Would you respond to this question differently as a parent than you would as an educator

Redistributive policies and system change play an important role in the success of providing public-funded vouchers, charter schools, virtual schools and so on, for parents who send their children to nontraditional schools. According to Fowler (2013), “voucher plans offer a good example of system change” (p 227). Due to the transfer of power during system change, redistributive policies tend to collect monies from one party and distribute to another; it is like seeing the wealth of the wicked stored up for the righteous (Proverbs 13:22, KJV). However, these forms of policies can be beneficial for parents who want the best education for his or her child.

Families should be able to use public funds to educate their children in a nontraditional setting for many legitimate reasons. Some reasons include school safety, failing schools, budget issues, transportation, and a need to seek the best public education available. It is evident that many parents, especially those in low socioeconomic areas, have difficulty assisting their child in receiving a quality education like those who are able to afford better education. On the other hand, the debate on whether or not funding should not be available to parents is understandable. In some cases, there may come a time when it seems to be an unfair practice to allow certain parents to take advantage of such privileges. For example, there may be a large number of parents waiting for his or her child’s name to be picked from a pool of possible voucher recipients, yet only five or six names will be called. Is this fair for the other parents and children? Furthermore, even if the lottery system were to end and parents were able to choose the school their child attends, wouldn’t better quality schools be overcrowded?

Lastly, some parents benefit from public funded services and goods, however, it is not available to all. An example would be policies such as the Computers for Our Schools Bill, and how it can sometimes appear to be biased in that the funds may be sent to schools with higher test scores and accreditation statuses. Higher income communities are more likely to gain the state of the art resources versus schools that are considered “school improvement,” or “poor schools.” Although there is much debate on the matter, the truth of the matter is that when most inducements occur, the government is getting something out of the deal whether it be goods or services such as remedial education (Fowler, 2013).

Reference

Fowler, F. C. (2013). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN: 9780132678117.

Money is defined as “something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment”. (Merriam-Webster,n.d). In educational policy, money supports and oftentimes directs districts with providing up to date educational provisions. Provisions such as: teacher employment, technology, breakfast and lunch programs, support staff, additional accommodation for students emotionally, mentally and physically challenged just to name a few. Money also allows educational institutions to offer to students extra curricular programs through funding such as: My Brother’s Keeper, after-school clubs and activities, educational excursions and even experiential learning opportunities. Unfortunately, it always seems as if the middle class struggles most with receiving additional funding. Grant based programs such as Title I allows for those students who live in low socio-economic areas, to receive funding so that every student has an equal opportunity. Students who live in wealthier areas are supported highly by the taxes that pour into the school systems. Referring back the the first sentence, although money is given in exchange for something, how is one able to measure the success of our students if the distribution is not equitable in itself. Even with Title I monies that are granted, is there a measurement by which policymakers, central education and administrators are able to determine if equity acquired actually happened. As an educator who has been afforded opportunities to attend administrative meetings both in and out of the district, I am both surprised and disappointed at the lack the students within my district receive. This is in spite of grants that have been awarded. On a side note, I am very much looking forward to meeting with our Title I and our grants coordinator so that I can further understand the awards and distribution of monies within our district.

As per the video I watched of Besty DeVos delivering a speech, it is difficult not to remember how public funding such as the Florida tax credit and virtual classrooms helped students who at one time felt hopeless and despondent, ignite a desire within these students to learn again and once again follow their dreams. I do not believe for myself it is possible to think on or answer this question differently as an educator or parent. Since I have been one and the same for the past 27 years, it is and always has been about putting my children first. My children referring to those I have given birth to and the ones I see on a daily basis whether or not they are on my student roster.

In looking back to the Discussion Board topic, rereading and reflecting upon my response, I do notice how it may seem de-constructed, but if we are always putting the students at the center of our focus, then to me it all seems perfectly constructed, for one surely affects the other. The monies that are available should be used to help all students regardless of whether they are attending schools in the private or public sector.

References

Money. [Def 2]. (n.d). In Merriam-Webster Online, Retrieved July 25, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/money

ExcelinEd.(2018 January 2).#EIE17:Keynote speaker Betsy DeVos, U.S. secretary of education.

[Video File]. Retrieved July 16, 2016 from: