Inequality
in the American School System
In the United States inequality in the
school system has been an issue under discussion for many years. In the past
inequality in American school system was based on gender and race. In the
present day, it is not so cut and dry and income has become the driving source
of segregation. Typically, schools in high-income
districts have better access to educational enriching services. They easily
access the best counselors,
psychologists, and educational resources like books, laptops, and busses among
others. Yet, schools in poor neighborhoods have limited access to the same
services which significantly impacts their performance. Inequality in the
American school system persists because the socio-economic status of the
child’s background determines what type of school he or she attends as well as
the resources and educational support he or she gets. This paper will address
how immigration policies, income, public school funding, and federal and state
government education policies contribute to determine the quality of education
a child receives.
Immigration status influences one’s access
to education. Despite the ruling that everyone has an equal right to education,
people without proper documentation experience discrimination in this country.
For example, despite the New York State Constitution allowing for good
education to all, many immigrant children do not get the same education as those
born in the United States. In Alabama, school administrators are required to
determine immigration status of children before enrolling them. It has led to
an increased number of missing students mostly Latino’s. Immigrants at college
level find it difficult to get government aid unlike their American peers. It
makes it difficult for immigrants to finance their college education leading
many to drop out or find work to pay the required fees. Immigrant children do
not have social security numbers and therefore cannot apply for educational
loans and scholarships (Mcinerny para 3). The Trump administration seeks to
shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which allowed
immigrant students to obtain work permits (Mcinerny para 16). The loss of such
policies discriminates immigrants by ensuring that they do not get access to equal
education directly impacting their job opportunities.
The level at which federal policies
contribute towards equal access to education varies from one state to the other
depending on the public school’s budget of each state,
and the formula each state uses. Likewise, the level at which state
policies contribute towards equal access to education within the state will
vary from one district to the other due to budgetary constraints. Public school
funding in the United States varies from state to state depending on the
percentage chipped in by federal and state governments. The federal government
contributes the least while the rest of the funding comes from the state and districts. For instance, federal
government contributed $56.3 and $56.4 billion for public school funding in the
years 2014 and 2015 respectively. The states contributed $298.1 and $309.1
billion while the local sources contributed $289.7 and 298.5 billion for the
same respectively (McFarland et al. xxv).
While the federal government has the best chances of ensuring equal access to
education nationally, its contribution has
the least of effects on funding. States have This implies that equal funding
across states is a big hindrance towards access to quality education.
Federal spends will differ from one state
to another and state funding will differ from one district to the other. Some
states and districts have higher budgets than others. However, there is a
chance that some districts may over-identify a situation making the special
funding policies incredible. Consequently, the state government must ration their
funding to fit its budget. States typically vary in funding spends by three
models. The three most used models are Foundation Grants, Guaranteed Tax Base,
and Centralized Funding. Thirty-seven states as of 2015 use the Foundation Grant
approach, and others combine it with other methods (Chingos 8). Foundation Funding
is used in New Jersey and allocates funding with huge amounts of money coming
in from the state especially for lower income districts. This model is good to
equalize the spread between lower and higher income districts, but its downfall
comes around when budgetary cuts increase. With respect to the funding many
high-income districts can supplement money lost by taxing but for lower level
districts it become a total nightmare and the budgetary cuts can have an
enormous impact on their ability to function. Texas on the other hand uses the Centralized
Funding method and it is usually unaffected by the state’s budget. It works
like the foundation grant, but the districts cannot raise funds above the
minimum amount for expenses. Other states use the Guaranteed Tax Base model to
equalize funding. The advantage is that districts with small revenue from its
tax base can raise more money with a match from the state, thus giving them an
incentive to raise local taxes since each dollar of spending will garnish more
money from the state (Chingos 10). This kind of policy response with respect to
Foundation Grants continues to affect the plight of needy students in the
society, as more states use this than the others. Each method has their
advantage and it is useful to point out that the other two models will affect
higher income district by not allotting them to use out of pocket resources.
Good public schools with better
facilities, good resources, and good performance reputations do charge more while schools with substandard
facilities and resources will charge less. Likewise, the budgetary allocation
for these public schools will also differ. For instance, Illinois had a 59%
property tax funding for elementary and secondary schools, which was highest in
all states in the year 2014-15 (McFarland et al. 143). It is expected that
state districts contributing to the highest of these taxes will also enjoy a
lion’s share of the same with respect to budgetary allocations for each
district. Rich neighborhoods happen to contribute the highest and thus schools
in such areas are generally well facilitated and have better education
resources, including teachers and wages for teachers.
