The government of America is a federal one; this implies that the jurisdiction and authority are divided amongst local, national and state governments (Agranoff and McGuire, 2004). This decentralization and partition brings about redundant, slow moving and unwieldy system. Nonetheless, the principles of the federal system are dependent on the local governing bodies being able to represent the large and diverse national diversity. The American administration is built in a manner that state laws vary from state to state, depending on local circumstances. For instance, in heavily Amish areas of Pennsylvania, local school districts have allowed the Amish to create their own elementary schools. Moreover, the local and state governments exercise vital roles in the United States such as in paying and planning for most roads, running public schools, and providing water to name but a few. This paper aims at analyzing the interrelationships between state, federal, local, and outside (private) education funding sources in the US.
Several federal programs offer funding specially for educational purposes, however a variety of programs exist that deliver supportive services. Further in line with this, the aforementioned alternative education programs can access some of the larger federal education programs such as the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act (Perkins), No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Fletcher, 2006). Due to the very intricate relationships that the executive and legislative branches of the government have in coming up with funding and programed priorities, no federal agency has a major obligation for youths involved in non-traditional education.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most of the funding from the federal government is usually focused on the public educational system, this limits any unconventional education funding for youths who cannot get the more traditional education. In short, federal agencies offer a range of programs with diminutive or no management fixated on long term support for needy youth. Federal support in secondary education is minimal in comparison to its funding in elementary or higher education. For instance, the majority of the $12 billion Title I funding, the government’s compensatory education program is disbursed in the elementary school level and about 5% or less on high school students (Alliance for Excellent Education 2004).
The states’ role is to restructure high schools and develop secondary education, however they are met will challenges which comprise but are not restricted to, students dropping out of school. Also, the task of reconnecting with the ones who have already left is proving to be a huge task (National Governors Association 2005). With the above risks, state may be encouraged to expand the academic options in high school by making sure that there is flexibility in the education legislation. Such flexibilities may include providing youth and communal based unconventional education providers’ charters to function as schools with state educational funding. It is the state’s responsibility to outline and fund alternative education for the benefit of the youths thus it provides a variety of alternative education initiatives and policies for funding.
Most states give their authority for school control to the local level. The local education agency also known as the school district is the public school system’s primary unit of administration for chosen geographic area. The United States has over 13,000 school districts all over the state thus in most districts, primary governing authority lies with the local school board (Howell, 2005). The school boards function is to implement the districts visions, make budgets decisions and disburse funding as well as choose the curriculum of the schools. In the local level, they can accept goodwill from players in the private sectors that wish to contribute to the funding of the education system.
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments . Georgetown University Press.
Alliance for Excellent Education, (May 2004). Pathways for All Students to Succeed Act (Policy Brief). Retreived April 2, 2017 from http://www.all4ed.org/publications/Pass%20Act.pdf
Fletcher Jr, E. (2006). No curriculum left behind: The effects of the No Child Left Behind legislation on career and technical education. Career and Technical Education Research , 31 (3), 157-174.
Howell, W. G. (Ed.). (2005). Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics . Brookings Institution Press.
National Governors Association (2005). A Compact on High School Graduation Data. Retrieved April 2, 2017 from: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0507GRADCOMPACT.PDF
