Surname 1
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Federal Funding in Public Schools
Introduction
Benjamin Franklin used to say that investing in knowledge will always generate the
best interest. This has been realized in the modern day, where federal funding of public
education has become a chief source of controversy. While the federal funds being availed to
public schools guarantee equal education opportunities, opponents tend to oppose the
increased involvement of the government in the education sector. According to them, federal
funding does not improve the quality of education or performance. In fact, they argue that
most of these funds are misappropriated and that innovations have been held off as a result of
the Federal government’s decision to allocate funds to education. Despite this critical stance,
past experiences have shown that education cuts have had negative consequences. Federal
funding of public schools should not be reduced, however, more effort should be put into the
distribution and monitoring of how funds are spent.
Brief Background
Public education in the United States presents a stark contrast from other developed
nations. In most Western countries, public education is often controlled by the national
government. Conversely, public education in the United States is controlled by both the state
and local governments. This can be traced back to the Colonial era, when people lived a
significant distance from each other. This made it very difficult for different communities to
come together and work collaboratively (InfoBase Learning 3).
Surname 2
The first schools were governed primarily by the communities, in which different
families would come together and appoint some of their own to teach their children. During
the time, these schools charged a tuition fee. At the same time, parents had the freedom to
either send their children to school or refrain from doing so. It was not until the office of
Education Secretary was created in 1837 that public schools were created and mandatory
school attendance was established (InfoBase Learning 4). The first public education policies
followed soon after. However, schools remained within the control of state and local
governments. Soon, the need to improve intellectual knowledge and meet the education
demands of a growing population led states to seek funds from the Federal government
(InfoBase Learning 4-5).
Education policy can be traced back to the Civil Rights Movement. The racial divide
that existed in the education system following the Cold War led to the Federal government’s
increased involvement in the public education system. As a result of segregation, schools
attended by African-Americans did not receive government funding like the schools attended
by their Caucasian counterparts. Even after the abolishment of segregation, AfricanAmericans still wallowed in poverty due to low education attainment levels. In a bid to
promote equality, the Federal government had to step in and set aside funds and grants to
award school districts (InfoBase Learning 5-7). The Federal government continued to use the
Civil Rights Act to urge schools to change policies. Even today, education is considered a
Civil Rights and Federal funding seeks to alleviate inequality (Duncan 5).
Today, the Federal government continues to fund public education. However, the
Federal government has made the decision to reduce the overall amount allocated to public
education. For example, most recently in 2009, the President signed a law that was meant to
revive the economy following a crisis. Under the new law, the education received a cut
(Duncan 2). These budget cuts have been felt in different schools across the United States.
Surname 3
Many States are no longer extending funds to pre-k programs (Borosage 1-2). At the same
time, fees have increased and teacher-student ratios are also suffering (Borosage 3). Most
recently, the current President, Donald Trump, placed emphasis on ‘school choice’ which is
an indication of the Federal government’s decision to take funds away from public schools
and redirect them to private and charter schools (InfoBase Learning 18-9).
The controversy surrounding Federal government’s funding of public schools is
characterized by opponents and proponents. On one side of the debate, supporters cite
increased quality of education, an improvement in performance as well as education equality
to highlight the importance of federal funding. On the other hand, critics are concerned that
federal funding does not have the desired effect on education quality and performance. In
fact, they are worried that the federal government’s involvement eliminates accountability,
while imposing unnecessary regulations on public schools.
Increasing Federal Funding Improves Education Quality and Performance of Students
Federal funding of public education has been closely linked with improved quality of
education. In the absence of federal regulations, state and local governments are left to their
own devices. They can determine the schools that will receive funds and the amount of
money to allocate various schools. As a result, schools from poor districts often receive little
or no funds. Evidence has shown that state governments are unlikely to allocate sufficient
funds to schools that serve individuals from poor communities (InfoBase Learning 20). This
results in an unequal access to education, in which some students attends well-equipped
schools while other are forced to attend less-equipped schools. Funds from the Federal
government are awarded to all districts in an equal manner. This levels the playing field,
allowing schools in low-income communities to acquire the same professionals, materials and
equipment used in other schools located in high-income neighborhoods. Furthermore,
government regulation ensures that curriculum and assessment remains standardized in all
Surname 4
public schools, irrespective of location. In this regard, federal funding is a sure way of
guaranteeing access to quality education by all students, including the most vulnerable
children (InfoBase Learning 21).
