Generating Funds in the New York City State Schools Essay

Value for money is not equal when it comes to education spending. Some dollars spent on education are more productive in some spheres than others. In other words, some education systems use their resources so well such that the levels of student's achievements realized with the same amount of spending are openly evident. All education stakeholders such as the community, school personnel, and policymakers play a pivotal role in ensuring that the finances meant for education serve the purpose intended. Although every stakeholder advocates for a framework that befits their perspectives, the reality is that the burden of footing public education squarely lies on taxpayers. This paper draws arguments analyzing the impacts of consolidated school districts within a state versus the option of privatizing various elements of public education in the New York City State.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The New York's State Department of Education (DoE) attracts the most significant share of the Country's education funding for its more than 1 (one) million students distributed on at least 1,800 schools (Anyon, 2014). Equality in funding schools in the New York City State has repeatedly been championed to govern and provide productive education foundation. Over the years, America's education system has deliberated over who is responsible for ensuring the adequate financial resources necessary to deliver quality education.

All education stakeholders, in particular; policymakers, educators, parents, and other taxpayers have for long engaged in debates about the appropriate school funding systems. The financial lawsuits filed in the State, have primarily focused on similar funding issues and providing adequate resources to meet education standards that wholly ensure students' goals are realized (Naclerio, 2017). The education policies litigated concerning state school funding and other guidance for educators and policymakers seek to address the educational needs of all students. The battle for equitable funding has realized fruits in that the spending gaps between the rich and poor districts in the State cannot be realized anymore. Incidents of student's achievements have been significant in high-poverty schools following equitable funding achievements.

Darling-Hammond (2015) researched on America's commitment to equity in education. The findings reveal that adequacy issues have for long been used to determine to fund for schools. Where schools are considered to be successful, the financiers look at the excelling schools and districts and assumes that the amount spent on the students in those schools or districts should be adequate for other students. However, some considerations in the form of cost-of-living and student's characteristics are put into account while funding education. On the other hand, professionals are involved in determining specific instructional and curricular components necessary to deliver the educational standards desired. Economists are then engaged to determine the budget of those components.

Any educational institution, whether public or private, face a major financial dilemma in defining adequacy, establishing priorities and weighing costs. It is quite difficult to determine the person who will bear and take responsibility for providing necessary educational resources. The measure of educational achievement is also another headache for policymakers and implementors. No particular description measures exactly what would be termed as adequate funding. The limited public and private resources constrain the criteria for determining an adequate education funding. The limited resources have rendered policymakers and institutions to consider seeking the most essential and sufficient funds for students to learn to complement what students should know and be able to do. Additionally, education policymakers have a duty to evaluate how public dollars are spent.

The ever-increasing expenditure in education systems from both State and Private sectors has influenced and control of education. The state and the federal government pays over half of the education costs. The federal resource allocation to States has increased implying that the various districts have also received a more financial budget for the education costs. Ability to adequately spend and account for the finances allocated to multiple education institutions may influence future financial allocations. Consequently, the locals awarded finances may alter accounting of the federal dollars allocated to them to reflect a biased curriculum, assessment practices, and regulation needs to qualify for additional funds.

During good economic times, education districts receive fat funding for educational activities. However, when the economy weakens, competing interests and needs for other public services make financing and sustaining of education costs difficult. One way of the striking delicate balancing act of these education costs shortcomings is empowering education districts and privatizing some education institutions. Through these empowerments, the education partners provide educational services voluntarily. For instance, the Denver School-Based Health Centers provide immunizations, clinical services, well-child care, care for illness and injuries in Denver district schools thus reducing the need for funded nurses in these schools.

Distinctions have however been traditionally drawn between the public and private schools. Going forward, as the stakes get higher for every child to achieve high standards with diminishing resources, education will be "hybrid". Money for general education will be generated as a blend from the public and public sources. Schools collaborate with various stakeholders to build fund schools from all well-wishers. Most state governments have policies seeking to consolidate districts as education units. In New York, the aid bonus realized from consolidation can be quite huge. In consolidating education districts, areas receive an increase in their essential operating financial support.

The primary justification for consolidation district education in the New York is motivated by the expected cost savings (Molnar, 2018). The cost savings arise because the cost of education is a replica of the base economy. Whenever the number of students goes up, the cost per student goes down. Consolidation creates larger districts resulting in lower costs per students whenever economies of size exist. In this context, the amount spent on education gives an output which is valid and measurable. First, the services provided to each student in a certain consolidated district can be traced to individual consumers in particular. Since education requires certain physical capital like science and computer laboratories, a consolidated district offers a manageable feasibility scope and therefore high standards of services can be traced to the latter.

Within the consolidated districts, the education institutions have the capacity to employ more specialized service providers like teachers. This puts the consolidated districts in a better position to provide a wide range of quality services as required by the state accountability. Resource personnel in consolidated districts have more colleagues drawn from large geographical locations to collaborate together and have discussion forums to better education standards. These interactions bearing advice and information sharing, presumably, lead to improved effectiveness in the education systems with regard to education financing.

Although consolidation of education districts portrays some lot of desirable outcomes, it is not totally cushioned against shortcomings. First a consolidated school district, in most cases, usually make use of larger schools. This implies that the average catchment distance of learners must increase. As a result, the budget expenditure for transportation spending per learner increases. Secondly, consolidating education districts may result in increased salaries for the personnel working in the districts because of the whelming group of learners. As for administrators and education staff, a majority of them may choose t work in smaller districts with lesser responsibility requirements to enjoy tendency of flexible rules and procedures thereby raising personnel biases towards some districts. This will not only compromise the quality of education but also raise personnel costs (Gronberg et. al 2015).

Overall, the net effect of consolidation on education budget and costs per pupil is a delicate balancing act. Some factors indicate consolidation taps into economies of magnitude and thereby cut the costs of education. Others argue that consolidation might indeed cause higher costs per pupil to go up. Any situation in which consolidation makes sense on equity and financial grounds should be pursued. The heat of consolidating districts, is not assured of a smooth transition. When a poor district is consolidated with a richer neighbor, the poor district will definitely feel the heat of reduced financial support (Hein, 2017). The average poverty tax base in such a merger lowers the property tax burden on the district's residents. Consequently, the consolidation will improve the fairness of the education system in the State.

Arguably, all learners given adequate funding and provided with the right opportunities to learn can attain excellent education levels. Although to some extent, researchers disagree about the belief that more money allocation leads to improved student's achievement, it is a fact supported by evidence. If large numbers of students are not achieving proficient resources, they are indeed not receiving an adequate education.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, since the education fraternity operates as a whole, the education districts should be consolidated and stakeholders are treated equally with the interests of the learners in mind. Learners should be provided with equal learning opportunities at sustainable costs.

References

Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to equity will determine our future. Teachers College Press.

Gronberg, T. J., Jansen, D. W., Karakaplan, M. U., & Taylor, L. L. (2015). School district consolidation: Market concentration and the scaleefficiency tradeoff. Southern Economic Journal, 82(2), 580-597.

Hein, J. M. (2017). Litigation in Search of Educational Opportunity: An Analysis of Abbeville County School District et al. v. The State of South Carolina et al.

Molnar, A. (2018). Giving kids the business: The commercialization of America's schools. Routledge.

Naclerio, M. A. (2017). Accountability Through Procedure? Rethinking Charter School Accountability and Special Education Rights. Columbia Law Review, 1153-1189.