School Funding the Advantages, Disadvantages,

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).

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 the strings that are attached to federal funding both more substantial and more tightly held.