Public School Funding Is Unfair And Unequal

If the education system relies most of their funding from taxes, where do they end up getting the rest of the money. The government and administration grant more money to wealthier areas than low -income areas. Wealthier communities are granted more money because they have a higher percentage of funding coming from property taxes. This leaves the low-income students at a disadvantage. People living in low income areas mainly rent and don’t own their own property. As a result of not having a house or owning property, they have little property taxes. If low -income students are not given enough money for funding a school, the students are suffering. With the lack of money causes students to miss out on college prep classes such as AP classes and Honors classes. These classes are pivotal to the students that want to pursue higher education and a road to success. For example students in the low-income areas are given a poor education. They are not given the resources, or quality teachers in order to achieve success. According to George Miller House Education and the Workforce committee, many students are not educationally ready to graduate and attend higher education (Minority 1). This is another reason why low income students should be provided the same classes as a middle class or a wealthier community. In a study, 2 million students in 7,300 schools had no access to all calculus classes, a staple in many high – achieving high schools (Minority 2). Low-income

“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

Newburgh Free Academy, NFA, located in the center of Newburgh, New York, a small city with a crime rate four times higher than the national average, exhibits an unequal distribution of the district’s budget across their various programs. NFA houses approximately 4,000 students and holds a wide variety of classes, athletic programs, and co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. However, according to the district’s “Draft Budget Report for Fiscal Year 2017,” these programs do not all receive equal funding. There appears to be a large portion of available funds going towards the athletic program, while fine arts, language, and co-curricular programs receive little to no funding. The majority of public high schools across America, especially those located in overcrowded urban communities, experience a similar inequality. By dividing funds unevenly an inequality of opportunity is created, which leaves students who wish to join certain postsecondary school programs severely underprepared. Dr. Vivian W. Ikpa of Temple University sees this inequality quite often; she claims that, “inadequate funding made them [the students] ‘resource’ disadvantaged” (Ikpa, 467). When a school’s budget is being formulated, generally the last programs to receive funding are the arts, language, and co-curricular programs. The lack of funding in these programs leaves students unprepared to handle further education and prevents them from gaining valuable life skills. Thus, unequal distribution of

The heightened focus on education equity and adequacy has garnered substantial attention from both policy makers and media outlets. As a result of the spotlight, school finance litigation has forced states to not only change the way they fund schools but to improve and update their states’ assessment and accountability systems. (Griffith, 2005).

“Unequal School Funding” is the practice in which a school district’s funding is based on unequal property taxes within the district. Public education be financed by Unequal School Funding in forty-nine states. The amount of revenue a school district can raise

The education system has been the cornerstone of freedom and equity for economic success in The United States. However, the history of education has never been so crucial to the collective future of our nation and to the young people. The public schools must struggle to provide equality in educational system as never before. The demand for education has become necessary and growing to provide education for all students to comply with the rigorous academic standards on a global scale (Baker, B. D., Sciarra, D. G., Farrie, D. (2010, p. 1).

In 1965, it was the first government initiative toward a practical solution in attempting to contain this uprising income achievement gap as they issued the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Unsurprisingly, this act gained lots of popularity among education reformers at that time as its objective was to provide equal education opportunities to all students nationwide whether they are rich or poor. Nonetheless, the ESEA was just a quick, ready solution to provide funds to schools at that time but not one that was extensively studied to ensure true equality in distributing those funds. Title I of the Act, which is still implement in the new version of the ESEA that’s now called the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, was the most important part which contained the initiative of providing funds to eligible schools and the way they would be distributed. According to Phyllis McClure, a civil rights activist who also served in the U.S. Office of Education’s Title I Task Force, this Title I in particular contained a “loophole” that allowed for poor schools to still not get their equal share of the funds (McClure). The problem lied in what was called the "comparability provision" law of Title I which allowed Title I schools, that uses a traditional budgeting system based on their average teacher salary, to show a comparable expenditure of their teachers’

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.

I believe that school funding equality is very important. Public school funding comes from federal, state and local sources. The federal government has tried to come up with solutions to this problem. The fact that our schools are mostly funded by property taxes, more affluent taxpayers believe that the money should stay in their districts. Most Americans are unaware that other nations, do not fund public schools with local property taxes, rather they use general tax revenues to provide equal per student funding.

Racial disparities in educational funding clearly exists throughout the United States. The states that their per-pupil expenditures for Black and Hispanic students hover around 90 percent of those for white students include Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania (Baker). Massachusetts and New Jersey are one of the few states that high poverty areas receive greater support from the state than low poverty districts (Baker).

We found that fewer than 10 percent of non-poor students were enrolled in low-spending districts in every year since 1994-95, a rate 1 to 3 percentage points lower than the comparable rate for non-poor students in every year. The share of low-income students attending (relatively) poorly funded districts has not changed much over the past 20 years. State funding levels are about 10 percentage points higher for poor students than non-poor students, and local funding is about 15 percent

Educational funding for school districts is an ongoing war. A war that will be fought till equality is achieved. A school district’s wealth is affected by a number of reasons such as its property wealth, the race of the people who live there and their socio-economic status. Some districts are wealthier than others. Wealthy districts get more funding than poor districts because they have more property wealth and people with high socio-economic statuses. The wealth of a school district determines how much resources the school gets and just how much education the children in that district receive.

Equity in education throughout the United States is a problem majority of high schools have to deal with. With education, comes conflict in which only a few solutions can fix what the problem. School resources is one of the main problems when it comes to equity in education from the lack of teaching from the teachers, to the facilities where the students are taught in, or the safety for the students; in solution, the government can provide more funds to these schools, and have well-off school schools, donate money or resources.

Providing a free education to students required enough resources. Public school offers the free education to students, to achieve their academic goal. The United States is dividing into low income, middle income and upper income society. Majority of low income and middle can’t afford a private school for their kid. There is when public school is available for those who can’t afford a private education to their kids. In the United States total public school are 98,817 and 4.9 million students that attend to public school. Public school is very important for a student’s development learning. For public school to function need enough resource to afford the best education opportunity to students. Public school received funds from the State and Federal that helps to provide resources to students. A budget cuts can impact a student’s academic success.

First it lists the need to select the best equity for implementation. The report states that, “WSF approach intends to promote the equity with which resources are distributed to schools by implementing a student-need- based funding model that allocates dollars rather than staff to schools.”(Levin et al. 10)This falls in line with your concept of achieving both vertical and horizontal equity, so to speak. (Electronic Hallway pg. 9) The concept will be to naturally achieve an overall general equity, but it will not be without others pushing back. As the American Institute goes on within their report they pair equity with transparency, autonomy, accountability, innovation, and efficiency. Each of these concepts follow the need to first establish a calculated amount per student along with weighted factors to ensure that students are being funding at both a vertical and horizontal equity to meet and find that true middle ground. The concept of transparency brings clarity and simplification to the process. As the American Institute states about transparency and the WSF implementation by “simplifying and clarifying the process through which resources are distributed to schools and increasing the access of stakeholders to information about the resources available to schools and the student’s outcomes produced.” (Levin