School funding is an educational issue that impacts students, teachers, and quality of instruction. It has historically been funded through local, state, and federal sources, with percentages shifting over time. Inadequate funding impacts students through larger class sizes, fewer course offerings and resources, and lower test scores. Teachers face larger class sizes, lack of support staff, and non-competitive salaries. Potential solutions include providing more equitable funding across school districts and increasing funding for programs that support disadvantaged students and schools.
Inclusive education - Definition, concept and significance of Inclusive educa...Suresh Babu
Inclusive education - Definition, concept and significance of Inclusive education Significance of inclusive education for the education of all children in the context of right to education, Issues and problems in Inclusive education, Teacher preparation for Inclusive education – developing attitudes and competencies for inclusion.
Design and Implementation of In-Service Teacher TrainingPeter Beech
This presentation begins by outlining the distinctions between pre-service and in-service training, and between initial in-service training and on-going development.
While initial INSET (IN-SErvice Training) includes some of the same elements as pre-service training, such as guided lesson planning, lesson observation and feedback, and workshops linking theory and practice, it should also support the induction of the novice teachers into the profession, and lay the foundations for their long-term development.
The design of the initial INSET programme will take into account both the aims of the individual participants and those of the institution and other stakeholders. It should consider the participants’ pre-service training in order to meet their various needs appropriately, and the methodology of the training programme should also reflect the methodologies employed by the school.
Short-term goals may be centred on effective classroom practice for new teachers, whereas in the longer term emphasis will be placed on individual development, institutional development, and the sharing of best practice. At this stage, teachers may be encouraged to conduct classroom research, examine their own teaching, explore ideas of best practice in their own context and share their experience with peers.
The programme may be facilitated by experienced teachers within the institution, by expert teacher trainers or a combination of both; it may take the form of occasional intensive input from trainers with on-going part-time support from DOS. In any case, the course should be integrated into the ongoing process of teacher development.
Module OverviewLiberal and Market Models of Higher Education AlyciaGold776
Module Overview:
Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy
Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota, as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher education systems within both states, with a particularly strong influence on funding models for colleges and universities.
Higher Education Policy in California
The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the development of three campus systems in California: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of five college students in California attend one of the three public education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems (Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025.
In recent years, the historic California model has broken down as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty, declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between 2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014). Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college educations at California community colleges, which have become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could not enroll into at least one class that they needed and community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner, 2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the California state system to support students at all levels of enrollment.
In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to 2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to 10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s priorities began shifting from higher education toward corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner, Pet ...
Module OverviewLiberal and Market Models of Higher Education .docxaudeleypearl
Module Overview:
Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy
Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota, as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher education systems within both states, with a particularly strong influence on funding models for colleges and universities.
Higher Education Policy in California
The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the development of three campus systems in California: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of five college students in California attend one of the three public education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems (Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025.
In recent years, the historic California model has broken down as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty, declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between 2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014). Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college educations at California community colleges, which have become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could not enroll into at least one class that they needed and community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner, 2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the California state system to support students at all levels of enrollment.
In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to 2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to 10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s priorities began shifting from higher education toward corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner, Pet.
Inclusive education - Definition, concept and significance of Inclusive educa...Suresh Babu
Inclusive education - Definition, concept and significance of Inclusive education Significance of inclusive education for the education of all children in the context of right to education, Issues and problems in Inclusive education, Teacher preparation for Inclusive education – developing attitudes and competencies for inclusion.
Design and Implementation of In-Service Teacher TrainingPeter Beech
This presentation begins by outlining the distinctions between pre-service and in-service training, and between initial in-service training and on-going development.
While initial INSET (IN-SErvice Training) includes some of the same elements as pre-service training, such as guided lesson planning, lesson observation and feedback, and workshops linking theory and practice, it should also support the induction of the novice teachers into the profession, and lay the foundations for their long-term development.
The design of the initial INSET programme will take into account both the aims of the individual participants and those of the institution and other stakeholders. It should consider the participants’ pre-service training in order to meet their various needs appropriately, and the methodology of the training programme should also reflect the methodologies employed by the school.
