An Analysis of Funding Levels for the US Government and Its Department of Education

The United States has many conflicts, one of them is funding on public education. Despite the fact that funding on public education will not help students succeed academically with the money provided to the schools, every school deserves to get as much money because students will receive more proper education and will be more successful students in the future.

The federal government has attempted to slice into the Department of Education’s budget since it was established in 1979. The department was originally founded in 1867, but soon became demoted since the government was afraid it would have too much power. “In the 1860s, a budget of $15,000 and four employees handled education fact-finding. By 1965, the Office of Education had more than 2,100 employees and a budget of $1.5 billion. As of mid-2010, the Department has nearly 4,300 employees and a budget of about $60 billion” (An overview of the U.S. Department of Education, 2010). To provide some comparable insight, in 2013 the Department of Defense’s budget of $663.8 billion (U.S. Department of Defense, 2009).

With the transition of a new President and Administration one can only think of how our economy will be in the next four years. America is a melting plot therefore we are not always going to agree on where Government spends our money. Some support more spending on education and new construction for roads while others support a less involved government. We have seen in the past that when there’s a high level of government spending our economy blooms. We can benefit from this because we have more move to spend and put back into the economy.

Budget analysis is an important process involving the evaluation of a given budget's efficiency. When conducting a budget analysis, it is crucial that all the problems areas be locate and that a check of the achieved financial goals be carried out. A budget analysis can be conducted on a monthly, quarterly as well as on a yearly basis. In this paper, we present an analysis of the state of Illinois Enacted FY2012 budget with a view of highlighting its efficiency and deficits.

The federal budget has been of much concern in the past decade. The public is growing increasingly aware of the growing federal debt but nobody is offering solutions to our country’s deficit spending. Thus the public is uniformed about how much money is spent on certain programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. In Red Ink, David Wessel offers a comprehensive view about what consists of the federal budget, how the government receives revenues, and how the government spends this money.

Virtually every school district in the country has been or is currently facing the need to reduce their budget. In the last two years, budget cuts have become far more common in school districts than ever recorded. Some schools are able to cushion the effects of the reductions by shifting fundings around or pulling out reserves, but there is no debate to the fact that these cuts have, in one way or another, a negative impact on the education of students in school districts.

According to Bredekamp (2014), “Federal education policy is often designed to hold schools accountable for educating every child and to close the achievement gap between groups of children” (p.183). Federal policies have many affects on child development. There are certain policies that mandate that schools are held accountable for students’ test scores. Teachers and staff are expected to reform their curriculums in order to raise scores. Not only do the policies have an effect on children, but the teachers as well. Within the policies protocols and standards are created to ensure that children learn through experiences and critical thinking to attain academic enhancement. For policymakers, it is important to promote healthy development,

I choose to explore the topic of state education performance funding, to better understand its strengths, weaknesses, and viability for the future of higher education funding models. The advent of this type of funding in higher education is a kin to much of the accountability and performance based initiatives imposed upon the p-12 system form the federal government. Programs like "No Child Left Behind" and "Race to the Top" are competitive based systems, created to encourage quantitative educational gains (such as standardized test scores) and tying them to economic benefits to schools, administrates, and teachers.

The funding of public education has long been an issue for the state government of Texas. Starting before Texas was even a state, public education funding was at the forefront of politician’s minds. In 1836, one of the reasons Anglo-Texans wanted to become independent from Mexico was Mexico’s lack of a public school system (An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas, 2016). This drove the desire of President Mirabeau B. Lamar of the Republic of Texas to create legislation that would grant public schools land (A Brief History of Public Education, n.d.). This act set aside four leagues of land per county for the use of free education centers and thus began the funding of public education by the state government (An Overview of the History of Public Education in Texas, 2016). In the last 177 years, the Texas Legislature and the Texas Education Agency have created numerous acts and laws regarding the funding of education, but it has been in the last 50 years that this topic has become highly contested, resulting in several lawsuits and endless efforts (by the school districts) to equalize the distribution of funds to Texas school districts (Texas School Finance Hisory, n.d.). In sum, the complex issues and policies that surround the funding of public education are derived from a combination of the legislature, bureaucratic agencies, and local governments in the form of school districts.

Everyone at the table did research into the issue of state funding for higher education by looking at state budget numbers as well as looking at studies published by education-focused think tanks such as the National Education Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. When we debated the issue, many of us noticed a horrible trend of decreasing

Every year the United States government spends money on its properties such as education, transportation and even social security. What a lot of people think is that the government sets out a balance point for all of their spending; however, the United States government has clearly set out their priorities to their budgets and leave no space for education as a priority. According to NationalPriorities.org "In fiscal year 2015, military spending is projected to account for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, a total of $598.5 billion." But do not worry, we are only spending nearly one-twelve of that on things like education for our whole country. At least we can all learn about international military assistance and how much money

The United States is facing a structural budget deficit in recent years. The fiscal situation has an increasingly dire and unsustainable outlook over the next 10 years and beyond. However, looking back ten years before, when George Bush took office at the beginning of 2001, the federal government was running a substantial budget surplus and projected rising surpluses. Here comes to a question: how did federal government get into this fiscal mess. My paper dedicates to examine the federal budget balance and government policies over last ten years and analyzes the reasons for this dramatic change from substantial surpluses to massive deficits. Furthermore, I will also shed a light on the dilemma

The federal budget deals with the funding for each fiscal year. This budget set spending limits to allocate funding for specific federal funding. The budget provides data on financing of the government, receipt and surplus for different periods. There is a degree of complication when it comes to the budget but the best way to understand it is to verify what’s in the budget. According to the authors, the budget can contain expenditure control which provide payments for goods and services, management resources is an area where the organizations develops resources and planning for future allocation” (Lee, Johnson and Joyce 2013, 187). The various agencies will have information showing the different allocation within their budget. Agencies such as the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accountability Office provides data and analysis. For example, “these agencies help determine strengths and weaknesses of programs, and assist in allocating resources in the budgetary process” (Lee, Johnson and Joyce 2013, 187).

In the pursuit of a balanced budget, the B.C. government is asking universities and colleges to tighten their belts.

Education receiving an estimate of “$149 billion” and protection an estimate of “$35.5 billion”. Increasing the Federal budget did not help much support the education and protection systems, it received a little more than 2000 but the federal seemed to focus less on the education and protection system. However education still received more federal fund then the protection federal fund.