After the great recession, the government bought out the previous government-backed loans and passed laws to let the private banks sponsor their own private loan without the government back. However, this step was taken too late to avoid economic calamity. By that time, student loan has become more than one trillion dollars, surpassing both auto loans and credit card loans of the United

Budget cuts in schools cause turmoil and stress among the students and faculty. Drastic changes in the budgets have caused schools to negatively impact the people around them. With the lack of funding, schools are facing difficult decisions on what to do to stay within their budget. Supervision is facing much scrutiny on how to handle the lack of funding in their school districts. A solution needs to be made to improve the distribution of funding to our schools in order to keep them operating and thriving for our children to obtain their education. Budget cuts in schools have shown negative effects on employee positions, supplies, extracurricular activities.