Short-term goals may be centred on effective classroom practice for new teachers, whereas in the longer term emphasis will be placed on individual development, institutional development, and the sharing of best practice. At this stage, teachers may be encouraged to conduct classroom research, examine their own teaching, explore ideas of best practice in their own context and share their experience with peers.
The programme may be facilitated by experienced teachers within the institution, by expert teacher trainers or a combination of both; it may take the form of occasional intensive input from trainers with on-going part-time support from DOS. In any case, the course should be integrated into the ongoing process of teacher development.
Module OverviewLiberal and Market Models of Higher Education AlyciaGold776
Module Overview:
Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy
Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota, as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher education systems within both states, with a particularly strong influence on funding models for colleges and universities.
Higher Education Policy in California
The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the development of three campus systems in California: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of five college students in California attend one of the three public education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems (Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025.
In recent years, the historic California model has broken down as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty, declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between 2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014). Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college educations at California community colleges, which have become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could not enroll into at least one class that they needed and community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner, 2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the California state system to support students at all levels of enrollment.
In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to 2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to 10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s priorities began shifting from higher education toward corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner, Pet ...
Module OverviewLiberal and Market Models of Higher Education .docxaudeleypearl
Module Overview:
Liberal and Market Models of Higher Education Policy
Module Five focuses on two states, California and Minnesota, as the complexities of higher education policy are examined and the variety of political, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the ways in which policies are developed are discussed. These policies, in turn, deeply impact the higher education systems within both states, with a particularly strong influence on funding models for colleges and universities.
Higher Education Policy in California
The California Master Plan for Higher Education guided the development of three campus systems in California: the University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), and California Community Colleges systems (St. John, Daun-Barnett, & Moronski-Chapman, 2013). Nearly four out of five college students in California attend one of the three public education systems and three out of every four bachelor degrees awarded annually are from either the UC or CSU systems (Johnson, 2014). Yet, the state is facing somewhat of an education crisis and Johnson projects a shortfall of one million college graduates by 2025.
In recent years, the historic California model has broken down as the systems have been negatively impacted by the state’s fiscal woes. While colleges and universities have responded to funding cuts by reducing expenses, including cutting administrative costs and hiring more non-tenure track faculty, declines in state support have forced the UC system to increase tuition fees by 50% in three years while CSU fees have increase by 47% in the same period (Johnson, Cook, Murphy, and Weston, 2014). Students are increasingly becoming indebted in order to accomplish their educational goals in California; the average loan amounts among students have risen 36% between 2005 and 2010 (a figure adjusted for inflation) (Johnson, 2014). Hoping to save expenses, many students begin their college educations at California community colleges, which have become so overcrowded that in 2012, 137,000 students could not enroll into at least one class that they needed and community colleges resorted to “rationing” courses (Dellner, 2012). This evidence suggests new changes are needed in the California state system to support students at all levels of enrollment.
In part, California’s steady decreases in higher education funding are a consequence of a need to fund other state services; for example, Johnson (2012) notes that from 2002 to 2012, state expenditures for higher education fell by close to 10% whereas expenditures for corrections and rehabilitation increased by 26%. Historical trends suggest that the state’s priorities began shifting from higher education toward corrections since the 1970s, even though the majority of Californians (68%) opposed spending cuts in higher education to reduce state budget deficits and 62% supported spending cuts in corrections to balance state budgets (Baldassare, Bonner, Pet.
As the start of Idaho’s 2018 legislative session draws nearer, the Idaho Public School Funding Formula Committee continues working diligently toward understanding options for school funding in Idaho, since the current funding model was adopted in 1994.
This morning, Terry and Marc will explore the student-based budget model with the Committee using the Idaho School Funding Simulator, created with the help of Bryan Hassel and Public Impact.
Roderick Hooks 4
Roderick Hooks
EN 106
2/6/2020
Inequality in American Schools
Puritans of Massachusetts established the first public school and decided that these schools will get funds from property-tax receipts. Initially, the system of using property tax to fund local school was performing equally. In her article, XXX argues that education is unequal in the United States because students from poor district perform at levels several grades below those from the richer district. This is because of inequality in the money supplies to schools to fund public schools. Public schools are financed by different states depending on their contribution to tax collection. Most of the poor districts contribute low property tax because properties are less valued and only poor people stay in those districts. Because of this, public utilities such as schools lack adequate resources to support learning. The standard measure for economic hardship does not present the magnitude of the learning gap between poorest and richest students. The federal government and education sector in the United States needs to formulate policies that support the implementation of equal acts.
