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: w00tboycomicI do think the government should provide additional funding to schools with higher academically achieving students, because it will not only reward the schools who are doing a great job, but it will inspire other schools to push their students harder.
I think that schools who are doing a great job educating their students should receive additional funding so that they can continue to improve the education process. I also think students who are achieving academically should be rewarded for their hard work because we need smarter, higher achieving people to enter our workforce. I believe this type of incentive program will reinforce good teaching practices in the schools who are doing well and it will inspire other schools to strive for greatness.
Posted by: VagueWiley89Funding 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: babydoll93We 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: 5h4DevI agree that the government should provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students to boost them up to do even better.
I agree that greater funding of schools with higher academically achieving students would be of great benefit. Such funding could be used by the schools to provide additional facilities and rewards to brighter students so that they are charged up to do even better. This will also boost other students to perform well and achieve those rewards. Also, the money could be given as scholarships for higher studies to those students who are intelligent but financially weak.
Posted by: 54r4h5BalduIf America wants to compete with the world, yes
The best and brightest students are the ones who will change America, and they need the most money. Pouring money to a dumb school will do nothing. It will only waste the talents of the people who will do something, given the chance. America needs to stop aiding mediocrity and grow a pair.
Posted by: ruchika.darapaneniThe 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: N34rIyGaIvNo, the government should not provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students.
I understand that students with higher academic scores deserve appreciation, but giving their schools more funding is kind of like saying you want the other students to have no chance at succeeding. I think there should be an equal opportunity for all students, not just those with high grades.
Posted by: LorenaHIt is a further investment in the best performing students and schools.
In addition to investing in high performers, it gives a goal for schools and students who are under performing. The current philosophy of giving below average schools extra funds sends the wrong message. In a capitalist society we reward high performance, not apathy. Once the school achieves the minimum required, the money dries up and there is no more incentive to go the extra mile.
Posted by: AnonymousThe indivual state government should distribute more money to the public education system!
Schools all over America are in budget cuts! Why? Because the taxes the government recieves aren't being distributed enough to schools. This is not good! We have the best education system in the whole entire world yet we can't even help schools out to do better?! The government should give schools more money!
Posted by: AnonymousYes
I do think the government should provide additional funding to schools with higher academically achieving students, because it will not only reward the schools who are doing a great job, but it will inspire other schools to push their students harder.
I think that schools who are doing a great job educating their students should receive additional funding so that they can continue to improve the education process. I also think students who are achieving academically should be rewarded for their hard work because we need smarter, higher achieving people to enter our workforce. I believe this type of incentive program will reinforce good teaching practices in the schools who arePosted by: AnonymousYes, providing funds for schools with higher-achieving students is an incentive for bettering all schools.
American schools are lagging behind. While assistance for special needs students is just, it is still expensive. Schools demonstrating their excellence through high-achieving students should be rewarded. It provides an incentive for good teaching and solid administration.
Posted by: baltuteI support greater funding to schools that harbor smarter students, this will act as an incentive for other schools, education will be given greater importance.
If the government can provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students, chances are that other schools, who may not be doing so well with their group of students, will become more aggressive in trying to meet the academic requirements they may need to provide the same benefits for themselves. If they change their curriculum, and try to better educate their students, the efforts may actually pay off. Education will become serious business for those who might have taken things lightly and there should be presentations given to make clear cuts on how far a person can get with an education versus those who do not. This will help better society as it grows together. If education is seen in the light of competition, it may have a greater chance in promoting itself.
Posted by: MyHier
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: FairMckinley99Focus on the needs of the school.
If we give extra funding to schools that already have programs that are working, the gap will continue to grow between them and schools that don't have enough money to properly educate their students. We should keep the successful schools as they are, and focus on the unsuccessful schools. Give them more money so they can do what the successful schools are doing.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment should not provide more funding to schools with higher achieving students - just the opposite.
Government should not provide more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students. While such schools should be rewarded for their efforts in some manner, the schools that achieve less should be entitled to the resources to enable learning more consistently. Giving more money to already good schools only excludes a wider portion of students from obtaining a good education.
Posted by: ThegaXenAll schools need more funding
No matter what type of school, all school need more funding. We should not just focus on highly performing schools. It is a well known fact that a high performing school has students who come from upper middle class to high class and both parents are educated. Low performing school are in lower class neighborhoods where both parents work or they are single parent households, where the parents are not well educated. Teachers are responsible for the education and the United States' future, but we are the lowest paid and spend most of our pay in buying supplies for the students.
Posted by: AnonymousI do not believe that more funds should be given to higher academically achieving schools because in public education, I believe all students should be treated equally.
I do not think it is fair to treat academically under achieving schools any differently than higher academically achieving ones. The students in the lower achieving schools obviously need more help than the higher achieving ones. Since public funds are involved in supporting our public schools, I believe all schools should be treated equally when tax funds are distributed.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyI disapprove of providing additional monies for higher-achieving students because it puts other schools at a disadvantage.
On the one hand, it is arguable that the schools with the more poorly-performing students are the ones that need the most help. On the other hand, and this, I think, is the more pertinent issue: grades are merely statistics; they are not at all a reflection of retained learning. Giving so much emphasis to on-paper performance encourages regurgitation. Anybody can remember a fact long enough to write it on a test; this is easy, and not education.
Posted by: B4ryJavaNo, because all schools should be allowed equal amounts of resources to teach students.
Giving more funds to schools with a higher level of achievement will only contribute more to the achievement gap, especially in low-income areas where resources are limited and many minorities attend school. But I also don't know if giving more money to schools will necessarily solve the problem of high academically achieving students at the school. But it will be a step towards improvement and growth.
Posted by: AnonymousNo it justifies letting down the poor schools (mostly ethnic students.)
Most schools that are failing are poor schools that have mostly Blacks, Hispanics, and other races. Why deny those schools funding? I've been to those schools, and now I am in college trying to catch up having to compete with the students that could afford better living, education, and resources.
Posted by: AnonymousProviding 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 BassNo, 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: TedieDelightI 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: R4ffJoIIyNo, 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: SecondNoel50Throwing 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: R34d3HomeyNo
The quality of the classrooms or the school supplies isn't the problem, it’s the quality of the teaching. The big problem with today’s schools is that the teachers are simply not teaching properly, thus not supplying good education. Yes, the actual ‘standard’ quality of teaching cannot be determined, but the quality of teaching required for students to get jobs can. According to some long time principals, the test scores have been decreasing on their tests over the years, even with more funding.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, 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: AverageHoward86How 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 schoolPosted by: AnonymousEquality in schools
All schools should have the same education and materials. Some schools don't have activities,materials,and electronics. Richer schools have supply's then what poorer schools have. I think that all k-12 schools around the state have the same. Why? Because they are learning the same thing.They don't need better materials they can have all the same materials.
Posted by: AnonymousThe money should go where it's needed.
If a school turns out academically superior students, then that school is doing something right. And, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. It is important for that school not to falter and to keep doing what they are doing. They deserve their recognition and support. But, in today's world there's hardly enough to go around for everyone. So, needless to say, attention needs to be paid to schools whose students are struggling. Education should be more about educating than competing. And, in a country where no child is to be left behind, the money would serve a more fulfilling purpose by putting it where it is needed most - in the 'broken' schools.
Posted by: MohaI0v35Helping the successful and abandoning the struggling?
Children with bad education need funding too. My elementary got bad funding and it set me onto a bad road. My high school didn't have enough money to have new textbooks or even enough chairs. From the few of us who graduated, we were not well prepared for college. Government needs to turn those schools around to help next generations be better off.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, 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_BairdI 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