Debate: Should school funding be based on academic achievement?

[]

[]

[]

[]

Should the government give more funding to schools with higher academically achieving students?

Background and context

This is similar to the controversial idea of merit pay for teachers, but it extends the notion out to schools themselves. Should schools that perform well, with higher or more improvement in student test scores, be rewarded with more government funding?

[]

[]

[]

[]

Needing the money: Do schools with higher achieving students need more money?

[]

Yes

Schools with students who do well deserve a good education and better chance in life. Students who achieve well have the most potential in life. These people are keen on learning and deserve the funding more. The schools with these students can offer extra opportunities and curicula activities, as well as better resources with better or extra funding.

[]

No

Lower achieving schools need the money more. If high academically achieving schools are at a high standard, they really don't need money to improve their standard of teaching, there would be nothing to improve on. Low achieving schools who want and need funding to improve teaching and resources are at a higher priority. Those schools do have something to improve on and money should be focused on them.

[]

[]

[]

[]

[]

Fairness: Is this fair to lower achieving schools?

[]

Yes

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

[]

No

Lower achieving schools often are situated in small, disadvantaged commmunities. These are the kinds of schools that need more funding.

Schools can always unfairly tamper with results given to the government.

[]

[]

[]

[]

Would this provide an incentive to lower achieving schools?

[]

Yes

• Schools do want extra funding and providing money to high achieving schools would provide an incentive to do well. Schools want money and funding from the government to provide the best possible resources and teachers for their students. Having funding given to high achieving schools would set a certain benchmark and provide the opportunity and incentive for teachers to teach well and students to improve their knowledge. Knowing that extra funding would come if good results came up on tests would encourage teaching to be better and students to do well.

[]

No

• Higher achieving schools need funding and money to give quality education. The incentive would be out of reach. While that may provide an incentive to do well, to teach well you need good resources. Funding is totally necessary for schools to provide good teachers, resources and learning opportunities. Without the funding and resources, low achieving schools will just remain at their low standard and the "incentive" to do well would be out of reach.

See also

External links and resources