School Funding

Funding Schools Appropriately You 're a ninth grader at a school in Philadelphia. The neighborhood is poor, even if not all of the students are. Your school has very little money for things like computers or technology. You walk into second period one day, sit down, and discover that the floor next to your desk is damp. The teacher explains that there is a leak in the roof, and that the school can 't afford to fix it. The school can 't afford to fix the leak or buy computers because it is inadequately funded. So the government kindly lends your school the money to not only fix the leak, but buy computers. But does that necessarily motivate you to improve your grades? Do you suddenly decide to do your homework because the leak is fixed? Probably not. The government sees that your grades remained the same, and two years later, when our school needs to hire more teachers and make the classes smaller, the government denies the school that money. They say that since money didn 't help your grades last time, why should it help you now? But the truth is that smaller classes and better teachers do improve student achievement. Members of our government claim that giving more money to schools will not make a difference, but the government funding for schools needs to be used effectively to see a change in student performance. (Connell) The reason that some schools can 't do things like buy computers and maintain their buildings to begin with is because the school funding system is so ineffective. The US government pays only 7% of all school money, and the rest is up to the states and the tax payers. Whatever money the states won 't pay is paid as school tax, part of your property taxes, which are higher or lower depending on how much your home is worth. But this means that schools in poor neighborhoods get little money while wealthy schools, like ours, get nearly all they need. You don 't see any leaky roofs in our school. Even if the state pays a lot of money, that still doesn 't mean that the schools are well funded. In Hawaii, there is only one school district, and the state pays for nearly all of that district 's funding. Only 2% comes from property tax, and the rest comes out of income tax. But think about the industry in Hawaii- farming and tourism, two low income industries. 73% of Hawaii 's schools report a need for expensive building repair that they can 't afford on their own, and there is only one computer for every sixteen students. Even funded evenly by the state, Hawaii 's schools are still under funded, and it has been predicted that by 2010, Hawaii will need 760 new classrooms. (National Education Association.) Where will this money come from? It is up to the national government to make the difference in school funding. Take Pennsylvania for example. The Philadelphia school district is near bankruptcy. The debate goes on over whether to privatize the schools or not. If the schools are privatized, it means that a wealthy company will take over the district and fund it. The only problem with this is that the company now has the power to control everything in the district, including teacher salary, equipment, and even curriculum. Now if you were a business owner looking to make money, and not looking to educate children, you would most likely chose to change the curriculum to fit your own financial ambitions. It would be completely within the limits of the law for the company that owned these schools to "dumb down" the curriculum in order to save money, thus lowering the level of education received by students in Philadelphia. And what would be the first to go? Sports, Art, music, drama, and any other subject that isn 't included on the standardized tests or SATs. How would you like to go to a school where there is no football team, no marching band, no cheerleading, no chorus, no trips to the State Drama Conference? That 's where schools in Philadelphia are headed. (Snyder) Compare that to my school district, just a short drive away. Every teacher has a laptop and every student has Internet access. We 're looking at new "classrooms of the future," where every kid gets a personal computer and all board work is done on a high tech projector. We have a Frisbee team, for heavens sake. And some schools don 't even have money for textbooks. Inequality in school funding is so widespread that fixing it would mean a lot of work for government officials. But while they ponder how to fix it, the least they could do is help out the already failing schools. Nearly one fifth of all schools are considered high poverty, which means that three quarters of the students in these school qualify for free or reduced lunch. A study of 40,000 students by the US Department of Education showed that students in poor school districts, even if they came from wealthy to middle class families, scored two grade levels lower than the national average in math, and four levels lower in reading. (Overview) The government needs to be willing to help these schools with things like staff training and building maintenance. They should not hold it against the school if revamping the building doesn 't improve student grades. What the government is doing, in essence, in punishing the victims of its own inept system. The assumption that money doesn 't help kids in school is just that- an assumption. Money can make a huge difference, but a lot of the time it is wasted or used inappropriately. One school district began a highly expensive program to help kids doing poorly in school. The aides helping with the program did exactly what they were told, and reported all the progress made by kids in the program, which was little. It was a long time before the teachers participating in the program realized that it was useless, and that the money had been wasted. (Connell) If the National government is going to help fund failing schools, those schools do need to be held, to a certain extent, accountable for that money. In Philadelphia, so much money was wasted that the sate and national government now refuse to help fund it any longer. What is needed is a system to make sure that money given to the school is used effectively, so a tragedy like Philadelphia doesn 't repeat itself. It is also important to remember that computers do not heal all wounds- they are not a magic pill to improve grades. But teachers are. The important thing in school is teaching. A recent study showed the link between class size and grades by placing a random selection of children into three groups- a large group with one teacher, a medium group with two teachers, and a small group with one teacher. It was shown that kids in smaller classes with well trained teachers did much better than those in larger classes, even if the teacher had an aide to help. And the students who benefited the most, believe it or not, were those who came from families with less income. (Connell) Why? Possibly because they don 't receive that kind of one on one attention at home, or possibly just because a smaller class is easier for a teacher to handle. Either way, the goal is achieved. Kids who live in the city and poorer neighborhoods deserve the same education as the rest of us, and if their schools can 't pay for it, the government should. Helping the country is the governments job, but how are they able to help anyone if they can 't start with America 's children? Our constitution states that "All men are created equal," but these day that means kids too. Our education sets the tone for the rest of our lives-from getting a job to providing for a family and having knowledge of the real world. Giving some students a better education than others, just because of the value of their home, is unconstitutional. If the present system doesn 't provide the resources for schools to provide an equal education for all, then the government needs to pick up the slack of their own system. The money given to the schools by the government must be used effectively if a change is desired, and the way to do that is by hiring better teachers and making class size smaller. If the school itself cannot afford to educate its students, then the government needs to provide the school with the money to do so. They 're America 's children too.

