Specific laws in the areas of equal federal protection, state equal protection, and adequacy of funding and their impact on education funding
Studying Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Black (2010) notices that the initial purpose of the Act was to provide equality about educational opportunities for the students coming from low-income families. The author points out that the more recent versions of Title 1 drive the law away from its basic purpose. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act is based on maintaining proficiency and academic success level of poor students without addressing the needs for resources of such students (Black, 2010). Besides, special education ends up much more expensive than general education (Corbett, 1999).
Moreover, education funding is spread unequally between schools of bigger and smaller states. As a result, schools with higher numbers of poor students are underfinanced, and the level of education they provide is much lower. In comparison, Swedish legislation requires that all public schools provide education of the same quality, notwithstanding their location (Funding of the Swedish school system, 2008). At the same time, education is Japan receives very low and uneven funding, over thirty percent of which comes from the private sector. The confusion is caused by the fact that the recent reform assigned some public sector institutions to be privately managed with self-established tuition fees (Higher Education Finance and Cost-Sharing in Japan, 2003).
The main sources of revenue for higher education and their strengths and weaknesses
In the United States of America, the two main sources supporting higher education are state and local governments (State Higher Education Finance, 2012). According to the data collected in 2012, the revenue coming from state sources composes eighty-nine percent, eighty-four and a half percent of which are directed from the state tax appropriations. Local sources of revenue for higher education are responsible for eleven percent, ten of which come from local tax support (State Higher Education Finance, 2012). The United States is known for a high level of diversity of higher education institution types, which allows a variety of different funding opportunities. For example, there are need-based grants, merit-based grants, and National SMART grants (Orkodashvili, 2007). Diversity the policies concerning the assignment of funding is a strength as it provides more sensitivity to the state source of revenue so that institutions of different rates could have equal chances of obtaining grants. The weakness of the state and local sources is that when the funding declines, the institutions are forced to raise tuition fees and look for private sources of revenue. The major shift from state to the private type of funding that was observed in the United States in 1999 and 2000 led to uneven educational opportunities and left our groups of students in the schools with a higher number of learners from low-income families.
Reference List
Black, D. (2010). The Congressional Failure to Enforce Equal Protection through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Boston University Law Review, 90(313), 313-374.
Corbett, G. F. (1999). Special Education, Equal Protection and Education Finance: Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Violate a General Education Student’s Fundamental Right to Education. Boston College Law Review, 2(2), 633-672.
Funding of the Swedish school system. (2008). Ministry of Education and Research, 8(3), 1-4.
Higher Education Finance and Cost-Sharing in Japan. (2003). GSE. Web.
Orkodashvili, M. (2007). Higher Education Funding Issues: U.S. / UK Comparison. Web.
State Higher Education Finance. (2012). SHEEO. Web.