On Increasing Federal Spending On Education

In 2015, of the 1.11 trillion dollars in the discretionary budget, the Department of Defense received 53.71%, government received 6.54%, education received 6.28%, Medicare and Health received 5.93%, and the other departments covered by discretionary spending received what was left (“Federal Spending: Where Does The Money Go”). In 2018, the Department of Defense will receive $580,100,000,000 more than the Department of Education (Amadeo). These results are an irrational division of taxpayer money on Congress’s part.

The U.S. military already has more federal funding than the other world powers (Schoen), and it is unreasonable to think they can spend it all in a year, but if they have, that money was surely wasted.

This maldistribution of funds only goes to show how much the government cares about the future pioneers of America. Congress is more concerned about a military whose strength and prowess is assured than of a generation of students who might not receive the resources they need to succeed.

The concern the Congress holds for the military is completely unnecessary.

Get quality help now

KarrieWrites

Verified writer

Proficient in: American Education System

5 (339)

“ KarrieWrites did such a phenomenal job on this assignment! He completed it prior to its deadline and was thorough and informative. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

More military funding is not even the best way to provide citizens with jobs (Amadeo). The government needs to think less about military prowess that has long been assured, and more about the future of those who can affect it the most. There should be more government spending on education because education lotteries are no help, funds can improve education, and there are many schools who need the extra money. In the U.S., There are several lotteries that claim to help fund programs such as education.

However, the money that some of those lotteries donate to fund education just tends to replace, rather than supplement, the pre-existing funding that the government will no longer supply (Goldman).

Some state governments, those of California, Florida, and Michigan have even reduced spending on education, thus allowing lottery funds to replace the funds they use to give (Goldman). A prime example of replacement-fund lotteries is the North Carolina Education Lottery. The NC Education Lottery was established in August 31, 2005, and as part of its creation, “it was agreed that approximately 35% of income from the lotto games would be donated to the state's education system” (North Carolina Lottery Lottery Results), and in the original version of “§ 18C-102. Purpose and intent.” of the North Carolina State Lottery Act, the act that established the NC Education Lottery, stated that “the net revenues generated by the lottery shall not supplant revenues already expended or projected to be expended for those public purposes, and lottery net revenues shall supplement rather than be used as substitute funds for the total amount of money allocated for those public purposes.” However, “§ 18C-102.

Purpose and intent.” now states that “the General Assembly declares that the purpose of this Chapter is to establish a State-operated lottery to generate funds for the public purposes described in this Chapter.” The revision of the North Carolina State Lottery Act allows for the North Carolina state government to reduce education funding and replace it with the lottery net revenues that the General Assembly appropriates, not distributes (Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013.), from the Education Lottery Fund, which is essentially whatever is left over after all the prize money and expenses are dealt with, for education-related purposes (Chapter 18C. North Carolina State Lottery.).

Also, any net revenues not appropriated, will remain within the Education Lottery Fund, and if the amount is “less than the appropriation for that given year, then the Governor may transfer from the Education Lottery Reserve Fund an amount sufficient to equal the appropriation by the General Assembly” (Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013.). The Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013 used to allow for the North Carolina State Lottery Commission to distribute money held within the Education Lottery Fund for certain purposes that might have helped low-income and at-risk students improve, fund college and university scholarships, reduce class sizes, and even “provide financial aid for needy students to attend college” (Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013.), but of course, the act got ratified, and those guidelines were removed.

The powers that the Commission would have held were transferred to the General Assembly, who were now obligated to spend the money for “education-related purposes” (Current Operations and Capital Improvements Appropriations Act of 2013.). According to education reporter Julie Ball in her article, “Where does the lottery money go?”, only a little more than 26% of the lottery money, $521 million, was left for education in 2014-15. That amount may seem very plentiful at first, but in truth, lottery money makes up less than 1% percent of a school system’s total budget, and according to Donna Watson, the chief financial officer for Asheville City Schools, “city schools are projected to receive around $225,000 a year in coming years. The typical city schools budget is around $56 million” (Ball).

