These schools need to be held accountable. There needs to be something for them to work towards and be rewarded for. Just as if you have two different employees at work. The one who works the hardest and achieves the most is the one that is going to get paid more. If the government just hands out money (our tax dollars) to any and all schools equally there would not be any incentive for schools to get better. Those schools who work the hardest should be rewarded for their work.
The current model of education as a means has clearly failed. Instead of producing a few highly qualified students, we produce many poor to mediocre students. Perhaps it is time for some educational triage, redirecting our resources not at the furthest behind, but toward those who are most likely to benefit from them.
We need to provide funding to keep our highest achievers at the top. This should be determined by not only schools performance overall, but by individual students. If there is a group of excelling students that happen to be at an average school, these students should have the programs necessary to advance them. If a school has an overall outstanding record, than it should be rewarded.
I believe that schools with higher academically achieving students than those of lower ones should be provided more funding for. This is because the students in the higher range deserve much more then students who do not come to school and make the school itself lag behind. The students should be able to get more freebies due to their ranks around the US, which the funding could provide for, and also the funding could be used to further develop more programs and afterschool programs to make the school an even better learning environment.
I think that schools should have fundraising because the school needs money for upcoming events and that the school can but stuff for the students at the schools so that the students won't complain about what they already have in their schools. So i think the schools should get money.
This would only drive a larger distance between urban and suburban schools, as well as rich and poor districts. Already wealthier towns benefit more because they have the resources outside of school to help them succeed in areas they may struggle. Teachers will begin flocking to the schools that are funded more, and the already struggling schools will keep falling.
I go to a higher performing school in a poor area. We recently had a new teacher who during the lesson pointed out how poor we are. There is one printer/photocopier for all teachers in the school, and there isnt enough money to buy as much ink as we need. If we can't afford basic things like handouts how will students with great potential who WANT to learn be able to. Yet in other less academically achieving schools they have lots of money and it's being wasted on oppurtunites for children who don't want them.
I agree with this because they need more money in order to be more smarter. If they get reward they will be smart and more good scores on tests which makes america smarter as a hole. People should agree with this because it is very important and a big issue.
The schools in higher income districts often perform better than those in lower income areas. To increase the funding for the rich seems to be just another way to discriminate against the poor. Schools in poor districts need greater funding to help the students improve their scores. Because taxes are often a source of supplementing the school budget, these areas often fall short of their higher income counterparts
Students who perform higher than most should be given more funding. Would you rather put the future in the hands of someone you know would do well or just another mediocre kid? Exactly. I know everyone's gonna argue the equal opportunity thing. Say everyone starts off on the same page. Those who excel, get to do more and learn more. I can't tell you how many times my learning has been put on hold because the teacher has to deal with some kids who act like idiots. I mean, these kids don't even TRY!! It's different if they WANT to do well but when they don't want to do anything but give the teacher sass and sag their pants, IT HINDERS THE LEARNING OF THE OTHER STUDENTS! Wake up, America!
The schools in higher income districts often perform better than those in lower income areas. To increase the funding for the rich seems to be just another way to discriminate against the poor. Schools in poor districts need greater funding to help the students improve their scores. Because taxes are often a source of supplementing the school budget, these areas often fall short of their higher income counterparts.
The government should fund schools equally. Often, it is the poorer performing schools that are in need of the most funds. While higher academically achieving schools should be recognized, by providing them with the most funding, it would be a mistake.
No, the government should not provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students, because it is unfair to disadvantage the other students. When a school is not reaching their target for student success, the government should put more money into those schools for students to have supplementary educational services, such as tutoring.
The government should not provide more money to schools with higher achieving schools. If any schools need more money, it is the ones who have failed to produce higher achieving students. If the government rewards success, it, by definition, punishes failure. Punishing failing schools by withholding funds will only make them fail harder. Such a policy will contribute to the further stratification of the schools in this country, and lead to incredibly inequitable results for our youth.
Many smart students do not do well on standardized tests and that government would not give their school more funding due to that. Also, schools with lower performing students should receive more funding as many of them are in low-income areas that need more help. It should be a priority to get the lower schools up, while still maintaining the higher schools.
Government funding should not go to schools with higher academically achieving students. These schools and pupils are clearly receiving what they need in order to succeed. The funding should instead go to places where it is needed, and where it could improve the abilities of students. Money could go to overcrowded classrooms, giving students a chance to get the help that they may need.
Having the government give extra funds to schools for doing well academically forces the hard work onto the children, and gives the school an incentive to abandon struggling students to keep their records high. Not only would such a plan put below-average students at risk of being discriminated against by school districts, the money has to come from somewhere as well. The money given as bonuses to schools doing well would have most likely come from another part of the public school budget. This means that every other school gets less money, just so that a school with smart children gets even more.
No, instead it boosts the school, making other "smart" students to flock to one school, unbalancing test results and grades.
Funding schools does not specifically "boost" the students, I mean, what kind of students work hard to improve a school thats already good?
Sure, funds should be given to Individual students, but I think schools with bad education needs to be fixed more than ever.
Electives should be funded differently, and should be funded by the # of participation instead of the quality of the school
A school that is achieving high academic standards is not necessarily one with the most funds. Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve the problem. School funding needs to be concentrated on hiring more teachers to lower class sizes. This way, students will get more individual attention. Learning is complicated and children are not motivated by money. School funds should be allotted based on the size of the school.
It is a basic understanding throughout the world that in the United States poor families achieve academically far less than well off families.