In most countries, public schools are funded entirely by the state. However, in the United States, public schools are funded mostly by local governments. Public education in the United States is funded through local taxes (Warren et al., 2013). The logic behind the policy in the U.S. is that the federal government cannot understand the academic needs of a community, and children should be taken care of by their communities (Brueck, 2016). On the other side, there are critics of the policy who have said that the model creates massive differences between low-income and wealthy neighborhoods (Pallavi, 2016). As a result, efforts to reform public school funding have provoked contentious debates and controversy. The following is a holistic overview of the debate on public school funding.
The Controversy
Public schools in the United States are funded by federal, state, and local governments. However, more than half of the resources come from local sources, such as property taxes. As a result, the system generates huge discrepancies between wealthy and low-income communities. For example, between 2016 and 2017, the District of Columbia had a per-student expenditure of $25,025, while states like Utah and Idaho had $6,906 and $6,761 per student expenditures, respectively (Brueck, 2016). The discrepancies between the states' per-student expenditures are because of economic abilities. As a result, students studying in the District of Columbia have access to almost four times time the fiscal resources accessed by students in Utah and Idaho (Pallavi, 2016). The case of public school funding has always raised controversy and contentious debates. On one hand, some individuals believe that children from well-funded schools have better educational outcomes (Maughan et al., 2018). Therefore, children should be provided with a level playing field. On the other hand, other people have consistently argued that the federal government cannot understand the academic needs of a community. Thus, the needs of children should be taken care by their communities. These debates have always stormed efforts to bring educational reforms in the U.S.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Pros
One of the arguments for the current system of funding is that the federal government cannot understand the academic needs of every child. Therefore, children should be taken care by their communities. Every community has different need, and it makes it difficult to achieve a level threshold for funding (Maughan et al., 2018). Furthermore, proponents of the current policy have added that having equal funding does not always result in a rigorous academic experience. Students have unique special needs that can only be understood at the local level. Therefore, local government, since they are close to the people, should design financial plans to meet the education needs of their subjects (Warren et al., 2013).
The other argument for the current system is that equal funding would be unfair to the wealthy citizens. This argument stems from the notion that poverty is an individual effort and not a social outcome. Primarily, the United States is known for string believes of power and individual efforts (Warren et al., 2013). This notion is the primary reason why individuals have been accused of lack of effort to create their success. Therefore, creating an equal system of funding would be like punishing hardworking Americans. According to supporters of the current policy, if low-income want more funds for their schools, they should design industrious systems of generating resources for their local governments (Brueck, 2016).
Cons
Various civil groups have filed suits opposing the current system of financing public schools, with notable being Independent School District v. Rodriguez. The case involved parents who argued that money is essential in the academic achievements of students. The parents gave evidence showing that high investments lead to positive education outcomes (Maughan et al., 2018). Therefore, the constrained budgets of low-income schools put gave high-income students a competitive advantage over the economically deprived students. The current system, according to the parents, is a disadvantage to low-income students (Warren et al., 2013).
Also, core services such as quality teachers, curriculum, and library are not available to low-income students. These services are either unavailable or cannot serve large numbers of students in public schools (Warren et al., 2013). Local governments do not have enough funds to provide systematic resources that are required for academic excellence. For instance, the governments do fund research to create rigorous curriculums that can allow students to compete with their high-income counterparts (Brueck, 2016). Primarily, individuals who are against the current system have stated that the federal government should provide critical resources to all students to create a level playing field.
Various studies have explored the issue of public funding and found that well-funded schools have better academic successes than low funded ones. For instance, schools that are funded can attract teachers with high qualifications, reduce class sizes, and provide critical resources such as libraries (Warren et al., 2013). Furthermore, with an increase in funding, public schools can access other professionals such as nurses, social workers, and professional counselors. These professionals are known to play a critical role in childhood growth and development (Maughan et al., 2018). In other words, when schools have access to reasonable funds, they can generate better educational outcomes by providing students with the necessary resources (Pallavi, 2016). For that reason, the current system of funding public schools should be reformed to give students equal opportunities of succeeding in life.
References
Brueck, M. K. (2016). Promoting access to school-based services for children's mental health . Ama Journal of Ethics , 18, 12, 1218-1224.
Maughan, E. D., Cowell, J., Engelke, M. K., McCarthy, A. M., Bergren, M. D., Murphy, M. K., Barry, C., Vessey, J. A. (2018). The vital role of school nurses in ensuring the health of our nation's youth. Nursing Outlook , 66, 1, 94-96.
Warren, C. P., Leslie, S. E., Thomas, W. W., & Peggy, H. C. (2013). School Funding Issues: State Legislators and School Superintendents—Adversaries or Allies? Sage Open , 3, 2.)
Pallavi, A. B. (2016). A systematic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools. Cogent Education , 3.
