S. DOE 2009). Advantages of receiving funding at the state level are increased localization and attention to differences in districts (U.S. DOE 2009). Disadvantages, however, are that the state is subject to even more extreme budgetary and taxation fluctuations, leading to uncertain funding year-to-year (Galvin & Robbins 2000).
Supplementing vs. Supplanting
One of the major requirements of both federal and much state funding is that the dollars obtained through these sources must supplement existing programs and funding and cannot simply supplant them (UD DOE 2009; NCLB 2002). A simplified hypothetical example provides what is perhaps the best illustration of this policy. Assume that federal funds are obtained for the purposes of training teachers, but the school and/or district that is receiving the federal funding perceives a much greater need to obtain additional classroom space. The district/school is not permitted to reduce its current spending on teacher training based on the receipt of federal funds, and to sue that money to procure extra classroom space. This would, in effect, mean that federal funding for teach training supplanted -- that is, replaced -- local funding for the same project, rather that supplementing -- adding to -- the already available funding in order make the program better.
The implications of this standard are fairly evident, and serve to exacerbate the previously mentioned disadvantages of federal funding. In addition to the strict requirements set for the allocation and use of federal funds in public schools, the schools must also carefully monitor any shifts in their own spending habits, and are not supposed to allow federal funding to affect their overall budget allocations. This means that for programs going under-funded at the local level and for which federal dollars are not available, there is little to be done. If schools or districts are thought to be inappropriately using federal finds by supplanting rather than supplementing their own funding efforts, there are funding consequences (U.S. DOE 2009; NCLB 2002). This makes...
NCLB funding of specific institutions, especially, is largely dependent on the ages of students in proportion to state and federal demographic levels, as well as on the total school population and the average income level of the families in attendance at each school (NCLB 2002). A change in school population could lead to increased or drastically reduced funding, depending on how the change affects the overall demographic and economic background of the student population. Planning for these changes is highly dependent on individual localities, as each district and community faces unique challenges when these issues arise. Such changes do provide an opportunity for the reallocation of resources based on demographic and economic factors that could lead to a more advantageous use of federal and state aid, however, avoiding certain issues of supplanting.
Conclusion
If money for schools were simply less scarce, the issues of funding would be greatly simplified. This would not solve all problems, however, and the complications of funding should lead to more efficient spending, at the very least.
References
Galvin, P. & Robins, H. (2000). "State education finance: Utah." Accessed 11 October 2009. http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/utah.pdf
Morris, a. (2009). "No Child Left Behind Funding Gets Big Increase in House Stimulus Bill." Accessed 11 October 2009. http://www.civilrights.org/archives/2009/02/045-nclb-funding.html
NCLB. (2002). Accessed 11 October 2009. http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
US Dept. Of Education. (2009). Accessed 11 October 2009. http://www.ed.gov/index.jhtml?src=a
