Why Do You Have Children?

The people who lose the most in this scenario are the poor. They are stuck with no alternative. The households that are well off can afford to send their children to a private school or move into a district with a school that will give their children a better education. In California the teachers would receive power by making their own curriculum they believe fit children the best and then parents would choose which curriculum they felt their individual child would be the most productive

Funding for Oklahoma schools has fallen dramatically in recent years, with Oklahoma spending $706 less per student in inflation-adjusted dollars that it did in 2008, and Oklahomans are worried about it, and rightly so (Gene, 1). In looking toward a quick-fix, many have argued that Oklahoma need only reduce its administrative costs, thus

The National Conference of State Legislatures said, “School budget crunches have been a trend over the past couple years and span the entire nation” (qtd. in Van

The No Child Left Behind act emerged as a result of a massive increase in the costs of schools, while failing to show an improvement in their students performances. (Paterson 32) Since these standardized test have been in effect teachers have been judged off them. The problem is that

With a disparity in resources resulting from NCLB, schools in the less wealthy areas tend to suffer the most: “Unlike most countries that fund schools centrally and equally, the wealthiest U.S. public schools spend at least 10 times more than the poorest schools-ranging from over $30,000 per pupil to only $3,000 (Darling-Hammond)”. A teacher who has spent years in school to earn a degree is far less likely to want to spend their career in a school that is under funded, under staffed, overcrowded and labeled ‘failing’. This in turn meant that the best educated, best prepared and most dedicated teachers would concentrate in the most highly resourced schools, leaving underperforming

It not only limits the U.S. by keeping us from progressing, it also leads to more high school dropouts, and is a major contributor to the large income gap present in America. In order to improve the United States, the federal government needs to step in just like it did back in 1954. The Supreme Court fixed the problem as it was defined at the time, but now the problem has more depth and has transformed into something greater than it once was. Having the federal government gear more money to funding public schools, as well as coming up with innovative methods of teaching will repair this inequality and help desegregate classrooms (Mujic). Although the federal government can only do so much by funding public schools, so high schoolers at the root of this educational inequality need to have the motivation to obtain the necessary skills for success. Obtaining these skills will help our country progress with technology and

Children are falling behind in schools. Students are failing their Standardized and messing up their education. Well unfortunately, “ Under No Child Left Behind, a significant number of schools did not see their test scores increase, the Federal Government

On top of decreased property tax revenue the massive job losses triggered a substantial decline in income and sales taxes and other sources of state revenue. This incredible loss of revenue resulted in huge cuts to all programs including public education which led to decreased performance in schools across the board. Even if this system of generating funds wasn’t impacted by the recession this method of creating funds often creates large differences in funding between wealthy and impoverished communities. Obviously schools located in higher income areas have more resources and better funding to draw upon as opposed to schools in low income schools who have much fewer resources to draw upon. At its most extreme this means that a few students from wealthy communities or neighborhoods within generous states attend public schools with funding of $15,000 or more per student per year, whereas some students from poor communities or neighborhoods within stingy or impoverished states attend schools that must make do with less than $4,000 per student per year (Biddle 2002). However the federal government signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) law in 1965 in an effort to equalize educational spending. Better yet In 2002 Congress reauthorized ESEA and President George W. Bush signed the law turning ESEA into No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Both programs offered new grants to districts serving low-income

The federal government’s control over education is too invasive. Students should not be expected to perform as compared to a country-wide standard, as each student’s learning abilities are different. Common Core testing is a poor, national standard that does not properly measure a student’s intelligence. The Tea Party believes that the Obama administration is trying to change the education system through “the back door” the inventors claiming that the common core raises the “education quality” when it in fact does not.Nationalized standards represent the heavy presence of the federal government and must be put to rest. The federal funding of schools is a poor solution to solve educational problems. One cannot simply use money as a kind of band-aid, expecting higher funding to result in better education for America’s youth. The government spends an average of ten thousand dollars per student each year, totaling $550 billion. This money is being thrown away and can be put to better use elsewhere. Federal involvement in no way results in a better education system and must be limited.

This led us to a total cuts of $862.0 million, “equaled to 13.6 percent” of the revenue that Pennsylvania school districts gain from the state budget in2010-2011. Moreover, the decline in state aid affected the districts with greater ratio of children living in poverty more than other districts (2). This cuts have a great effect on many areas such as:

Teachers, lose their jobs because of government wanting to replace these classes. Evidence supporting this claims is an article called “Decreasing public high school”, by Grace Chen. Sources also state that the less teacher, the less we learn. Now if one teacher leaves, they all leave, and then we’ll end up with “0” teachers!! I support this because lots of the articles i’ve read they say the same thing.

The past decade has been hard on teachers, especially in 2002, when President George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind went into effect. This brought about yearly testing from 3rd grade to 8th grade. If every child was not “proficient” and was “left behind” by the the education system then the school would be subject to sanctions. The worst

A couple of years later in 2011, lawmakers passed House Bill 1, which cut an astonishing 4 billion dollars in education funding and another 1.3 billion in special program funding from the Foundation School Program, the source of education dollars for school districts across the state. This was very unpopular among education advocates and teacher groups, and caused public outcry throughout the state. This radical reduction forced school districts to operate without millions of dollars in funding they were initially depending on. School districts were forced to cut special education teachers, teacher aides, bus drivers, and slowed or stopped school construction projects (NPR). My school district was forced to lay off or eliminate administrative and teaching positions in order to make sure the district budget is balanced. Stipends for bilingual teachers and other employees who take on extra duties were reduced or eliminated as well. Teacher stress and class sizes increased which made for a less than conducive teaching and learning environment. It wasn’t all bad news during that congressional session however. Lawmakers also passed Senate Bill 6, which allowed school

During the last several years the nation has been coming out of a recession and states have had to deal with budgetary cut and many restrictive constraints. This has effected the education funding in almost every state in the union, and was due to the economic downturn. Many school districts just like the Clark County School District (CCSD) have had to tighten the belt and make budget reductions, as the necessary funding has been unavailable. Now with the state demanding that the district cut it’s full-day kindergarten program, do away with the class size reduction program bring classes up to 30+ students, and removing an alternative program that helps reduce the high school drop out rate CCSD might not be able to meet the

Within the federal government’s budget education is among the most important yet in the year of 2012 the federal government only spent $107.6 billion out of 3.7 trillion which amounts to 3% on education. Compared to other funding categories in the government’s fiscal year of 2012's budget it's clear to see that education isn’t as important to the government officials as they would like us to believe. Many Americans today are lead to believe that education is important to government officials and it receives an adequate amount of funding because they don't know how much funding is put into the other categories of the budget. The funding put into education in the year 2012 is only 1/8 of social security spending and 1/5 of Medicare