Before the establishment of the North Carolina Education Lottery in 2005, Haywood County received $500,000 from the state, and once the lottery was approved, Haywood County Schools began receiving over $1 million, but the state funds also began to get smaller (Ball), and “in 2009, the state cut its education funding by 12%. North Carolina now allocates a smaller percentage of its budget to education than it did when the lottery started” (Goldman). Then, in 2011-12, the lottery dollars being sent to Haywood County decreased by about half and has not increased since (Ball). So essentially, the amount of money Haywood County Schools received before and after the establishment of the NC Education Lottery is comparatively the same.

According to Julie Ball’s article, Where does the lottery money go?, lottery money meant for education-related purposes, which counties only saw directly as school construction dollars, was set for 17% percent of the revenues during the 2014-15 fiscal year, and most of the lottery money was not even going to instructional support in 2016. The North Carolina Education Lottery is not a helpful form of funding for any of the counties in North Carolina, and the NC government knows that. They do not care as much as they should about the education of the future pioneers of America.

The county schools cannot depend on the funding choices of the state, but if federal spending towards education was increased, the issue of replacement-fund education lotteries would be less apparent. In fact, it would be better if more action was put into improving policies to stop state governments to stop using replacement-fund lotteries, as they can usually cause many complications for state-run programs who depend on the funding they receive from the state. A solid reason for why Congress should consider putting more of the discretionary funding into education is because it could improve the education system.

Though increased funding does not guarantee better student outcomes, what truly matters is how schools choose to spend the money they are given (Turner, McCorry, Worf, Gonzalez, Carapezza, & McInery). However, schools do not always have the proper amount of funds to spend in the way that they need to improve their system, especially low-income schools. According to Kevin Carey and Elizabeth A Harris’s article, It Turns Out Spending More Probably Does Improve Education, “over comparable time frames, states that send additional money to their lowest-income school districts see more academic improvement in those districts than states that don’t.” In another study from the same article, it was noted that students stayed in school longer and earned more as adults in districts with court-ordered funding changes (Carey & Harris).

However, Wisconsin ranks 16th out of 50 states in spending for public elementary and secondary education, but according to the Global Report Card, “the average public school student in Wisconsin scores better than only 52% of students in economically developed countries in reading and 47% of students in math” (Szafir & Lueken). This information enforces the fact that it is really a matter on how schools spend the money given to them and well-funded low-income schools are.

The amount of low-income schools and in-debt schools in America is much too large to be tolerable, and the list of big-city schools that are experiencing serious financial trouble is constantly growing (Camera). According to America's Bankrupt Schools, an article written by Lauren Camera, an education reporter from U.S. News & World Report, Detroit’s school system was $515 million dollars in debt and unable to pay their staff in 2016, and in that same year, the third largest city school district in America, Chicago, was $1.1 billion dollars in debt, “already laying off staff and imposing unpaid furlough days”. How can the U.S. Congress sit back and watch as school systems fall further and further into debt, unable to pay for the necessary resources to help students succeed?

Financial issues are clearly a result of underfunding and a reluctance to spare federal dollars for those who truly need them. Congress must realize the importance of investing in the futures of students and increase the amount of federal spending on education. School systems like Detroit and Chicago cannot go on forcing the schools to somehow function while suffering large amounts of debt. Underfunded schools are major issues that cannot be ignored. Congress needs to focus less on the assured power of the military and more on the still uncertain futures of today’s youth. Schools in major debt cannot depend on state government supported lotteries that replace government funding. Low-income schools would see higher academic achievement if they could just receive the funds. Large school systems must not go on suffering from major debt due to the inconsiderate nature of the government. In conclusion, it is imperative that the government no longer supports education lotteries that replace government funds, that Congress moves to improve the educational system by increasing federal education funds and focusing on the schools who need the extra financial attention.