Amazon.com Widgets

Should the government provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students?

  • The government should provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students.

    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.

    Posted by: w00tboycomic
  • We should do all we can to nurture high achievement.

    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.

    Posted by: 5h4Dev
  • Funding should be provided for special programs for high achieving schools and students.

    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.

    Posted by: babydoll93
  • The government should provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students due to the fact that the students would be the ones keeping the US on its feet by working in large companies.

    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.

    Posted by: N34rIyGaIv
  • Schools need more money

    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

  • Not Necessarily The School, But The Students.

    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!

  • Schools are the future of the USA

    If the school's don't gain more funding capabilities the students who are our future may be less knowledgable and/or we are paying our taxes in order to operate all school's and we must control where our tax money goes. Also the money should be controlled by the people and we should make sure that the funds go to where it has to go and insure that they are spending it correctly

  • Competition between schools

    This will increase competition between schools and encourage kids to do better in school. Not only does it help in this way but also in the way that with more money, high achieving schools will do better and help fund the proper equipment needed for the kids that show interest.

  • Elitism is important

    It is important to support top performers because they play an important part in our society. They bring changes, progress, increase our standards of living. These people push the limits and produce new inventions which are important to sustain living in this world. It should had viewed as discrimination instead it should be seen as survival of the best. It is a part of nature and we cannot defy nature.

  • Supporting poor performing students

    I believe that the government should sponsor poor performing students and intelligent students equally because reason being students perform poorly it is because of the financial stress they have and their concern of where does the future lie for them if their parents can not pay for their fees. Further more looking at the employment rate is very low in this country and the once who have the jobs, don't use it to their best ability (e. G.) Our education system whereby teachers have the gut's to tell students that they are doing us a favour by teaching us and yet there are dedicated people who would like the children succeed in life.

  • I do not believe that the government should favor one school over another when funding.

    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.

    Posted by: FairMckinley99
  • No, the government should fund schools equally.

    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.

    Posted by: AverageHoward86
  • No, the government should not provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students, because it is unfair to disadvantage the other students.

    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.

    Posted by: SecondNoel50
  • Providing more funding to schools with higher achieving students will merely widen the gap.

    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.

    Posted by: A Bass
  • I oppose providing more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students because it bases funding off of test scores and not all students test well.

    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.

    Posted by: TMacias
  • No, because funding should instead go to schools that need help.

    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.

    Posted by: TedieDelight
  • No, the government funding should not be determined by the student's academic achievements, as it will lead to more pressure on the students to do well.

    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.

    Posted by: H_Baird
  • How does funding schools boost students?

    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

  • Throwing money at a problem doesn't solve anything.

    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.

    Posted by: R34d3Homey
  • I oppose extra funding to schools with higher academic student achievement because for the most part the students are from high economic backgrounds and can well afford to have their extra stimulus paid or by their parents.

    It is a basic understanding throughout the world that in the United States poor families achieve academically far less than well off families.

    Posted by: R4ffJoIIy

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.