Public education became mandatory at the end of the 19th century and the responsibility for educating students was given to states rather than the national government. States gave more money for schools, even for schools that relied on property tax. However, regional disparities that arose due to increased urbanization lead to inequalities in schools. Areas with less valued properties or poor families had less money available for schools. As a result, schools in poor districts had fewer resources to support education. In the early 20th century, states started to provide grants to all districts to ensure equitable funding. Nonetheless, wealthier districts increased property values making the state subsidies to increased, hence, causing more education disparities. Advocates and activists have filed claims to push for equality in the American education system. Most of these efforts failed due to opposition in the Congress, the audience for this essay is to inform the federal government and local government that poor districts where most of the disadvantages students come from need more money to finance their education.
States should design a formula that will allow districts to share revenues for education to be more equitable. My argument is that states should give poor district enough money for disadvantaged students to have the ability to perform as wealthier students. Students in wealthier district have access to school psychologists, personal laptops, up-to-date exercise books, and counsellors. High-poverty areas do not access these resources. These areas have more students who need extra help, yet they have fewer tutors, guidance counsellors, and psychologists (Semuels, p1). They also have poorly paid teachers, bigger classes size, and poor facilities. This situation is experie ...
Vermont experienced some serious violations of Ethics, Public Trust, Economic Hardships, Education Costs with needed School Consolidation for 21st Century STEM, High-Tech Start-Up Eco-Systems www.gilbertforsenate.us better access to information with accurate statistics at www.greenmountainrepublicans.org or President of Technology Award Earning Roth IRA/Roth IRA Rollover Business Models in order to grow good paying jobs with benefits. People are leaving Vermont due to an outdated, out of touch Socialist Democrat/Progressive Super Majority Destroying the Affordability of Vermont causing issues with all 3 E's. I love E, Economics, Education, Ethics.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Palestine last event orientationfvgnh .pptxRaedMohamed3
An EFL lesson about the current events in Palestine. It is intended to be for intermediate students who wish to increase their listening skills through a short lesson in power point.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
Acetabularia Information For Class 9 .docxvaibhavrinwa19
Acetabularia acetabulum is a single-celled green alga that in its vegetative state is morphologically differentiated into a basal rhizoid and an axially elongated stalk, which bears whorls of branching hairs. The single diploid nucleus resides in the rhizoid.
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
1. Presented by: Monique Coppins
Katherine Kosich
Jasmin Robinson
Yukie Sugahara
EDG 601 Social Foundations
Instructor: Dr. Tanya G. Wiggins
Contemporary Issues in Education:
School Funding
2. Sources: NCES, Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source
of funds: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2012-13
Local Government
State Government
Federal Government
Currently, public schools are funded by…
3. Federal Spending on Elementary/Secondary Education
Total = $78 billion
Federal Spending on Elementary/Secondary Education
4. Historical Changes of School Funding Sources
Share of School Funding from Federal, State, and Local Sources
Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics,
2012 digest of Educational Statistics.
5. Changes in Funding Sources
Change in U.S. Education Funding Sources
FY1920 FY1970 FY2010
6. GDP and Education Spending
U.S. Education Spending as Percentage of GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
9. Federal Funding Under the Elementary & Secondary Education Act
Funding under NCLB. Detail in next chart.
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
10. Federal Grants to States for Special Education*
* Under IDEA, Part B, Grants to States.
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
11. Source: Education Funding 2019
Not a Great Outlook
Education Funding Flat Across Continuum Except for Pell Grants
13. Source: Department of Education 2019 Request and budget history tables
Largest Budget Cuts by President Trump
Requested Change in DOE Discretionary Funding vs. Prior Year in billions
16. School Funding is an Educational Issue that has historically affected educational
systems. School funding has a direct impact on the quality of instruction and
resources provided to public school institutions.
Basis Used to Calculate the Amount of Funded Allocated to Schools
Administrative Discretion
Based on the individual assessment that each school
needs.
