Tuesday 28 May 2013

Defunding Public Education Is A Counterproductive Policy

By Jennie Sandoval


Currently, a majority of students are publicly educated. But, a trend of defunding public education has weakened their prospects. At the same time other means of siphoning students from this system have also compromised its structural strengths.

Educational funding is collectively provided by the federal government and by states and their local governments. Cuts are being made as it is the leading spending category for both state and local governments. At the same time, ninety one percent of the spending is provided by these two government sources. The Census has revealed New York, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Alaska and Vermont spend the most on this function.

Reduction in financing is happening at the worse time for the future prospects of the country. The country has soaring inequity and a minority majority era has dawned with the babies born in 2011, the first time white babies were a minority in the nation. Meanwhile, college education has become the key to moving up or to hold onto a middle class lifestyle.

According to research from the Pew Economic Mobility Project, college graduates are more likely to rise from poverty into wealth. Children without college diplomas are more likely to slide downwards than middle class children who possessed the diplomas. Hence, it has been demonstrated by data that having a postsecondary education is vitally important for mobility. Yet current policies are not supportive.

This trend can be seen in the two most heavily populated states, which also happen to have entered the minority majority era. California is following similar short sighted policies that Texas has also undertaken. Both have slashed their educational expenditures. The western state has taken this course of action in response to recession and fiscal stress. But, Texas has done it without similar pressures. The southern state has a flourishing economy that also missed the housing bust distressing California. Yet each has ensured locally educated children are disadvantaged by reduced financial support.

As indicated by a report from the PPIC reduced financial support is the result of a weaker commitment by the state. This has occurred at the same time as demand has increased significantly. This disinvestment has reduced enrollment rates in the state college system. Major findings have revealed high school graduates are not enrolling as they have earlier in four year colleges. Among those who are the most prepared, enrollment has plunged from 67 percent to 55 percent. This is because colleges have responded to disinvestment by raised costs and made access more difficult for eligible students.

At the secondary level, state support can reduce inequity at the local level resulting from economic segregation due to the fragmented local system. Without tax base sharing, with principal reliance on property taxes for revenues, underprivileged suburban schools educate poorly. At the same time, even a relatively wealthy city like New York, fails to provide equitable funding to its schools in poor areas. Even it is a victim of the current situation where revenues are outpaced by the rising costs of services. The ultimate result remains the same, as these areas are deprived of service equity.

During this period of defunding public education, vouchers and charter schools have been introduced as alternatives. As a study on charters by Stanford University has revealed they are no panacea. Only seventeen percent had reported academic gains superior to their traditional counterparts. The National Center on Education Statistics corroborated the findings of the Stanford study. Meanwhile, data has revealed students utilizing the largest voucher system have not systemically outperformed their traditionally educated counterparts.




About the Author:



No comments:

Post a Comment