Controversy has always surrounded the public school funding system in the American power house. This usually emanates from the fact that the system receives various sources of donations from different sectors. Mostly property taxes, federal fund allocation and state taxes account for these funds. In the K-12 system of education, these sources provide a way to continue the smooth running of education.
In government spending only about ten per cent of its funds, cater for public education. This leaves a large percentage uncared to; the bulk of this fund allocation is obtained from the state and local government and its taxes. This income mostly comes from sales and income taxes, usually both corporate and personal. Locally these funds are usually from property taxes put up by school boards, local authorities or citizens.
The level of income of the residents therefore effectively affects the state of buildings and equipment available to the schools. The areas with a larger income level often have better schools and equipment while those with a low-income level have severally worn buildings and outdated equipment. These schools usually struggle even to take care of their basic utility bills. In many states the level of fund provision from the state is still too low to cater for the basic needs of the students.
These inequities have led to rise of a lot of conflict and numerous court battles in most states. In most of these cases, the state ruled against the state and ordered the state to completely reconstitute their fund allocation systems to schools. In the case of Serrano v Priest in a state in America that ordered that, a child's access to education should not be determined by their parent's level of income.
Over the decades, the debate over public school fund provision has grown as states have developed and adopted various performance standards. Some still argue that to obtain higher performance standards schools need more funds, while others hold that increased spending does not mean increased performance. They also argue that if more money is spent on the schools then it should be very well accounted for.
The rise in population levels has had a tremendous negative effect on the public education fund distribution system. The amount of resources available to education is greatly outweighed by the number of children in the system. This leads to overburdening and stretching of limited resources. The lack of planning and structure leads to underperformance in schools.
Schools in the rural areas are greatly affected by this. The state in issuing its resources determines a flat number they consider suitable for all district. This leaves wealthy districts at an advantage and disadvantages the poorer districts.
The slow transmission of resources by government leads to rural districts seeking alternative sources of public school funding for education. Alternatively, it can cause a serious lack of resource to the teachers and therefore affect learning. The resources required to run the system effectively would be greatly affected and this could affect the result.
In government spending only about ten per cent of its funds, cater for public education. This leaves a large percentage uncared to; the bulk of this fund allocation is obtained from the state and local government and its taxes. This income mostly comes from sales and income taxes, usually both corporate and personal. Locally these funds are usually from property taxes put up by school boards, local authorities or citizens.
The level of income of the residents therefore effectively affects the state of buildings and equipment available to the schools. The areas with a larger income level often have better schools and equipment while those with a low-income level have severally worn buildings and outdated equipment. These schools usually struggle even to take care of their basic utility bills. In many states the level of fund provision from the state is still too low to cater for the basic needs of the students.
These inequities have led to rise of a lot of conflict and numerous court battles in most states. In most of these cases, the state ruled against the state and ordered the state to completely reconstitute their fund allocation systems to schools. In the case of Serrano v Priest in a state in America that ordered that, a child's access to education should not be determined by their parent's level of income.
Over the decades, the debate over public school fund provision has grown as states have developed and adopted various performance standards. Some still argue that to obtain higher performance standards schools need more funds, while others hold that increased spending does not mean increased performance. They also argue that if more money is spent on the schools then it should be very well accounted for.
The rise in population levels has had a tremendous negative effect on the public education fund distribution system. The amount of resources available to education is greatly outweighed by the number of children in the system. This leads to overburdening and stretching of limited resources. The lack of planning and structure leads to underperformance in schools.
Schools in the rural areas are greatly affected by this. The state in issuing its resources determines a flat number they consider suitable for all district. This leaves wealthy districts at an advantage and disadvantages the poorer districts.
The slow transmission of resources by government leads to rural districts seeking alternative sources of public school funding for education. Alternatively, it can cause a serious lack of resource to the teachers and therefore affect learning. The resources required to run the system effectively would be greatly affected and this could affect the result.
About the Author:
When you want information on public school funding, go to the web pages here at www.grassroots4all.com today. Details are available by clicking on the links at http://www.grassroots4all.com now.
No comments:
Post a Comment