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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
Kids need to be able to get a job in life so they need to have good education they need to talk with the community
.They need the teachers of the world to come and teach what the teachers have learnt
from the knowledge there teachers have taught them
and they need to teach to someone else which has a chain
Sucks money from schools who need it. Does not take into account a large immigrant influx in some areas. Colleges make admissions decisions based on many factors. SATs and ACTs , in general, are playing a lesser role while, in the K-12 system, standardized testing is playing a larger role. The "bonuses" promote cheating. The children I know are very stressed out by them. It takes time away from developing important skills and traits such as leadership skills, creativity, ability to collaborate, etc. The land of opportunity: where the quality of your education is determined by your zip code.
If the government continues to give money to lower class schools and higher class schools can't get more money then eventually both groups will meet in the middle of mediocrity. If you want to give lower class schools more money then there should be a hold so that the school can only spend said money on things that will fuel learning, not new buildings and not new computers.
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.
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!
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 are
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are a lot of good smart students that are at the poorer schools. Some people can not help what their social class is, but they still need help to better themselves. Since the government does not help them out they are the ones that get to suffer. Since the poor schools don't get sufficient money they get poorer education. What if for some reason you lost your job and could not find another one so your social class dropped down to poor, is it fair that your children will no longer get the same education?
Alright, the reason why education is not at its best is because there isn't enough money going to the schools that need it. It's a simple thing to, if we give more money to schools that aren't up to the peoples expectations, they can buy more books, be able to pay/ hire more teachers, afford more educational aid programs that can boost our childrens' learning abilities, (such as compass learning)
and, not to mention school psychologists that can help children with ADD and Autism. Plus, we could still give a lot of money to great schools, but give more to the schools that need it.
If a school has the teaching ability and curriculum to allow for higher test scores and higher academically achieving students, then it's running on a sound system that should not need much more funding. But, if a school is yielding lower academically achieving students, then that school clearly needs more financial assistance in order to provide greater teaching methods, supplies, and curriculum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.