The School Finance Reform Is Focused On The Distribution Of Funds Across Rich And Poor District Schools

America’s school system and student population remains segregated, by race and class. The inequalities that exist in schools today result from more than just poorly managed schools; they reflect the racial and socioeconomic inequities of society as a whole. Most of the problems of schools boil down to either racism in and outside the school or financial disparity between wealthy and poor school districts. Because schools receive funding through local property taxes, low-income communities start at an economic disadvantage. Less funding means fewer resources, lower quality instruction and curricula, and little to no community involvement. Even when low-income schools manage to find adequate funding, the money doesn’t solve all the school’s

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 As a result, the schools that receive less funding work with more outdated textbooks and equipment, while schools with more funding can afford to buy new equipment and provide a better environment for the

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

This demonstrates that if Sam’s school had got more funding then Sam may have received a proper education, and would have learned the intellectual skills that could help him to obtain a high paying job. Unlike many other people in richer parts of America who are able to achieve a lot in life due to their education, Sam’s lack of wealth ruins his future. Another example is one that hits closer to home- in terms of educational funding, the Illinois system is corrupt, and one of the districts that suffers most is that of Chicago Public Schools. In an interview with Ryan Young from CNN and an anonymous Chicago Public School teacher over the recent strike over budget cuts and the overall lack in school funding, the teacher states, “We care about the students. We want funding for our schools so our children can have supplies… gym, art, and PE., just like the kids in the suburbs do.” This is a direct representation of what is occurring in the Chicago Public School system today as a consequence of budget cuts and unequal funding. In general, the lack of school funding gives poorer children disadvantages when it comes to supplies that can help them to thrive. Also, budget cuts weaken the capacity of schools’ to develop the intelligence and creativity of the next generation of workers. In fact,, funding cuts lessen the ability of the schools to help prepare children better for their future, such as improving teacher

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.

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?

Should a child's wealth determine whether or not he or she can get a quality education? Funding for public schools is an enormous issue that affects many people. A major issue is unequal funding throughout the country. There are various reasons for these differences, from the governmental level to the lack of public support. There is a need to re-work the current formula used by states to determine how school funds are disbursed and also to increase public support for education funding. After all, whether a child is wealthy or poor, it is in everyone's interests to ensure that America's future generations are both skilled and educated. Limited funds for public schools have primarily affected the poor and

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).”

One of the most epidemic problems that greatly affects the American public education today is the economic inequality and the resulting gap of academic achievement between rich and poor public schools. The problem started to exacerbate especially in the last fifty years as the gap is still widening and continue to be unsolved. Of course, poor students who come from financially unfortunate families are the main sect that feels its impact the most. Greg Duncan and Katherine Magnuson, a distinguished professor in education and the latter has a Ph.D. in Human Development and Social Policy, have showed the strong relationship and the inevitable relevance between the academic achievement of students and their families’ income. They noted that poor students from the bottom ten percent of the socioeconomic classes have been recorded to score at around more than a standard deviation lower than those from the top quintile in math and reading (47). In 1965, it was the first attempt from the government to propose, yet an imperfect, solution to the problem by issuing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Then in 1966, the Coleman Report had a major role in raising public opinion toward this issue and disclosing its real dimensions during the War on Poverty movement. Also, in order to understand the real size of this problem, we must consider all the major factors that contribute to this income achievement gap and its evolution over the

“ 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.

The higher the percentage of students of color in an urban school, on average, the higher the percentage of poor students. And students who attend high-poverty schools generally score lower on standardized tests, are less likely to graduate, and are less likely to go to college. School finance reform, the remedy sought by urban districts and activists in the post-Milliken era, has made less difference than one would have hoped and has done little to bring most urban schools up to par with suburban ones.(James E. Ryan) Much of the debate falls around school

Department of Education, “documents that schools serving low-income students are being shortchanged because school districts across the country are inequitably distributing their state and local funds”. (Education, 2011). Students that come from low income families are not given the equal chance to get the education that students from high income families get. If students are not given the tools they need to be educated, then they will have a poor chance of succeeding in the world.

There has been much debate on whether funding and school resources contribute to high levels of academic achievement in schools. “Unfortunately, it has proven difficult to determine the relation between school expenditures (the things money may buy) and student achievement” (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996). As a result, it can be argued that this has led to many viewpoints on the topic.

A prominent show of this difference is that the students at the middle class school Beverly Hills High School, technical electives are allowed to be filled by useful subjects which could be used to further one’s academic ability while at Fremont only courses like sewing and hair-dressing are available (Kozol 644). The evidence becomes even more visible with the direct correlation between SAT scores and family income where those who make more have children who do better (Mantsios 710). Although there are sure to be naysayers who would argue that those who do not make as much are not as motivated enough to make more or push their children in the right direction academically. This point is invalid as when money becomes an issue it becomes hard to provide children with the best possible education and even worse when already put in the situation where money was an issue when those parents themselves were in school.

In demonstrating social class differences in school choice decisions, the first perspective is that the tighter budget constraint of low income families is sufficient to explain their inability to purchase houses next to popular schools, pay for private tuition for entrance tests, or take long journeys to school. Under this account, the basic preferences of lower and middle class families for schools are different. Lower class families are not blessed with all luxuries that why they cannot allow expenses of private schools. Unfortunately disadvantaged families cannot enroll their children in preferred schools. They drive for public or religious schools which are almost no cost