Streams for Education within the US - Article Example

?The process and funding streams for education within the United s are far more complex than they are in other parts of the world. What is meantby this is the fact that within the United States, local, state, and federal money is ultimately responsible for providing a standardized level of education within the current system. Conversely, elsewhere throughout the world, funding for secondary education (K – 12) is generally considered the onus of the central government; therefore this entity is responsible for providing the lion’s share of funding for such a process. By comparison, the United States does not rely on the federal government for the majority of the funding utilize within education. In order to understand this to a more effective and complete degree, the following analysis will discuss the means through which the public school system within the United States experiences what is known as fiscall limitation with regards to the provision of local education. This limitation necessarily refers to the way in which secondary education within the United States is overly reliant upon regional funding; thereby evoking a situation in which disparity is more readily reflected within the educational system as compared to how it would be in a situation in which the federal government itself was responsible for funding the process (Clemings, 2006). Through such analysis, it is the hope of this author that the reader will gain a more informed understanding of how the educational system work in the United States, what determinant factors constrain it, and how improvements with regards to the shortcomings that have been previously mentioned might be affected within the future. The particular piece in question first references the fact that a case study which will be performed is concentric upon the state of California. Naturally, this choice of tests case analysis is especially important and useful due to the fact that California is the largest state by population and represents perhaps the greatest level of regional diversity that any state within the system has to offer. As such, the article itself increases the level of believability and relevance due to the fact that it has chosen to analyze the most diverse and populous state as a means of proving the fact that regional and state funding alone is ultimately a limitation to the way through which education can be provided to the end student (Wassmer & Fisher, 1996). Accordingly, the first main argument that is made is with regards to the limitations upon maximum and minimum millage rates with regards to property taxes (Winkler, 2009). Such an in-depth primary approach has to do with the fact that the United States education system disproportionately targets as one of its main funding streams property taxes. In such a way, the authors reference the fact that disparity is innate within the system due to the fact that income from property taxes is a direct means through which the poorest regions will have inordinately less funding to allocate as compared to the richer regions. Although the casual observer might be quick to point out that millage rates within the poorest regions merely be increased as a way of generating further revenue for the school systems, this does not reflect a level of fairness and ultimately punishes the poorest property holders within a given region (Ellis, 1976). Similarly, the authors target the fact that the poorer regions within California, the state in question, reflect a greatly increased percentage of renters as compared to other regions throughout the state. The increased percentage of renting families means that this funding stream ultimately begins to dry up and disappear with respect to an ever increasing percentage of poverty that may be exhibited. Further focusing upon the issue of property tax, the authors discuss the minimum and maximum limits on the property tax rate with respect to what is deemed as a “per pupil limit” many individuals outside the education system are wholly unaware of the fact that such limits exist (Fethke, 2006). Naturally, with respect to the revenue that a more economically prosperous region might be able to collect, the per-pupil revenue limit is not an issue of concern. This is of course due to the fact that funding streams can be leveraged from the state and federal level to overcome and ameliorate any shortcomings that might be represented within the system (Steketee, 2004). Comparatively, those school systems within economically depressed regions are unable match the disparity that exists between the money that is able to be raised through increases in property millage rates and the money which is required to continue the functional education process. The way through which the situation is responded to, as the authors note, is that school districts that are located within economically depressed regions invariably began to set limits upon student expenditure known as “per-pupil operating expenditure limits” (Nebors, 2010). This is not to say that school districts within more wealthy regions do not abide by the same limitations. Instead, the fact of the matter is that both the economically depressed school districts and economically advantaged school districts set these limits based upon the level of money on hand (Lorensby, 2012). However, the authors note that the shortcoming with regards to the economically depressed region is the fact that the per pupil expenditure limit is inordinately low and ultimately reduces the level and extent to which effective education can be achieved. In such a way, the analysis that was performed within the article brings the reader full circle to understand why the United States public education system is ultimately biased and unfair with respect to the more economically depressed regions due to its overreliance upon regional funding/millage rates as a way of providing the key services that are required to educate the nation’s youth (Reschovsky, 1994). The physical limitations that are reflected within such a situation is necessarily one in which each and every funding stream available is leverage to its fullest extent as a means of the provision of education. Naturally, this does not allow for any level of planning and/or future. This with regards to changes in technology and requirements of a regional, state, and federal level that may be implemented and require funding as a means of affecting (Jennings, 2011). The article itself stops short of saying that the system is purposefully biased with regards to the funding streams which is been analyzed. However, the reader comes away with an understanding for why a radical improvement within education system has not yet been affected. As long as funding streams are leveraged from a multitude of different sources, each dependent upon economic factors within a given region, state, or federal economy, the overall level through which a standardized level of education can be affected is minimal. Accordingly, it comes as little surprise that economies throughout the world prefer a model through which the federal government is wholly responsible for funding the educational process. Yet, due to the unique historical and sociological impact for how the United States came to be populated and the understanding of personal property and land, the current system has evolved to reflect a level of disparity that is innate within the very nature of the system. In this way, seeking to alter the way that school funding is accrued would necessarily diminish local and regional funding levels that are oftentimes associated with such property taxes; thereby making such a change unlikely to say the least. With that being said, it is the understanding of this author that a far more reasonable approach would be to provide some type of federal mandate through which millage rates are limited with regards to the overall percentage that they can account for resources in education. References Clemings, RC. (2006). Education & Careers, 80(5), 10. Ellis, M. (1976). Equity in Financing Primary and Secondary Education: A Midwestern Example. American Journal Of Economics & Sociology, 35(2), 175-189. Fethke, G. (2006). SUBSIDY AND TUITION POLICIES IN PUBLIC EDUCATION. Economic Inquiry, 44(4), 644-655. doi:10.1093/ei/cb1012 JENNINGS, J. (2011). Get the Federal Government Out of Education?. Education Digest, 77(4), 55-62. Lorensby, T. (2012)Financial Briefs. Educational Marketer, 35(16), 8. Nebors, M. (2010). POVERTY IN U.S. METROPOLITAN AREAS: WHAT ARE THE KEY DETERMINANTS AND WHAT IS THE ROLE OF LOCAL FISCAL STRUCTURE?. Public Finance & Management, 10(3), 411-441. Reschovsky, A. (1994). FISCAL EQUALIZATION AND SCHOOL FINANCE. National Tax Journal, 47(1), 185-197. Steketee, A. M. (2004). For-Profit Education Service Providers in Primary and Secondary Schooling: The Drive For and Consequences of Global Expansion. Indiana Journal Of Global Legal Studies, 11(2), 171-203. Wassmer, R. W., & Fisher, R. C. (1996). An Evaluation of the Recent Move to Centralize the Finance of Public Schools in Michigan. Public Budgeting & Finance, 16(3), 90-112. Winkler, D. R. (2009). FISCAL LIMITATIONS IN THE PROVISION OF LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES: THE CASE OF EDUCATION.National Tax Journal, 32(2), 329-342. Read More