Effects Of Education On Public Schools

One of the greatest differences among public schools is the funding they receive. Public schools across the country have incredibly varied amounts of capital dedicated to them which in turn leads to a disparity in the quality of education a student will receive at these schools. The race of a student, the location they live in, and the wealth of their family greatly correlate to the level of education they will receive. As Harvard professor Jennifer L. Hochschild notes, “Districts with a lot of poor students have lower average test scores and higher dropout rates...The highest spending districts report high test scores, and some of the lowest spending districts report the lowest test scores” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). The students who attend schools that receive less funding typically obtain an education that is lesser in comparison to schools that receive more money. The inequality in funding within a state has a severe impact on the variation of education quality. In the case of Connecticut, “The district that spends the most provides almost twice as much per student as the district that spends the least” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). As a result, the schools that receive less funding work with more outdated textbooks and equipment, while schools with more funding can afford to buy new equipment and provide a better environment for the

School funding is a mix of different funding sources like federal, state, and local. About ninety percent of funding for education comes from state and local community. K-12 education has failed to keep up with high enrollment. Schools must spend to counter effects of poverty while many European countries alleviate these conditions through government spending. Currently more than forty percent of low income school get an extremely unfair share of state and local funds. Low income school are receiving inadequate funds for their school, whereas other schools in the United States are unfairly distributing their state and local funds. That is unfair to the low income schools because those schools really need the money for school books, field trips, etc. Funding for public schools has been quite unequal for years, but even though Americans are fully aware of this issue no one does anything to solve it. Researchers are trying to show them both sides of this unequal funding issue in public schools in order to help balance the distribution of educational funding.

“Education is a major driver of development and is a strong instrument for reducing poverty, improving health, gender equality, peace, and stability” (The World Bank) - so why is it that students are often deprived from an extensive education? In Illinois, education funding has been an ongoing problem. Funding for schools is based on the property taxes where the schools are located, causing those who live in lower socioeconomic areas to receive less educational funding. This is unfair because children who live in lower socioeconomic areas are not able to receive the same opportunities and benefits that are acquired when a quality education is obtained. This is why educational funding in Illinois should be distributed evenly so that every

The United States is a country based on equal opportunity; every citizen is to be given the same chance as another to succeed. This includes the government providing the opportunity of equal education to all children. All children are provided schools to attend. However, the quality of one school compared to another is undoubtedly unfair. Former teacher John Kozol, when being transferred to a new school, said, "The shock from going from one of the poorest schools to one of the wealthiest cannot be overstated (Kozol 2)." The education gap between higher and lower-income schools is obvious: therefore, the United States is making the effort to provide an equal education with questionable results.

Since the early millennium there has been a call for public school reform. Whether it was a reformation in school funding and where to spend it, there was a need for it nationally. How would it be determined which school district would get the majority of the funding or would it come down to equal funding for all districts. States determine the amount of spending due to many factors such population, the size of the class and also the demographics. According to Mike Maciag on Governing.com, New York is spending more than $20,000 per student each year, counting teacher salaries, but Idaho and Ohio spend about one-third as much. Teachers with additional education and experience see better results in smaller states with less spending per student than those who spent a major amount per student. Additional factors that are listed on governing.com that contribute to state education spending were employee benefits. Benefits include pensions, health insurance and tuition reimbursements (Maciag). Rural areas with a higher populations drive up costs for transportation. Florida’s spending is under the national average but is high in education

Kozol (1991) explained in his book how one would think that because they live in a free nation and they are entitled to a free education, that they would receive the same as everyone else. Unfortunately, our country was set up with a tax-based formula for school funding. It’s a complicated formula and most people never think to scrutinize it. Basically, taxes based on the values of homes are levied. It is an equal tax in all districts so it is equitable. Ironically, because the properties in poor areas are worth far less than in affluent areas, there is always a shortage. The Shortage in funding creates a significant difference in teacher quality, curriculum and resources Former Secretary John King (2016) explained how schools with highly concentrated Blacks and Latinos are less likely to offer advanced

The United States, as many believe, is the land of opportunity, however, when looking at individual states, towns, and cities, this popular slogan may seem false to some. Within each state, all schools, such as middle and high schools, may not receive or offer equity. In an effort to revel inequalities within school systems, I will discuss the differences between schools in my town, the apparent lack of public concern about schooling inequality, and what changes could be made in an effort to reduce schooling inequality.

