Many would say it would be turning the public school system into a “business.” While I do agree that it would turn the public school system into a business I do not agree that it would take away from our schools being public in the most literal sense of the word. But it would give people a good way to have a little power in the public system because it would allow parents to decide where they would send their children, not the state. It would also add some incentive for ... ... middle of paper ... ... given a better education simply because his or her parents make more money. That does not make a child smarter, rather more privileged. And I thought schools did not cater to the students.
Tuition fees have also increased so that colleges could get themselves more money. Community colleges have suffered most when there is a decrease in per student funding, “ there is no question it negatively impacts the quality of a community college educational experience as seen in longer lines, larger class sizes, fewer course offerings, and less services provided” (6). A
Vouchers also allow parents to effectively vote with their dollars for, what in their eyes, the school that is the best. By federally funding a school voucher system, the discrepancy between schools located in rich and poor areas would be decreased, as poor children would be allowed to attend schools in richer neighborhoods and vice versa. But can such a system be implemented in America? Simply because it has been done to a degree of success in small scale tests in America does not clearly show that it would be successful on a national level. It would, at least, give parents to choose where their children go to school, the same way they can choose what to have for breakfast in the morning.
One of the opportunities we can provide for those children is school choice. Some people argue that they pay high tax to provide quality education for their children, and others do not have the right to share with it. If we follow the system thinking, this belief is a fallacy because we can not separate one from others in a system. In the long run, school choice can create success for children from the low SES family. In other words, if we can help those children succeed in the school and society, they will produce less problems to the society, and we can build up a better environment for everyone.
Proper school funding is one of the keys to having a successful school. Americans believe that funding is the biggest problem in public schools. School improvements revolve around funding. There needs to be funding not only in the successful schools but also the schools that aren’t doing as well. In documentary, Waiting for Superman, it talks about how smaller class sizes will help students.
Their idea behind this last-merit based program was to lessen the amount of people who were in need of the Pell Grant, and thus lessening cost. However, to improve its cost effectiveness there needs to be more low-income families enrolling in postsecondary schooling. Basing the Pell Grant off academic successfulness has proven ineffective and serves the opposite purpose of making college more affordable for all
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.
According to Caroline M. Hoxby, Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard, local tax revenues are an "effective and efficient means of providing education...and gives incentives to both residents and school staff" (2). However, in Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol argues that funding schools solely with property tax is not effective because the property revenues of poor families do not compare to those of the richer families; thus less money goes toward the poor children's education. Therefore, I agree with Kozol in that local property taxes are an unfair way to fund schools because students of poor districts are not given adequate education nor do the parents have sufficient amounts of money to finance their schools. The bottom line is schools need a good amount of money to keep themselves running properly, however providing those funds only through property tax will not ensure that. Kozol states that typical wealthy suburban homes are "worth more than $400,000" (54), while in a poor urban district homes costs as low as $4000 (19).
. Higher income neighborhoods pay higher property taxes than lower income neighborhoods, as the properties are worth more. Therefore, they provide more money for public education. Rather than equally allocating funds, the school districts grant funding to schools based on how much their respective neighborhoods pay in taxes. Consequently, lower income areas have schools that are underfunded, leaving the poorest students with low paid (and often poor quality) teachers, dilapidated facilities, and minimal resources.
If there were more parents willing to invest in public schools and live in culturally diverse neighborhoods, then they could benefit from a free education, with many other perks. Teacher and businesses would move to these neighborhoods and schools, because income is going in. It would be more effective to eradicate private schools only because there would be no other options for the rich but to send their children into public schools.