Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Assessing School Funding Options. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 4 page paper assessing 5 options for combining local and state contributions to public education in terms of achieving adequacy according to the Odden-Picus standard. The paper chooses a plan based on property tax rates and state contribution. Bibliography lists 3 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: CC6_KSeduFinance.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that education is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, most issues - and lawsuits - concerning school funding and
finance have been addressed at the state level. Per-student spending is always a matter of interest. Since about 1990, funding-related lawsuits have "focused on adequacy - whether a
state is providing local districts with enough funding and resources to provide students with an adequate education" (Kennedy, 2005). Nickerson and Deenihan (2003) report on the success of several
New Jersey cities that "challenged the constitutionality of the states school funding system, which permitted wide variations in per-pupil expenditures from district to district" (p. 1341). The purpose here
is to review several approaches to achieving adequacy across 20 districts. More Equitable Distribution In New Jersey at least, the state Supreme Court
ruled in the 1970s that the state funding system that existed at that time was unconstitutional (Nickerson and Deenihan, 2003). When a state constitution calls for equal educational opportunity,
then it is the states responsibility to ensure that local school districts have access to necessary funds. Odden and Picus (1999) present an array of alternatives increasing state involvement
in school funding and enhanced equitable distribution of financial resources. Current The scenario to be changed is that in which District 1, the
poorest of 20 districts, carries a burden of much higher property taxes that does District 20, the wealthiest of the 20 districts. Across all 20 districts, property tax rates
decline with increasing property values so that the poorest district pays a tax rate of 13.9 percent more than the wealthiest district. Total revenues are much greater in District
...