In
Connecticut, Bridgeport and Fairfield school districts border each other and public-school
spending per student is quite different. Fairfield is advantaged to benefit
from the large property tax generated by its rich neighborhood while
Bridgeport, which is poor receives less from property tax. Additionally,
parents from public schools in Fairfield have the economic resources to aid
their kids for extra field trips and special tutors among other learning
enrichment services for their children. This leads to a difference in the
outcome where the graduation rate for Fairfield is about 94% while Bridgeport
has a graduation rate of about 63% (Hussey para 2). This implies that students
from low-income families will opt for
schools charging less while students from well-up families have at least a
chance to select, which good school is preferable for them. Consequently,
students from well up families have a higher
level of access to quality education making their performance levels higher
too.
The trends in education inequality gaps
tend to correlate with the trends in variations in the economic well-being of citizens across all states of America (Duncan
and Murnane 8). Public education is platform where the United States’ government
seeks to establish equal access to eminent education irrespective of economic
backgrounds, race, or political affiliations. However, the rise in income
differences and the dynamic technological advancements have disoriented the United
States approach to public education. The ever-rising
economic gap between the rich and the poor heightens the difference in access
to quality education (Duncan and Murnane 8). Addressing the trends through
which income differences drives education inequality is key in solving the
problem at hand.
Most high-income
families prefer to occupy neighborhoods that are safer and classy since they
can afford it. Thus it is evident that they tend
to occupy an ecological niche that fits their income. Low-income families
occupy less safe and less classy
neighborhoods. They are known to occupy suburban and rural areas. Consequently,
their children end up studying in different schools. Schools in richer neighborhoods
tend to have better resources and good facilitation compared to schools in
poorer neighborhoods. More experienced teachers will preferably teach in
schools within rich areas while the less experienced will teach in schools
within poorer neighborhoods. Bridgeport District’s public schools are victims
of the unfortunate trend where keeping teachers is a hard task. They prefer
working in neighboring districts such as Fairfield, Stratford, and Greenwich where they can make $25,000 - $30,000
more than they can earn in Bridgeport (Hussey para 31). It is also notable that
there are more private schools and parents can spend extra resources for the
enrichment of their children in richer neighborhoods (Duncan and Murnane 12).
They tend to have more time to discuss issues pertaining
to their children’s lives and matters of education. They have better
chances of hiring private tutors, psychologists, and counselors to help their children. This implies that high-income
families have a variety of choices when it comes to selecting the best resources
for their children. Consequently, this leads to differentiation of quality education
received by children from the low and high-income
families. This also reflects in their manner of spending. They have more to
spend on the extra quality beyond what is
generally provided. Leading to a difference in the educational progress and outcome where children from disadvantaged
families score lower grades.
In conclusion, it is true that inequality
in the American school system continues to persist across states, and school districts.
Inequality across states is evident by the fact that the federal government,
which has the best position to bring equal access to quality education, have a less
share of contribution for public-school
funding. The states also stand a chance to contribute towards equal access to
education across the districts but
policies set at the state level might
have a less impacting outcome since most of the public-school
funds come from property tax. Property tax is collected at the district level and schools from more rich
districts will probably get better funding than poorer districts. Consequently,
schools with different levels of resources emerge, some with far better
resources than others. They have the best teachers and can easily access the
extra help they need. Children from these “good” schools end up getting quality education than kids from poorer
schools. They also end up performing better. This shows that inequality in the
American school system will persist if the current condition and policies
continue. Spotting and funding the least advantaged in the states, districts or
neighborhoods cannot solve the problem of inequality in the American school
system. Private schools among other enrichments still creates gaps, which will
still express inequality in the system. The problem can only be solved by
routing out the American inequality itself. The big income gaps between
communities contribute towards the inequality in America. It contributes
towards inequality in access to health care,
business opportunities, better shelter as well as education. The removal of
policies to help disadvantaged students including DACA with respect to
immigration is heinous. To fix American schools, fix we must fix American
inequality.
Works
Cited
Chingos, M., and Kristin Blagg. "Making Sense of State
School Funding Policy." Urban Institute, Nov. 2017, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/94961/making-sense-of-state-school-funding-policy_0.pdf.
Accessed on 03 Oct. 2018.
Duncan, Greg J., and Richard J. Murnane. "Growing Income
Inequality Threatens American Education." Phi Delta Kappan, Mar. 2014, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274998271_Growing_Income_Inequality_Threatens_American_Education. Accessed on 03 Oct. 2018.
Harris,
Elizabeth A., and Kristin Hussey. "In Connecticut, A Wealth Gap Divides
Neighboring Schools". The New
York Times, 11 Sept. 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/nyregion/in-connecticut-a-wealth-gap-divides-neighboring-schools.html.
Accessed on 03 Oct. 2018
McFarland, Joel, et al., “The Condition of
Education 2018.” U.S. Department of
Education, https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018144.pdf.
Accessed on 03 Oct. 2018
Mcinerny, Claire. “As DACA Winds Down, DREAMers
Turn Toward Different Futures.” nprEd, 10 Nov. 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2017/11/10/562847611/as-daca-winds-down-dreamers-turn-toward-different-futures. Accessed on 30 Sept. 2018.
No comments:
Post a Comment