Works Cited

"Overview." School Funding Inequity. ©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/ ~schoolfunding/index.html>
Noreen Connell. "Under Funded Schools-Why Money Matters." School funding Inequity. March/April 1998.©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index. html>
NEA Government Relations. "School Modernization Facts- Hawaii." National Education Association Website. May 23, 2001. <http://www.nea.org>
Susan Snyder. "PA to study school district finances" The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 4, 2001.
Julie green and Erica Lepping. "Education Report- Shows Poverty Linked to Student Achievement." School Funding Inequity. Sptember 8, 1998. ©2000. <http://www. geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index.html>Funding Schools Appropriately You 're a ninth grader at a school in Philadelphia. The neighborhood is poor, even if not all of the students are. Your school has very little money for things like computers or technology. You walk into second period one day, sit down, and discover that the floor next to your desk is damp. The teacher explains that there is a leak in the roof, and that the school can 't afford to fix it. The school can 't afford to fix the leak or buy computers because it is inadequately funded. So the government kindly lends your school the money to not only fix the leak, but buy computers. But does that necessarily motivate you to improve your grades? Do you suddenly decide to do your homework because the leak is fixed? Probably not. The government sees that your grades remained the same, and two years later, when our school needs to hire more teachers and make the classes smaller, the government denies the school that money. They say that since money didn 't help your grades last time, why should it help you now? But the truth is that smaller classes and better teachers do improve student achievement. Members of our government claim that giving more money to schools will not make a difference, but the government funding for schools needs to be used effectively to see a change in student performance. (Connell) The reason that some schools can 't do things like buy computers and maintain their buildings to begin with is because the school funding system is so ineffective. The US government pays only 7% of all school money, and the rest is up to the states and the tax payers. Whatever money the states won 't pay is paid as school tax, part of your property taxes, which are higher or lower depending on how much your home is worth. But this means that schools in poor neighborhoods get little money while wealthy schools, like ours, get nearly all they need. You don 't see any leaky roofs in our school. Even if the state pays a lot of money, that still doesn 't mean that the schools are well funded. In Hawaii, there is only one school district, and the state pays for nearly all of that district 's funding. Only 2% comes from property tax, and the rest comes out of income tax. But think about the industry in Hawaii- farming and tourism, two low income industries. 73% of Hawaii 's schools report a need for expensive building repair that they can 't afford on their own, and there is only one computer for every sixteen students. Even funded evenly by the state, Hawaii 's schools are still under funded, and it has been predicted that by 2010, Hawaii will need 760 new classrooms. (National Education Association.) Where will this money come from? It is up to the national government to make the difference in school funding. Take Pennsylvania for example. The Philadelphia school district is near bankruptcy. The debate goes on over whether to privatize the schools or not. If the schools are privatized, it means that a wealthy company will take over the district and fund it. The only problem with this is that the company now has the power to control everything in the district, including teacher salary, equipment, and even curriculum. Now if you were a business owner looking to make money, and not looking to educate children, you would most likely chose to change the curriculum to fit your own financial ambitions. It would be completely within the limits of the law for the company that owned these schools to "dumb down" the curriculum in order to save money, thus lowering the level of education received by students in Philadelphia. And what would be the first to go? Sports, Art, music, drama, and any other subject that isn 't included on the standardized tests or SATs. How would you like to go to a school where there is no football team, no marching band, no cheerleading, no chorus, no trips to the State Drama Conference? That 's where schools in Philadelphia are headed. (Snyder) Compare that to my school district, just a short drive away. Every teacher has a laptop and every student has Internet access. We 're looking at new "classrooms of the future," where every kid gets a personal computer and all board work is done on a high tech projector. We have a Frisbee team, for heavens sake. And some schools don 't even have money for textbooks. Inequality in school funding is so widespread that fixing it would mean a lot of work for government officials. But while they ponder how to fix it, the least they could do is help out the already