By Leonor Rivera
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.
With federal spending on education allotted at a mere ten percent the local and state tax fund provision carries the bulk of the funding burden. The state funds usually come from collected sales and income tax collected from the citizens of the state. The income is usually both corporate and personal. On a local level, the income is usually from property taxes set by school boards, residents and local authorities.
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level often have better schools and equipment while those with a low-income level have severally worn buildings and outdated equipment.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 in the school funding system have led to numerous disagreements and court challenges in numerous states. In a majority of them, the courts have ordered the states to completely overhaul their systems to fund institutes of education more equally. These challenges began back in the seventies with the landmark case, in an American State, Serrano V Priest. In this case, the state's high court ruled that a child's access to public education should not be based on the wealth of his or her parent.
The public outcry and debate on the state of the public school fund allocation system has raged on. This has led to states to develop and take on different standards to ensure performance. Some equate the standard of education with the amount of funding available to it, while others hold that the amount of funds provided does not affect the level of performance.
A rise in population levels has not helped the case at all and has in fact had a very negative effect. The number of children currently enrolling in school greatly outweighs the amount of resources provide to the schools. This greatly overburdens the system, as the resources are often never enough to care for the students available. The consequent lack of planning and structure leads to severe 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.
Slow transmission of resource by government leads these rural schools to seek alternative public school funding. This leads to a lack of resources for the teacher and therefore influences learning. Resources necessary to run the schools would therefore be unavailable and negatively affect learning.
With federal spending on education allotted at a mere ten percent the local and state tax fund provision carries the bulk of the funding burden. The state funds usually come from collected sales and income tax collected from the citizens of the state. The income is usually both corporate and personal. On a local level, the income is usually from property taxes set by school boards, residents and local authorities.
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 in the school funding system have led to numerous disagreements and court challenges in numerous states. In a majority of them, the courts have ordered the states to completely overhaul their systems to fund institutes of education more equally. These challenges began back in the seventies with the landmark case, in an American State, Serrano V Priest. In this case, the state's high court ruled that a child's access to public education should not be based on the wealth of his or her parent.
The public outcry and debate on the state of the public school fund allocation system has raged on. This has led to states to develop and take on different standards to ensure performance. Some equate the standard of education with the amount of funding available to it, while others hold that the amount of funds provided does not affect the level of performance.
A rise in population levels has not helped the case at all and has in fact had a very negative effect. The number of children currently enrolling in school greatly outweighs the amount of resources provide to the schools. This greatly overburdens the system, as the resources are often never enough to care for the students available. The consequent lack of planning and structure leads to severe 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.
Slow transmission of resource by government leads these rural schools to seek alternative public school funding. This leads to a lack of resources for the teacher and therefore influences learning. Resources necessary to run the schools would therefore be unavailable and negatively affect learning.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar