This is an outline of a debate over financing schools. I gave this debate with two other girls in my Schools in American Culture class. There names are Natalie Ratcliff and Alizah Ashfaq.
Beginning
Introduce both sides of debate: Position 1: School funding should be centralized under state or federal control to equalize the amount of money going to urban and suburban schools. Position 2: Taxpayers have the right to have local control over their tax money and dictate how it is spent.
Set up rules with the class and establish a panel setting. Raise hand if you have a point and we will try to make sure everyone gets a chance to talk. Please refrain from arguing, talking over other people, and saying disrespectful or derogatory comments.
1. Equity vs. Equality: Is equity in the amount of funding per student enough to provide students the same educational opportunity or do the less advantaged schools deserve more funding to make up for their lack?
Affirmative action--African Americans receive additional educational benefits because they have been historically marginalized.
2. Socialism/Robin hood: Should funds be taken from the upper/middle-class schools and be given to the most disadvantaged schools? 3. What facilities could richer schools do without? a. Discuss bonds 4. Property Taxes- how should they be divided. a. Use statistics (can't find any property tax percentages) b. Parents are not the only ones paying them; Education is everyone’s business!Talk about how businesses pay a large part of property taxes (13.75% in Oklahoma versus 11% on land and homes), but their income comes from many districts, not just the one their tax goes to. 5. Should distribution of funding be controlled by state vs. local/district authorities? a. Bureaucracy- are there barriers to centralization? Would the funding be used effectively or would the situation be worse than it is now? 6. In the communities where there are students that lack academic support in their home/community, should additional funding only go to social programs to improve their living conditions or to schools?
Can improved funding, better teachers (aka higher paid teachers), and technology improve the success of these students?
7. Can we find ways to use funding differently/more effectively? I.e., charter schools a. For example, Mr. Figueroa uses funding to go to technology/books. b. Charter schools receive the same amount of funding as most other schools (or sometimes less), but are generally more effective than traditional public schools c. "ABC's "Prime Time Live" ran a story on Yvonne Chan, the energetic principal of a San Fernando Valley’s Vaughn Next Century Charter School. The local school district, one of the largest and most bureaucratic in the nation, typically took a year to buy computers for its classrooms. Ms. Chan thought that was ridiculous. It took her charter school six days to purchase computers, and for less money. As a result, the Los Angeles Unified School District revised its purchasing system. Overall, in its first year of operation, Vaughn Next Century generated, through operational changes and efficiencies, a $1 million plus surplus, which it used to expand facilities to benefit both students and staff." (http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/Ed_Reform_FAQs/?Just_the_FAQs_Charter_Schools)
8. Corruption – Would increasing funding to inner-city schools "provide opportunities for 'fat cats' to get richer"? 9. Kozol suggested to increase funding to schools by leveling up; why or why not should this be implemented? What are the pros and cons? (this question would require everyone to know what leveling up is) 10. Is education a right or a privilege?
How do we determine which students deserve better education?
Should we put more money into those students that will contribute the most to society and economy?
Beginning
- Introduce both sides of debate: Position 1: School funding should be centralized under state or federal control to equalize the amount of money going to urban and suburban schools. Position 2: Taxpayers have the right to have local control over their tax money and dictate how it is spent.
- Set up rules with the class and establish a panel setting. Raise hand if you have a point and we will try to make sure everyone gets a chance to talk. Please refrain from arguing, talking over other people, and saying disrespectful or derogatory comments.
1. Equity vs. Equality: Is equity in the amount of funding per student enough to provide students the same educational opportunity or do the less advantaged schools deserve more funding to make up for their lack?- Affirmative action--African Americans receive additional educational benefits because they have been historically marginalized.
2. Socialism/Robin hood: Should funds be taken from the upper/middle-class schools and be given to the most disadvantaged schools?3. What facilities could richer schools do without?
a. Discuss bonds
4. Property Taxes- how should they be divided.
a. Use statistics (can't find any property tax percentages)
b. Parents are not the only ones paying them; Education is everyone’s business! Talk about how businesses pay a large part of property taxes (13.75% in Oklahoma versus 11% on land and homes), but their income comes from many districts, not just the one their tax goes to.
5. Should distribution of funding be controlled by state vs. local/district authorities?
a. Bureaucracy- are there barriers to centralization? Would the funding be used effectively or would the situation be worse than it is now?
6. In the communities where there are students that lack academic support in their home/community, should additional funding only go to social programs to improve their living conditions or to schools?
- Can improved funding, better teachers (aka higher paid teachers), and technology improve the success of these students?
7. Can we find ways to use funding differently/more effectively? I.e., charter schoolsa. For example, Mr. Figueroa uses funding to go to technology/books.
b. Charter schools receive the same amount of funding as most other schools (or sometimes less), but are generally more effective than traditional public schools
c. "ABC's "Prime Time Live" ran a story on Yvonne Chan, the energetic principal of a San Fernando Valley’s Vaughn Next Century Charter School. The local school district, one of the largest and most bureaucratic in the nation, typically took a year to buy computers for its classrooms. Ms. Chan thought that was ridiculous. It took her charter school six days to purchase computers, and for less money. As a result, the Los Angeles Unified School District revised its purchasing system. Overall, in its first year of operation, Vaughn Next Century generated, through operational changes and efficiencies, a $1 million plus surplus, which it used to expand facilities to benefit both students and staff." (http://www.edreform.com/Fast_Facts/Ed_Reform_FAQs/?Just_the_FAQs_Charter_Schools)
8. Corruption – Would increasing funding to inner-city schools "provide opportunities for 'fat cats' to get richer"?
9. Kozol suggested to increase funding to schools by leveling up; why or why not should this be implemented? What are the pros and cons?
(this question would require everyone to know what leveling up is)
10. Is education a right or a privilege?
**Home**