failing schools. Nearly one fifth of all schools are considered high poverty, which means that three quarters of the students in these school qualify for free or reduced lunch. A study of 40,000 students by the US Department of Education showed that students in poor school districts, even if they came from wealthy to middle class families, scored two grade levels lower than the national average in math, and four levels lower in reading. (Overview) The government needs to be willing to help these schools with things like staff training and building maintenance. They should not hold it against the school if revamping the building doesn 't improve student grades. What the government is doing, in essence, in punishing the victims of its own inept system. The assumption that money doesn 't help kids in school is just that- an assumption. Money can make a huge difference, but a lot of the time it is wasted or used inappropriately. One school district began a highly expensive program to help kids doing poorly in school. The aides helping with the program did exactly what they were told, and reported all the progress made by kids in the program, which was little. It was a long time before the teachers participating in the program realized that it was useless, and that the money had been wasted. (Connell) If the National government is going to help fund failing schools, those schools do need to be held, to a certain extent, accountable for that money. In Philadelphia, so much money was wasted that the sate and national government now refuse to help fund it any longer. What is needed is a system to make sure that money given to the school is used effectively, so a tragedy like Philadelphia doesn 't repeat itself. It is also important to remember that computers do not heal all wounds- they are not a magic pill to improve grades. But teachers are. The important thing in school is teaching. A recent study showed the link between class size and grades by placing a random selection of children into three groups- a large group with one teacher, a medium group with two teachers, and a small group with one teacher. It was shown that kids in smaller classes with well trained teachers did much better than those in larger classes, even if the teacher had an aide to help. And the students who benefited the most, believe it or not, were those who came from families with less income. (Connell) Why? Possibly because they don 't receive that kind of one on one attention at home, or possibly just because a smaller class is easier for a teacher to handle. Either way, the goal is achieved. Kids who live in the city and poorer neighborhoods deserve the same education as the rest of us, and if their schools can 't pay for it, the government should. Helping the country is the governments job, but how are they able to help anyone if they can 't start with America 's children? Our constitution states that "All men are created equal," but these day that means kids too. Our education sets the tone for the rest of our lives-from getting a job to providing for a family and having knowledge of the real world. Giving some students a better education than others, just because of the value of their home, is unconstitutional. If the present system doesn 't provide the resources for schools to provide an equal education for all, then the government needs to pick up the slack of their own system. The money given to the schools by the government must be used effectively if a change is desired, and the way to do that is by hiring better teachers and making class size smaller. If the school itself cannot afford to educate its students, then the government needs to provide the school with the money to do so. They 're America 's children too.

Works Cited

"Overview." School Funding Inequity. ©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/ ~schoolfunding/index.html>
Noreen Connell. "Under Funded Schools-Why Money Matters." School funding Inequity. March/April 1998.©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index. html>
NEA Government Relations. "School Modernization Facts- Hawaii." National Education Association Website. May 23, 2001. <http://www.nea.org>
Susan Snyder. "PA to study school district finances" The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 4, 2001.
Julie green and Erica Lepping. "Education Report- Shows Poverty Linked to Student Achievement." School Funding Inequity. Sptember 8, 1998. ©2000. <http://www. geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index.html>

Cited: "Overview." School Funding Inequity. ©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/ ~schoolfunding/index.html> Noreen Connell. "Under Funded Schools-Why Money Matters." School funding Inequity. March/April 1998.©2000. <http://www.geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index. html> NEA Government Relations. "School Modernization Facts- Hawaii." National Education Association Website. May 23, 2001. <http://www.nea.org> Susan Snyder. "PA to study school district finances" The Philadelphia Inquirer. December 4, 2001. Julie green and Erica Lepping. "Education Report- Shows Poverty Linked to Student Achievement." School Funding Inequity. Sptember 8, 1998. ©2000. <http://www. geocities.com/~schoolfunding/index.html>