Historical Costs
Considered historical expenditures to calculate the
allocation for the following year.
Bidding and Bargaining
Involves schools responding to open competitions or
making a case for additional resources.
Formula Finding
Involves the use of objective criteria with an universally
applied rule to establish the amount of resources each
school is entitled.
School Funding Is an Educational Issue
18. What is Title 1?
Originated from
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”
Currently part of the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
19. What is Title 1?
• 58% of all public schools receive Title 1 funding.
• Title 1 is the largest federal aid program for public schools.
• Title 1 provides federal funds to schools with high % of low-income students.
• Title 1 funds pay for extra educational services to help at-risk students.
• Title 1 gives funds to schools in need based on student enrollment.
• Title 1 provides free lunch.
20. Sources: NCES, "Common Core of Data," surveys and unpublished data.
Federal Funding for Title I
21. Title I Grants for Disadvantaged Children
Sources: 2006 U.S. Budget, Historical Tables.
23. “WHAT IS MATHEMATICALLY EQUAL
MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT
TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS
OF THE STUDENTS.”
-STATE SCHOOL FINANCE SYSTEM VARIANCE
IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT:
INADEQUACIES IN SCHOOL FUNDING:
Impacts on Students
- Few or none extra-curricular and/or elective courses
- Larger class sizes with less access to 1:1 support
- Improperly maintained school environments
- New technology not able to be purchased
- Lower student test scores
- Limited access to college and career readiness classes
- Restricted use of current and modern curriculum
- Inconsistent school quality and access across districts
- Less after school programming opportunities
24. “ONE CANNOT TRADEOFF SPENDING MONEY ON CLASS SIZE REDUCTIONS AGAINST
INCREASING TEACHER SALARIES TO IMPROVE TEACHER QUALITY
IF FUNDING IS NOT THERE FOR EITHER—IF CLASS SIZES ARE ALREADY LARGE
AND TEACHER SALARIES NON-COMPETITIVE.”
- MIND THE GAP: 20 YEARS OF PROGRESS AND RETRENCHMENT IN SCHOOL FUNDING AND ACHIEVEMENT GAPS
- Larger class sizes with fewer trained staff members
- Lack of school counselors and related service providers
- Restricted access to highly effective teachers
- Restricted access to advanced placement and honors courses
- Self-funded parental involvement activities/events
- Classroom supplies dependent on donations
Impacts on Teachers
25. Student Demographics by District Wealth: Years 2014-2015
Student Demographics by District Wealth
Source: NJDOE State Aid Notices, Projected Enrollments 2014-15
28. Increase, incentivize,
and inspire more
parental involvement...
Include crowd-sourcing tactics
such as Bake Sales, special event
tickets, and student activities ….
Increased Educator
involvement in the United
Federation of Teachers…
30. Ideas on How Equity Can Be Achieved
Equal Opportunity Horizontal EquityVertical Equity
3 Kinds of Equity
31. Ideas on How Equity Can Be Achieved
Regressive Tax Progressive TaxProportional Tax
3 Kinds of Vertical Tax Systems Used
32. Higher Income = Higher Taxes
2 Kinds of Tax Brackets
Lower Income = Lower Taxes
Ideas on How Equity Can Be Achieved
33. Public School System
Outside Factors that Affect within System
housing
rigorous curriculum
disability
highly qualified
teachers
income
34. Equity in Public Education
Ways to Achieve Equity in Public Education
Provide
educational opportunities
for Title 1 schools
Fund for
out of school
&
after school programs
Programs to support
working families
such as early childhood
education programs
35. Baker B. D., Farrie, D., & Sciarra, D. G. (n.d). Mind the Gap: 20 Years of Progress and Retrenchment in School Funding and
Achievement Gaps (RR-16-15, pp. 1-39, Rep.). Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center.
Brown, E. ( 2016 Jan 27). Spending in nation’s schools falls again, with wide variation across states. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education /nations-k-12-schools-spending-falls-
again-shows-wide-variation-across-states/2016/01/26/0a420ede-c443-11e5-a4aa-
f25866ba0dc6_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.27275541d080
Calamaras, D. ( 2015 Dec 23.) Government Spending on Education in the United States: A Historical Perspective. Retrieved
from: https://www.bidnet.com/resources/business-insights/government-spending-education-in-the-
united-states-historical-perspective-en.jsp
Chakrabarti, R, Farber, A, & Livingston, M. (n.d). Historical Echoes: The Changing Face of Education in the United States.