Public school funding is unfair and unequal in most states. However, more concerning is out of the 49 million children in public schools, students living in poverty are affected the most. There are wide disparities in the amount spent on public education across the country, from a high of $18,507 per pupil in New York, to a low of $6,369 in Idaho (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2015). The question that all stakeholders should be asking is school funding fair?

This meaning that the poorer the people within the neighbor the poorer the school districts will be. Although this case shed some light, it failed under the federal Equal Protection analysis because education was not a “fundamental right” recognized by the Constitution and because the educationally disadvantaged poor did not constitute a “suspect classification.” The Court refused to overturn the school finance system on grounds of inequality. Equally notable, this case “virtually abdicated any role for the federal courts in guaranteeing educational rights under the Federal Constitution,” leaving future plaintiffs “to state courts and constitutions for the change they seek (www.schoolfunding.com).”

In 1998, for example, the state with the highest average level of public school funding was New Jersey, with an annual funding rate of $8,801 per student, whereas the state with the lowest average level was Utah, with a yearly rate of $3,804 per student. This means that the typical student attending a public school in New Jersey was provided more than twice the fiscal resources allocated to his or her counterpart in Utah. Disparities in per-student funding levels are actually greater within some states than among states as a group. To illustrate, in 1998, public school districts in Alaska that were ranked at the 95th percentile for per-student

In the United States of America, a child’s zip code often determines the quality of the child’s education. A myriad of social, economic, and political factors contributes to this tragic truth. This article, however, focuses on the staggering, discriminatory effect that Unequal School Funding has on our nation’s youth.

The evidence suggests that increasing class size will not only harm children’s test scores in the short-run, but also in their long-run human capital formation. Money is saved from increasing class size will be more substantial social and educational costs in the future. In addition to high costs, reducing class size have unintended consequences. When California lowered class sizes in 1996, they realized that they did not have enough teachers to meet the challenge. Schools were forced to hire new teachers and add portable classmates to accommodate the state

“ Historically, low-income students as a group have performed less well than high-income students on most measures of academic success” (Reardon, 2013). Typically low-income families come from low-income parts of the state making a school that does not have as much funding as a higher economic schools does lack in resources for their students. The school then has lower paid teachers and administrators, with lower quality supplies. This results in a school which typically has faculty who do not perform as well as the well-funded schools. “The law fails to address the pressing problems of unequal educational resources across schools serving wealthy and poor children” (Hammond, 2007). Students from low and high income families will not be able to achieve the same education because their education simply is not the same.

Cory Turner of National Public Radio, writer of Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem, has the answer; “…45 percent local money, 45 percent from the state and 10 percent federal…why is it that one Chicago-area district has $9,794 to spend on each of its students, while another, nearby district has three times that? Two words: property tax,” (Turner 2). The authors of Equity Is the Key to Better School Funding, Marin Gjaja, J. Puckett, and Matt Ryder, say, “Giving kids in high-poverty areas an equal opportunity to succeed requires spending more money on those students,” suggesting that in those low-income areas, local and state government regulations alone and predominately will not be beneficial (Gjaja, Puckett, and Ryder 1). Property taxes when associated with funding for education are insufficient in low income areas, and in return are insufficient for the school. Leaving local and state governments with the responsibility of fulfilling a majority of education costs is a concept we should correct. Turner also mentions that one Arizona school has four-day weeks to save money from electricity bills, as a result of poor rates of property taxes. Budget cuts also contribute to the impairment of districts with lower property taxes and lower income families, an implied point from Michael Leachman’s article, Most States have Cut School Funding, and Some

The sad reality of it all is that gross funding inequities continue to persist in the U.S and no one seems to be working steadily to rid this problem. When putting funding into education equity should be focused on rather than equality. According to the National Report card there are core fairness principles that must be followed to maintain equal opportunity. The 3rd principle states that the level of funding in a district should increase relative to the level of concentrated student poverty rate. Therefore state finance systems should provide more funding to districts serving larger share of students in poverty (Is School Funding Fair? 7). Examining the school district of Philadelphia one could see that this principle is not being followed. The No Child Left Behind Act was created in 2001 to ensure that no later than 12 years after 2001 (2013) all students will meet the states standards. The act