Proponents of federal funding often argue that people in support of reduced federal
funding are looking to protect richer school districts. In the absence of federal funding, these
districts have a higher chance of receiving more funds that schools in poor districts. Such a
decision would eliminate the need to share resources with other school districts. Before
federal funding, these rich districts had already managed to set themselves apart from other
schools in poor districts, creating something akin to a “caste” system in the education sector.
They applaud local control, because it will to maintain their lead over other poor school
districts (InfoBase Learning 21). This provides evidence of the positive impact federal
funding will enact on the quality of education being offered in schools.
The “Race to the Top” initiative launched by the Federal government is an indication
of the positive impact Federal funding has on school performance. Race to the Top allows
different school districts to compete for funds provided by the Federal government. In order
to qualify for these funds, schools are required to maintain particular standards, in terms of
school policies, and overall performance. Evidence shows that Race to the Top has managed
to improve the overall performance standards in different schools. Student achievement and
other means of evaluating teacher and student performance are being put in place in more
than 15 states (Duncan 3). In fact, since schools are being held accountable, they are more
likely to put the funds they receive to improving the standard of education and hence the
performance of their students. In Urban Prep, a male African-American high school located
in Chicago, the Race to the Top funds have enabled it to send a higher number of students to
college (Duncan 4).
Surname 5
At the same time, government regulations often accompanying Federal funding are
driving schools to set up competitive policies. For example, institutions of learning that
refused to implement student achievement when evaluating their teachers are now employing
the approach. Schools are altering their laws to ensure that they adhere with the regulations
set out by the Federal government. Since these regulations are aimed at improving student
performance, the quality of education and holding teacher’s accountable for their student’s
performance, the change in laws has a beneficial impact. The change in policies is also
evident at the state level, where reforms are being made to education policies, such as the
opening of charter schools (Duncan 3).
The Federal Government’s Funds do not Improve Education Outcomes
Opponents of federal funding often claim that the increased government involvement
in public school is not associated with an improvement in education. According to them, the
theory that more money equals improved educational outcomes has been put to the test in
different parts of the United States. In New York alone, the state spent an average of $14495
on every student in 1992. Towards the end of the century, this figure had increased to
$12000. Today, the state spends an average of $17 billion on education alone (Bethell 3).
Despite this, judges ruled in a recent case that States should be awarded an additional $5.4
billion each single year. This is an equivalent of spending $20000 on every student annually.
A similar scenario is also unfolding in Washington DC, where the Federal government
awards a significant amount of money to public schools. Elsewhere, in New Jersey, each
student spends an average of $12000 each single year. In fact, some districts allocate an
average of $18000 to every student (Bethell 5). In the city of Kansas, each student spends at
least $12000 every year. This is considered to be a significantly high amount because it
surpasses the State’s average, which is $6000 per student (Bethell 3). In Kansas, there have
been reports of the mismanagement of these funds. Teachers have resorted to pocket a
Surname 6
significant share of the money under the guise of procuring school-related equipment and
supplies.
Despite the increase in the amount of money being awarded to these schools by the
Federal government, critics contend that there has been little or no improvement in
performance and the quality of education being offered. The United States continues to lag
behind in terms of education achievement, compared to other countries that are spending less
on education (InfoBase Learning 2). For example, in New York, the amount of money the
State spends of education has been doubled. Despite this, the results of the students have
remained largely unaffected. More than 50% of all children in the State continue to score
below average. They are still unable to read properly at the grade level. In fact, only a mere
15% of all students graduate with a Regents diploma (Bethell 3). The results are similar in
Kansas City, where the education budget has more than doubled. Since this was an
experimental program, the grades of the students continued to decline. At the same time, the
issues of education inequality that exists between the African-American and Caucasian
Americans did not reduce. Caucasian students avoided attending schools within the city,
which meant that 90% of all students were non-Caucasian students. Furthermore, the
evidence shows that schools in Kansas are considered to be the worst performers to date
(Bethell 3). This is despite the fact that the Melinda Gates Foundation continues to fund
public schools in the city. Public schools in Washington D.C. also suffer the same fate.
Currently, only a handful of students can conduct proper mathematical calculations and read.
At the same time, statistical data shows that for every year a student spends in a DC school,
his likelihood of succeeding in his later life reduces significantly. In fact, more than half of
D.C. eighth graders have not managed to graduate over the last 40 years (Bethell 4). This
poor performance has persisted despite the fact that the students receive more than 50% more
than the national average of education funding.