Retrieved from: https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2013/09/historical-echoes-the-changing-face-
of-education-in-the-united-states.html
Cornman, S. Q. & Musu-Gillette, L. (2018, January 8). National Spending for Public Schools Increases for Second
Consecutive Year in School Year 2014-15. Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/2018/01/08/default
References
36. Hoffman, M. J., Ed. D., Wiggall, R. L., Ed. D., Dereshiwsky, M. I., Ph. D., & Emanuel, G. L., Doctor of Arts. (2013). State
School Finance System Variance Impacts on Student Achievement: Inadequacies in School Funding. JEP – E
Journal of Education Policy, 1-8. Retrieved February 12, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
EJ1158691.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Revenues for public elementary and secondary schools, by source of
funds: Selected years, 1919-20 through 2012-13. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/
d15/tables/dt15_235.10.asp?current=yes
Nusche, D. & Radinger, T. (2017, June 26). The Funding of School Education - Connecting Resources and Learning.
Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/OECDEDU/the-funding-of-school-education-connecting-resources-
and-learning
Office of Management and Budget. (2018). AN AMERICAN BUDGET. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/
content/pkg/BUDGET-2019-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2019-BUD.pdf
Richwine, D., Ph. D. (2011). The Myth of Racial Disparities in Public School Funding. Backgrounder, (2548), 1-6. Retrieved
February 12, 2019, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518754.pdf.
Scafidi, B. Ph. D. (2013 Dec 12). Reasons the Public Education System Has Become Increasingly Centralized. EdChoice.
Retrieved from: https://www.edchoice.org/blog/reasons-the-public-education-system-has-become-
increasingly-centralized/#author-24
References
Editor's Notes
Currently, local property taxes provide most of the funding for public school.
45.5 % of educational funding comes from state revenue
45.2 % comes from local revenue
9.1 % comes from federal revenue
Federal funding has been targeted to students with special needs and to federally-mandated state testing and accountability regimes. (Image spending from 2017.)
The federal government currently spends a total of $78 billion dollars on elementary and
secondary education. The breakdown as follows:
School Lunch – 23% which comes from the department of agriculture
Special Education – 16%
Head start – 9% which comes from Health and Human services
Title 1 – 20%
Impact aid – 2%
School improvements – 9%
Other – 21% ( does this cover administration and curriculum?)
This slide showcases the obvious change in funding in the 1930s (Great Depression affected this decision?) a decline in school funding from local sources and small and slow increases from federal and state sources.
federal funding for schools between 1930 and 2010 (it has not increased much) Most of the funding comes from local funding and still do today.
The long shadow of history affects educational systems and consequently economic growth until this day.
There are clear historical disparities in the amount of funding schools received from federal, state, and local sources.
Historically, local sources has provided the most funding for American schools.
“Until around 1930, the funding of education was clearly the responsibility of local governments, with some contribution from the state. In the latter half of the twentieth century, the split between state and local funding changed from around 80-20 to 45-45, with the federal government now paying the remaining 10 percent (Chakrabarti, 2013).
-increase in state and federal spending
-decrease in local government school funding
-interesting to think how schools will be funded in the future seeing this trend over time
From 1920 to 2010 there has been an increase in the amount states spend on
The largest increase can be seen in FY1920 of 84.1%. This is the largest increase over a span of
90 years.
The lowest federal spending was in FY1970 with 8% and no federal funding in 1920 during the
(progressive? ) what period was this?
During the (2000’s), the state and local governments contributed the amount of 43.5/43.8%
respectively to funding sources and as little as 12.7 % from the federal government. This
indicates that the federal government over the years has contributed the least amount to
funding education.
Federal Government spending increased in 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), providing federal dollars to schools for targeted groups of students.
Between 1900 and 2010, spending as a percentage of GDP fluctuated with the lowest economic
growth of 1.25% in 1944. This indicates that less was spent on education during this time which
also can be assumed that acquiring an education during this period was not the most important.
