Increase the Funding of Colorado K-12 Public Schools

How does the money spent on students affect schools and their students? There is a gap between low-income students and students that are not. Low-income based students have stress factors that students with a higher income might not have to worry about. For example: where their food is coming from, whether or not they will get to showe, or maybe even wake up in the morning. Stressing about theses things can take a lot put of a person. That’s why certain things at schools should be available to all students.

When local property taxes were the primary source of school funding, districts were financially stable and were able to allocate funds for appropriate spendings. With the limitations set on property taxes, school budgets became dependent on the state’s fluctuating economy and tax collections. Fortunately, in 1988, Proposition 98 was passed, which set a minimum base funding for public schools. This proposition guaranteed funding that would grow each year with the changing economy along with student enrollment. This funding, though managed by the state was a combination of state General Fund and local property tax revenues.

The United States has many conflicts, one of them is funding on public education. Despite the fact that funding on public education will not help students succeed academically with the money provided to the schools, every school deserves to get as much money because students will receive more proper education and will be more successful students in the future.

Property tax is the “most common,” “most dependable and stable income base,” for schools. Property tax can be a complicated process and there are difficulties for taxpayers because assessments can be overvalued or undervalued. A property may be worth less and yet the property tax may be higher than the assessed value of that property. This over and under valuing can be frustrating to a taxpayer that lives in a home that they can’t sell for the million dollars that their home’s property tax is assessed at and yet they are paying property taxes for a million dollar home. I would think that in areas where there is less property to be taxed, there would be less income coming in to those school districts, making it less equitable. It could be vastly different from one area to another.

Funding for Oklahoma schools has fallen dramatically in recent years, with Oklahoma spending $706 less per student in inflation-adjusted dollars that it did in 2008, and Oklahomans are worried about it, and rightly so (Gene, 1). In looking toward a quick-fix, many have argued that Oklahoma need only reduce its administrative costs, thus

Financial barriers for higher education has climbed over the last ten years. Today, over 40 million Americans have student loans. Of these 40 million, most individuals are struggling to maintain payments on the loans (Hillary for America, 2016). Since 2004, the tuition for in-state colleges and universities has risen by about 42 percent and with the recent Great Recession, states have continued to decrease spending on higher education at a rapid rate (Hillary for America, 2016). It is estimated that states are only contributing around $1,805 per student, which is estimated to be 20 percent less than what was contributed only seven years’ prior. The federal government in

want to keep property tax for public education funding. In my point of view, usually the schools

Pennsylvania has strict limitations on funding schools. Local governments heavily influence the funding that does occur. The school district governance in Philadelphia has been a subject of debate. A large majority of the revenue that the local government receives is from property taxes. In the year 2000 property taxes regarded for almost $10 billion of the revenue in Pennsylvania. That was 30 percent of the total revenue that the local government received and 70 percent of all local government tax revenues. Property taxes accounted for roughly 85 percent of the overall tax revenues for Pennsylvania school districts in 2000. Practically half of all the school district’s revenue came from the compilation of property taxes. The one thing

A proposal to fix this long-term problem came from the members of The Campaign for Fair Education Funding who proposed a new formula which will close the unfair school funding gap once and for all. The main purpose of this solution is similar to other proposals-to bridge the wide funding gap between wealthy and poor school districts. Pennsylvania is one of only three states that creates budgets without using a proper statewide education funding formula. The Basic Education Funding Commission is in charge of examining and determining whether which formula would be adequate to fix the unequal school funding in Pennsylvania. This formula will call for the improvement of equity and ensures accountability and efficiency, and is based upon different factors such as the number of students per district, their level of poverty, number of non-English-speakers, and local tax effort. This new formula will become a solution to the wide school funding inequality Pennsylvania’s

In schools the state rates as Underperforming or Lowest Five Percent, more than 60 percent of students were reported as falling below minimum learning standards in reading, math, science, and writing. Some of these schools showed extraordinary levels of failure in educating students. In 2010, the state found the number of “F” schools, ranked Struggling to be 168 schools. In 2016, the state Index found the number of “F” schools, ranked Underperforming or Lowest Five Percent increased by 117 percent to 365. At the same time, per-student education spending from all sources for the years 2011 to 2016 increased by 27 percent, rising from $9,785 to $12,439.

In chapter 11 of the textbook titled “How are schools governed, influenced, and financed?” there was a section called school spending and could be found on page 354. The section talks about how much is spent by parents when enrolling a child into school, the average from 2013-2014 was just over 11k a year. There are two figures that are incorporated into the section, one shows how the average has changed over the last ten years and the other is the average spent by each state to educate one child. Each school/state has their own way of funding and to see what it is from school to school is interesting.

Higher education costs have been increasing at a rapid pace, faster than inflation for the economy as a whole, for the past fifty years. It started in the 1960’s when the federal government passed the Higher Education Act to increase the amount of people able to afford and attend college. Regardless of the Unites States Government efforts to increase the affordability of college, federal aid programs have not risen to expectations due to the ever-increasing college prices. To lower the price of college, the government needs to cut back on student financial spending to go only to the lowest income families and create tax incentives for families to start saving up on their own.

The cost of tuition for higher education is quickly rising. Over half of college freshmen show some concern with how to pay for college. This is the highest this number has been since 1971 (Marill and O’Leary 64-66, 93). The amount of college graduate debt has been rapidly increasing also. With limited jobs available because of the high unemployment rate, college graduates find themselves staying in debt even longer. Although grants and financial aid are available to students, students still struggle to pay for their college tuition. Higher education costs are prohibitively expensive because the state’s revenue is low, the unemployment rate is high, and graduates cannot pay off their student loans.

In today’s economic environment even the wealthiest states and districts are having to cut funding for education, while districts which were already teetering on the edge are now in an even worse position. In some schools children have to face not having enough books, paper for copies, severe overcrowding,

Schools have a number of various sources. The primary sources are federal, state, and local funding. The majority of funding comes from state and local sources; whereas a small percent (usually 9-12%) comes from the federal level. The method by which schools receive funding is through the taxation process. At the state level, taxes are levied from taxpayers, both corporate and citizens via sales and income tax. At the local level, school funding comes from property taxes. Let’s explore the how the various sources of school funding. “According to the National Center for Education Statistics, state and local funding accounts for approximately 93 percent of education expenditures” (Woodruff, 2008, ¶ 2). Let’s examine these various sources of revenue and funding and different formulas for allocation along with their pros and cons.