Surname 7
Moreover, opponents argue that federal funding introduced a narrow focus to the
curriculum, a fact that results in poor performance. For example, the Common Core State
Standards Initiative tends to focus more on subjects such as Mathematics and Language Arts
(McCluskey, “Federal Spending” 2; InfoBase Learning 16). These standards ignore other
subjects, leading to poor performance in these subjects. Likewise, the “No Child Left
Behind” initiative, which increased Federal spending in education also failed, as schools
struggled to meet annual growth and performance goals (InfoBase Learning 14).
Importance of Funding and Unfairness of Cuts
Federal funding is very important in public schools. The additional funds provided by
the Federal government allows public schools to provide additional services to their student
body. For example, they are able to provide extra-curricular activities without charging them
an extra fee. The importance of extra-curricular activities has been reinforced by decades of
research. Evidence shows that children attain their intelligence through different channels and
avenues. In this regard, they are more likely to succeed in a school that offers a “wellrounded curriculum” (Borosage 2) In the absence of federal funding, most public schools are
forced to either charge extra fees for maintaining their various co-curricular programs, such
as arts and music, or terminate them completely. For example, a majority of elementary
schools located in New York have made the decision to terminate music, arts and physical
education. In this regard, federal funding allows public schools to meet the diverse needs of
their students.
The importance of federal funding is also reinforced further by the underlying reasons
that drive budget cuts. While federal funding is facing significant cuts, the money is being
redirected to private contractors. These contractors are assigned the task of preparing tests,
which will then be used to evaluate the performance of the students (Borosage 2). In the
absence of sufficient funds, these students are more likely to experience reduced
Surname 8
performance. The funds are also being redirected to vouchers and other programs such as tax
credits to private and charter schools. This leaves a significant number of students at a
disadvantage, further promoting education inequality.
Limiting School Funding
To offer support to their claims of limiting Federal funding, opponents often cite the
negative impact increased funding has on student-teacher ratios. Data shows that the number
of public school employees has increased significantly, following the increase in Federal
funds (McCluskey, “School Funding” 2). Prior to the Federal government’s involvement in
education, the ratio were almost halved. At the same time, critics claim that there is a need for
public schools to check their spending. Schools are spending more money without any
noticeable results because the Federal government is providing the funds. These funds need
to be rerouted to more beneficial sectors and schools need to check their spending habits.
Furthermore, Federal funding tends to have a negative effect on taxes. In places such as
Kansas, the amount of money payable as property tax was doubled to fund government’s
contribution to public schools (Bethell 3).
Conclusion
The Federal government’s decision to fund public education has generated
controversy. On one hand, proponents consider this to be beneficial as it improves education
quality, student performance and promoted equality. Liz King, the Director of Education
Policy at Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and Human Rights considered the Federal
government to be the only hope vulnerable children have (InfoBase Learning 21). Critics,
affirm that Federal funding does not improve the education system. In fact, it only adds more
burden on tax-payers, unsettles student-teacher ratios and increases the schools’ spending
with no justifiable results. The current Education Secretary, DeVos, opposes the increased
involvement of the Federal government. According to her, local governments are well aware
Surname 9
of the situations in their local schools and are better suited to deal with them (InfoBase
Learning 20).
While both sides of the argument make valid claims, Federal funding should not be
cut. Instead, steps should be taken to separate funding from government-imposed standards.
More focus should be placed on student growth instead of performance as it is a more reliable
measure of student progress and achievement (Duncan 6). In fact, tying funding to standards
reduces the overall level of accountability, as schools falsify results to continue receiving
Federal funds (McCluskey, “School Funding" 3; InfoBase Learning 14). It also has the
capacity to reduce the overall performance of the students. At the same time, schools should
be monitored to ensure funds are spent in a more accountable manner.
Funds should not be cut, instead, they should be used as a source of incentive, in the
same way the Race to the Top initiative is being implemented. If the United States is to reap
the positive rewards of investing in education, then it should not cut Federal funding of public
schools.
Surname 10
Works Cited
Bethell, Tom. Increased Spending Has Not Improved Education. The Federal Budget, 2010.
Borosage, Robert L. Federal Spending on Education Should Not be cut. Education, 2014.
Duncan, Arne. Increased School Funding Improves Student Performance and Quality of
Education. School Funding, 2012.
InfoBase Learning. National Debate Topic 2017-18: Education Reform: Resolved: The
United States Federal Government Should Substantially Increase its Funding and/or
Regulation of Elementary and/or Secondary Education in the United States. Issues &
Controversies, July 2017.
McCluskey, Neal. School Funding Should not be tied to Establishing National Standards.
School Funding, 2012.
McCluskey, Neal. Federal Spending on Education Should be cut. Education, 2014.