Recently, under President Obama's administration's education stimulus package, money has been allocated and dispersed to school districts throughout the country. While there have been no direct complaints regarding the amount of money each district/state is getting, there have been some disparities regarding the allocations. For instance, many districts that do not need additional economic aid for their school systems are getting more money than those districts that desperately need the aid. Part of the reason for these disparities is in regards to the formulas used in order to distribute the stimulus money. As reported by The New York Times, the Democrats in Congress decided to use already devised formulas, instead of devising new formulas, for fear that negotiations would take too long and some school districts need the money immediately.
While it is important to give the school districts in need money immediately, so they can stave off budget cuts and avoid laying off teachers, the Obama administration should have made sure that the school districts with economic deficits got what they needed, while those who are economically well off did not get an excess of money. While this is an extremely difficult task and I am sure that the Obama administration did all that they can to make sure that the school districts were allocated a sufficient amount of money, many individuals believe that the school districts where they do not have any economic deficits and students are getting Apple laptops should not be getting a bigger chunk of money than those who actually need the money.
Growing up in a community where the school district was always experiencing economic deficits, it pains me to see that the districts that need the money are not getting enough, while those that are economically stable are getting more than their fair share. Congress should take the time and devise new formulas in order to help those districts that truly need the aid, no matter how long it may take. In addition, if some school districts do not need the money, then they should decline the aid, allowing the government to reallocate that money to school districts experiencing deficits. It is evident that the Obama administration is doing what it can in order to help the economy as a whole, including the school districts, but in some circumstances, they could spend more time in order to help those who truly need the aid.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/education/22schools.html?_r=1&hp
Maps of school districts and disparities in aid: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/03/22/education/22schools_graphic.ready.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The issue that seems to be of concern in this case is the connection between a communities property taxes and the school funding. This system has been in use for years under the assumption that richer communities will be able to fund better schools, which allocates funds according to earnings. The recent education stimulus has been distributed in a similar fashion which has called attention to the irony of giving schools that do not have a budget crisis more money. However the argument has been made in congress and by many conservatives is that since it is the tax payers who are technically paying for this stimulus it is fitting that the communities that pay more taxes should benefit more from it. It is important to also know that there is a distinction between a stimulus which is designed to increase educational spending and educational welfare which would seek to increase equality between different schools. America has been taking some serious steps over the last year to decrease local responsibility and increase federal involvement. One important question when dealing with federal involvement and universal standards is what level of funding is “adequate”? America has built a lot of its success in the private sector and to turn our back on this system could significantly impact the American culture. The American culture is something that rewards personal responsibility and individualism. By increasing equality the country is risking the culture that has made it a world super power.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/01/14/18nh.h17.html
The amount of money some already affluent school districts receive from the stimulus is clearly unfair, but the recession is now and time cannot be wasted figuring out fair ways to distribute the allocations. Needy schools need to receive their money as soon as possible so they can avoid having to lay off valuable members of the faculty. Waiting would only exacerbate the situation, and would not help anyone. Teachers would get laid off, thereby creating bigger classes, and debilitating the quality of education. This would be harmful to each and every student. Also, I disagree with Melanie when she states that the schools that do not necessarily need the extra money should decline the aid. It is the job of the schools to do what is best for the students, and declining money that would improve the student’s education would not be helping. They should gratefully accept the money, and do something productive with it. This may not be buying Mac books for elementary students, but more along the lines of creating extra teaching jobs, helping both the students and the unemployed.
Besides waiting to disperse the money, another option would be to give each district an amble amount of money, but save the majority to be dispersed in a more fair way at a later date. This would allow for schools to avoid layoffs, but at the same time, it would not allow for them to create jobs that would help the economy. With such short notice, the government is handling stimulus allocations in the proper way.
You can’t determine a district’s needs by the amount of money that they have. Every district uses the money they are given in different ways. The amount of money a district is given does not dramatically fluctuate from year to year, it is a somewhat expected amount. To take away money from districts that have grown accustomed to a particular amount is not only wrong, but it could be devastating. Schools have practices and operations that have been in use of years. Taking away money would force them to develop a new system. But they don’t need a new system, what they are doing is working. Taking away money might reverse the situation. These once affluent districts might lose their money as well as their successful practices. What good would it do if the once poor schools were doing well but the once affluent schools are now in need? At the end of the day, someone’s still in need. Instead of taking away money, efforts should be focused on making sure whatever money is available is efficiently spent. Schools should be required to develop a strategic plan of how they are going to use the money they are allocated. From that, money should be awarded. The amount of money given to a school shouldn’t be determined by the number of laptops they have but instead how efficiently they are going to use what they are given.
You can’t determine a district’s needs by the amount of money that they have. Every district uses the money they are given in different ways. The amount of money a district is given does not dramatically fluctuate from year to year, it is a somewhat expected amount. To take away money from districts that have grown accustomed to a particular amount is not only wrong, but it could be devastating. Schools have practices and operations that have been in use of years. Taking away money would force them to develop a new system. But they don’t need a new system, what they are doing is working. Taking away money might reverse the situation. These once affluent districts might lose their money as well as their successful practices. What good would it do if the once poor schools were doing well but the once affluent schools are now in need? At the end of the day, someone’s still in need. Instead of taking away money, efforts should be focused on making sure whatever money is available is efficiently spent. Schools should be required to develop a strategic plan of how they are going to use the money they are allocated. From that, money should be awarded. The amount of money given to a school shouldn’t be determined by the number of laptops they have but instead how efficiently they are going to use what they are given.
Communities and school systems that are already affluent do not need a cast amount of money in order to avoid layoffs and improve their school districts. If communities are not in need of money, then some may believe it is irresponsible for the government to give them money when there are other school districts out there that need the money in order to avoid layoffs. While I understand that there is not enough time for the government to formulate new equations and formulas in order to decide how much money each school district receives, they can still find other ways in order to make it fair for each district. Why not give a certain amount of money to each district now, and create a new formula and decide how much more to give each school district. By doing this, school districts can avoid layoffs while still getting the fair amount that they actually need. Hopefully, with this new formula, school districts that need the most money will get the most money, and those that do not need the money, will only get the bare minimum. This can be done over a period of time and as their economic situation changes, so can the amount of money they receive from time to time. While this may not be realistic, it is the only fair way to make sure that each district gets the money they need and deserve.
Also, public school districts that are affluent and have the status of being affluent should not get more than other school districts that are not as affluent. There should be standards, nationwide, for what a public school should offer, as to make the education of the nation, more equal. Why should individuals who grow up in one state or even school district be getting a better education than those from another? That's not fair, and if public education is going to continue to work, there needs to be standards for the entire nation, not just by state. While economic issues may cause problems and obstacles for this to happen, it is an important issue for the government to consider in the coming years as the education system is being regenerated.
Post a Comment