With the push to overhaul education and NCLB during the Obama administration, spending as
per GDP rose to 6.1%. (This is confusing to me because this was right after the recession)
Is it safe to say that more education equals higher pay?
Education spending is dependent on the performance of the U.S economy.
During the Great Depression (1929-1939), GDP spending reached 4% before leveling out at three percent at the beginning of World War II (1941).
During the civil rights era, 1950-1970’s, education spending fluctuated. In 1953 education spending hit a low of 2.6 %, risen to 5.7 percent the dropped again in the eighties, falling to 4.7 percent in 1984
During the Great Recession (2000-2010) spending on education once again fluctuated, eventually ending at 6.1%.
I’m looking at this as a slight bell curve. From 2006 to 2015, the expenditure for each student
increased from $10,000 to $11,600 in 2010. This shows as a growth however, students ….
In 2013, expenditure was much lower (why?).
Legally every state has a public school system that provides free education to every child.
Federal Laws and state legislators allocate funding to schools each year through the state’s annual budget process.
Prominent factors, such as cost of living, class sizes and student demographics influences educational spending by state.
The amount spent per student for the day-to-day operation of public elementary and secondary schools rose to $11,454 in Fiscal Year 2015.
When looking at per pupil spending in public schools across the states, the cost per pupil is
much higher in Alaska, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington DC and Vermont
compared to other states. The per pupil spending begs to question if these states have higher
needs population than the rest of the country and, how is funding decided in these states?
School spending per pupil is allocated by the states annual budget process. (Image spending from 2013 fiscal year.)
The split between state and local taxpayer spending for local public schools varies across states—with some states having significantly higher state shares relative to others
Legally each school is required to provide federal dollars to schools with high proportions of students in poverty, to students who were migrants from other countries, to students with special needs and other smaller targeted groups of students.
9
10
The Budget invests $1.1 billion in school choice programs to expand the range of high-quality public and private school options for students, putting more decision-making power in the hands of parents and families. This investment serves as a down payment toward achieving the President’s goal of an annual Federal investment of $20 billion—for a total of an estimated $100 billion when including matching State and local funds—in school choice funding. The Budget requests $500 million to establish a new school choice grant program to support a wide range of innovative approaches to school choice.
The Budget invests $12.8 billion for IDEA formula grants to States to support special education and early intervention services. In addition, the Budget requests $222 million for discretionary grants to States, institutions of higher education, and other nonprofit organizations to support research, demonstrations, technical assistance and dissemination, and personnel preparation and development.
-truly showcases that federal spending on school does not take into account the sheer increasing amount of students enrolled in public school.
There is an estimated enrollment of 52 million students for the year 2026. This estimate shows
that students enrolled in K-12 public schools will receive $40 billion dollars. Federal spending
shows that there has been no significant increase of student spending and student enrollment
over this period. (not much growth, why?)
13
Public schools are government-run schools regulated by federal, state and local law. With government –run schools often come numerous issues related to how funds are allocated.
Politically, educational spending and funding is dependent on the performance of the U.S economy. When the U.S economy experience a decline or fluctuates so does public education funding.
Historically, local sources has provided the most funding for American schools. However, federal funding increased when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), providing federal dollars to schools for targeted groups of students.
Legally every state has a public school system that provides free education to every child. With a free education often come numerous legal issues. Prominent factors, such as cost of living, class sizes and student demographics influences educational spending by state.
16
Today, Title 1 is part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) but originated from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. This landmark educational bill, passed during Johnson’s “Great Society”, changed the funding of school districts from a local level to a national responsibility.
Title 1 provides federal funds to schools with high percentages of low-income students. These funds pay for extra educational services to help atrisk students achieve and succeed regardless of any disadvantages through no fault of their own.
Title I is a federal entitlement program that gives funds to schools in need based on student enrollment, the free and reduced lunch percentage for each school, and other informative data. The US Department of Education distributes Title 1 funds to State Departments of Education that, in turn, distribute the funds to individual school districts. Each school district divides its funding among qualifying schools based on their numbers of low-income children. In addition, under Title 1, participating school districts must provide supplemental educational services for eligible private school students.
