Comparison of state funding strategies - Essay Example

Comparison of Funding Strategies Comparison of Funding Strategies funding has always been necessary in the successful running of agencies and bodies that come under the jurisdiction of state authorities, including educational institutions. Across different states, different state funding strategies are used with the aim of maximizing the benefits that will come from such finding. In the state of Texas, a recent state funding scheme was introduced for the purpose of increasing the amount of money spent on every student.

To achieve this, there is no single modality that is used by the state in funding educational institutions or students. Rather, three major modalities are implemented. These are work-study, loans, and grant. The benefit is that it expands the number of beneficiaries as it addresses different areas of educational funding needs. On a yearly basis, an amount of $5.35 billion is said to be spent in this regard. The new scheme comes to replace what was known as Robin Hood, and emerges with the benefit of allowing for better equitability, less divisiveness and better funding, all of which can be said to be the strength of the new scheme.

Figure 1 below shows how different students and institutions have made use of the funding scheme.Figure 1. Spending modality in Texas. Reprinted from Higher Education Coordinating Board, 2007. Retrieved from Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/1552.pdf.Unlike Texas where the funding scheme is directly focused on the student spending to the tune of $5.35 billion, the scheme in New York looks more into the generation and issuance of grants to educational institutions.

What this means is that even though this money is non-repayable, it must be contested for by interested educational institutions through grant writing (NYSED, 2014). Here, the strength that can be seen of the state funding scheme used in New York is that it allows for competitiveness among institutions, where more deserving institutions that can justify their course through the grant writing receive more. Comparing this to what prevails in Texas, however, a major loophole can be found when it comes to equitable distribution of the national cake.

This is because through no fault of their own, there will be students who will be denied necessary state funding since their institutions cannot convince state authorities as to why their institutions should receive grants. It must be noted that students have both direct and indirect benefits from state funds, including the savings made by parents on the payment of fees.Alabama, on the other hand, has a very unique state funding scheme that is meant purposely for college students (Alabama Commission on Higher Education, 2013).

Unlike the first two strategies discussed, this one requires students to apply for funding by themselves. The strength is that students are able to seek for funds that meet their personal needs. This makes the scheme of Alabama more student-centered. Similar to the Texas scheme, the Alabama scheme is open to almost every kind of student, including those who are able and those who are needy students. In terms of the portion of funds received, the Alabama funding scheme can be said to be one of the highest in terms of the amount of money spent on students.

ReferencesAlabama Commission on Higher Education. (2013). Student assistance. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.ache.alabama.gov/Content/Departments/StudentAsst/StudentAsst.aspx.NYSED. (2014). NYSED grants finance. Retrieved October 2, 2014 from http://www.oms.nysed.gov/cafe/.