State and federal funding advantages and disadvantages for public schools

School Funding

The Advantages, Disadvantages, and Complications of State and Federal Aid

There is an old saying that basically posits what a nice change it would be if schools had all the money they needed, and the military had to hold bake sales to buy bombs. Regardless of what this says about the political and economic situation currently facing the nation and the world, this saying also illuminates an indisputable truism regarding funding for public schools: there is never enough of it. In many communities, repetitive bond measures and proposed property tax increases have become the norm as individual districts attempt to secure enough funding to maintain basic operations, while these communities are still facing school closures, increased class sizes, and other common problems that public schools have faced with near-constancy since the days of Horace Mann.

A great deal of funding for public schools is generally still raised and allocated at the district level, but other funding sources other than bake sales still exits. State and federal funding projects have changed considerably in the economic turmoil and the resultant recovery plans that so disrupted American society over the past two years, while other programs and requirements have stayed in place despite their possible inappropriateness for current economic and demographic situations, not to mention educational goals and methods. There are marked advantages and disadvantages to receiving federal funds, as well as certain limitations to their procurement and use, and the same can be said of state funding. Both sources need t be understood for effective fund sourcing.

Federal Funding Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages to federal funding are fairly self-evident. The No Child Left Behind Act, which was passed in 2002 as an attempt to guarantee a proper education for the nation's children, has been criticized for sever under-funding on the part of the federal government since the program and legislation's inception (Morris 2009). The economic stimulus package passed earlier this year did much to change this, allocating anther $140 billion to various portions of the program, including twenty-billion dollars for general repairs, renovation, and construction of primary and secondary schools, and twelve billion dollars to go to schools with the highest concentration of low-income students (Morris 2009). The advantages of obtaining federal funding lie in the fact that the federal government is the funding source with the deepest pockets, and therefore capable of the greatest largesse.

Of course, some of the disadvantages of federal funding also become apparent with only a cursory examination of the NCLB legislation and funding practices. Even the recent and enormous increases in funding do not make up for the shortfalls in the budget, making it difficult for many schools to meet the requirements to obtain increased funding through the NCLB legislation (Morris 209). These requirements make up the largest disadvantage to receiving federal funding; in cases where inadequate funds have been appropriated to carry out the full provisions of the ACT (i.e. every year since its inception), schools that fail to meet minimum standards receive reduced or no funding (NCLB 2002).

The No Child Left Behind Act lays out certain provisions that determine how money must be allocated at both the state and local levels, and funds received through one part of the legislation must be put to highly specific uses, often for programs and/or standards that are not necessarily needed or agreed upon in local communities or educational institutions (NCLB 2002; Morris 2009). One of the greatest disadvantages to receiving federal funding for schools, then, is the degree of conformity required to continue receiving such funding, which can be detrimental to the efficacy of educational programs and the institutions receiving the funds. The alternative, however, leaves many schools without the means to provide basic elements of education, leaving a difficult choice.

State Funding

State funding of public schools varies greatly from state to state, and the issue is therefore difficult to address in a comprehensive manner. Most states have provisions somewhat similar to that of the NCLB, where funding to districts and specific institutions is specifically allocated and comes with certain requirements (Galvin & Robins 2000; U.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).

Demographic Changes and Funding Effects

Given the degree of specificity in allocation of both federal and state funding, as well as the volatility of funding availability especially at the local level, the effects of local demographic changes on the funding of public schools can be huge. 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.