Nationwide, some 50,000 public schools (14.9 million or 64% of students) from preschool to high school receive Title 1 funds. However, most of the students served through Title 1 are in grades 1-6, while another 12% are in preschool and kindergarten. An astounding 58% of all public schools in the US receive Title 1 funding.
20
21
-Cannot read the date but it is unfortunately relevant today and for the 2000s
-A cartoon exposing the increase of the student to teacher ratio due to budget cuts
Overcrowded classrooms, budget cuts, staffing shortage. How does this impact our students
and teachers?
Inadequate School Funding Effects on Students:
Few or None Extra-Curricular and/or Elective courses
Larger Class sizes with less access to 1:1 support
Improperly maintained School Environments
New Technology not able to be purchased
Lower student Test Scores
Limited access to College and Career Readiness classes
Restricted use of current and modern curriculum
Inconsistent School Quality and Access across districts
Less After School Programming opportunities
“Spending in schools is a politi
“adequate funding is necessary for schools to increase student achievement since it is through the provision of 6 http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ appropriate programs by skilled educators that student achievement is increased -- and both programs, and skilled people to run them, cost money. Without necessary funds, how a school uses those funds is a moot point.”
Larger class sizes with fewer Trained Staff Members
Lack of School Counselors and Related Service Providers
Restricted access to Highly Effective Teachers
Restricted access to Advanced Placement and Honors courses
Self-Funded Parental Involvement Activities/Events
Classroom supplies dependent on Donations
“School districts that educate the greatest number of poor and minority students have less state and local money to spend per student than districts with the fewest poor and minority students. This will inevitably impede their efforts to help their students reach state standards.”
-The Funding Gap: Low Income and Minority Students Receive Fewer Dollars
-This chat is from the Portland Public Schools focusing on funding in Oregon from 2007 - 2011.
Statistics from a 4 year period showing the multiple facets of the general fund budget for the 2010-2011 school year on the left and the effects of state budget cuts decreasing the amount of money schools spent per student on the right.
-
Between 2007 and 2011, the majority of school funding was spent on teacher’s salary and
textbooks. The debt and capital (refers to borrowed money) payments went down however,
there seems to be less money being put back into the system, why?
-with increased funding comes increased support personnel
-the need for more staff in a special education setting increases routinely and with proper funding, as these percentages calculated from the Arizona DOE, more students and classrooms would be able to enjoy the guidance of more teachers, aides, related service providers, bus aides, and administration.
Can the increase be attributed to better knowledge or rise in awareness of certain disabilities
hence, the increase in these areas?
Increased Educator involvement in the United Federation of Teachers.
Intentional voting in of policy makers and political candidates who have a background in Public Education and a history of voting positively towards appropriately funding public education on state and federal levels.
Include crowd-sourcing tactics such as Bake Sales, special event tickets, and student activities as occasional sources of supplemental funding.
Increase, incentivize, and inspire more parental involvement in their children’s schools.
29
Would it be fair for all schools to receive the same funding? Why/Why not
First we need to understand the formula that is used to determine how much each school receives.
Three kinds of equity: Horizontal equity, vertical equity and, equal opportunity.
Horizontal equity – individuals with the same amount of income should be expected to pay the same amount in taxes without preferential treatment.
Vertical equity- students have different needs and requires different level of resources. What qualifies as unequal circumstances (ELL, disabilities, poverty etc.)
Equal opportunity- while some schools may be able to pull together resources, others will not because of economic situations. This is visible when looking at counties and individual states property taxes, employment, housing and other dire situations.
Three kinds of vertical tax systems used:
Regressive tax : lower income earners loses more income than those receiving a higher income.
Proportional tax: individuals pay the same rate regardless of income
Progressive tax: higher tax rates for higher income
There are two kinds of tax brackets:
Higher income means more taxes
Lower income equals less taxes
Inequalities outside of schools that affect a system within a system: housing, income, disability, rigorous curriculum, highly qualified teachers.
Because income varies within families and communities, it is unfair to allocate the same amount of funds for each district as some will have more than another. Families who are not working cannot put into the system the same amount as those who are not working.
Providing educational opportunities for title 1 schools.
Funding for out of school and after school programs.
Programs to support working families such as early childhood education programs.