 |
| Education
Priorities and Finance |
 |
In the modern world education is of a paramount importance.
In fact, education is important not only for individuals but
for the whole society and state as well because it creates
the basis of the national intellectual potential and defines
the future of the nation. At the same time, modern education
faces a number of problems, among which equity and effective
funding of education are probably the major ones.
It should be pointed out that nowadays practically all states
and districts are particularly concerned about the equity
of education, wide access and equal opportunities to all students
to receive possibly better education. In the result of such
a policy a variety of programs were developed. For instance,
there are programs that support full funding for the parent
education programs, the at-risk preschool programs and all
day kindergartens to students begin school ready to learn.
Culturally diverse communities develop their budgets taking
into consideration the increasing at-risk and bilingual weighting
factors and other strategies in order to give more time and
support to students who are not meeting grade level outcomes.
At the same time, the cases, when there is additional support
and full funding for the cost of special education services
for children with exceptional needs through special school
finance, formulas are not rare though often they provoke discussions
as for reasonability of such funding and clearness and objectivity
of such finance formulas.
Nonetheless, it is strategically important to provide schools
with sufficient funding in order to make education really
accessible and equal, though, it is worthy of mention that
special programs and initiatives affect dramatically local
district budgets and often education becomes a kind of burden
for the budget. In this respect, it is necessary to underline
that the problem of effective use of financial funds is even
more important and serious than the problem of funding proper.
Unlike the local district budget, the funding on the state
level is quite different. In this respect, it is necessary
to point out that one of the primary concerns of the state
budget is funding public schools which are a kind of priority.
Moreover, often general support for public schools reflects
level funding. It is also noteworthy that, as a rule, a state
budget is less focused on special programs and initiatives
compared to local district budget though it is traditionally
accepted that the financial aid to local districts is essential
from the part of the state in order to increase the effectiveness
of the local district budgets, which, as it has already been
mentioned above, are not always able to afford the funding
of all programs.
Nonetheless, there are also certain similarities between state
and local district budgets since both pay attention to the
salary of educators and traditionally, on both levels specialists
attempt to raise funds in order to constantly increase salaries
of educators and financially motivate their work.
At the same time, it should be said that state budgets are
less flexible compared to the local district budgets. This
is why the realization of some special programs targeting
at the elimination of inequality is more difficult for state
budgets than to local district ones. Moreover, the latter
can better realize the actual need of the community and use
funds more effectively than state budgets though, even on
the local level, the use of funds is not perfect.
As for the federal level, the funding of education is getting
even more complicated and, probably, less effective. At the
same time, the distinguishable feature of the federal funding
of education is the trend to make education more accessible
and less costly for possibly larger number of people. No wonder
that there are a variety of programs and strategies which
target at the minimization of costs of education, especially
for deprived classes, including representatives of lower classes.
As a result, such programs as a well-known presidential initiative
No Child Left Behind are developing.
At the same time, often the main priority of such programs
is public education and public schools. In this respect, it
is possible to trace the same trends in the state budget,
but the difference is that on the federal level there is even
less contact with the local communities and, what is more,
there is practically no effective programs that really targets
at gifted students, for instance. In actuality, the federal
funding of education is focused on masses of students, regardless
their actual needs, unlike local district budgets which are
more conscious of the needs of local communities.
As a result, the modern education is characterized by quite
a paradoxical situation when the funding increases but, on
the federal level, it is focused on public education at large
and does not take into consideration the needs of local communities.
In stark contrast, on the level of local district budgets
funding may be more flexible and correspond to the actual
needs of the local community but, unfortunately, the local
district budget cannot afford all special programs and initiatives
they develop. In such a situation, the state funding becomes
a kind of mediator between local districts that use funding
more effectively but often lack funds and federal authorities,
which have funds but use them not very effectively.
Bibliography:
1. www.tcdsb.org
2. www.nysed.gov
3. www.ed.gov |
|
