Our solution consists of the federal and state governments reallocating tax money to fund more school programs. This will set students in lower-income schools up for a brighter future.

More funding in schools makes it easier for extracurricular activities to be implemented into a student in a low-income school’s life. Several programs such as the Child tax credit helped 4 million children get out of poverty, and it provided school lunches to students in need. The federal government's role is to implement programs to lift children out of poverty across the country and ensure that all students have equal access to an education. In order to provide resources to lower-income students, individual states must also aid schools with fewer resources by increasing the use of state tax in these areas. Public schools in areas with high property taxes will not need as much state tax funding as schools in areas with low-income families. This could be problematic because it will be pricey.

The state must provide more aid to low-income schools. This would not be the easiest to do because of the amount of money that the state and federal government would have to collect money for this to work. It is not impossible, but the state and the federal government would have to cut spending in other areas or raise taxes since this is a joint effort. Not many people would like to pay higher taxes for it to go to schools, but it is necessary. No one wants to pay higher taxes, but for the good of the youth, it is indispensable. People would pay taxes for their children to receive a better education, which will eventually set them up for a better life.

This solution will be implemented by generating funds for the schools from the federal and state government and then giving them to the schools to find good teachers and implement programs that would benefit the community and its students.

By increasing the number of programs that connect families to the school, schools can improve student achievement. Often, low-achieving schools lack choice of involvement, meaning that students are not willing to go to school, but instead forced to. By building a sense of community, we can improve student participation and increase productivity.

Programs that could be implemented include: making sure that schools feel safe and comfortable in their communities, funding after-school programs such as sports, and a YMCA for all students. Some programs are not expensive, like a back-to-school program or an activity fair. These programs can become quite effective in creating a sense of community as it increases student interaction, and peers can get to know each other better (3 Ways to Promote Equity).

Several organizations such as The New Teacher Project and Learning Forward look towards possible solutions to improve student participation in classrooms and overall improve school systems. Other education organizations aim to improve school equity, such as The Education Trust (The Education Trust).

A disadvantage to this solution would be that attendance and involvement are not guaranteed. Programs must be discussed with the School Board to agree upon a program that will satisfy the aforementioned goals. Policymakers have an important role in creating policies that could be implemented at a statewide level. Overall, making sure that students are safe and that they want to attend school.

This solution would involve paying teachers more money to work at a lower-income school because it will motivate them to teach better and to be more active in the classroom. Because teaching is such a low-paying field, it does not always attract the highest quality people. Teachers can be paid more to do their job only if they are being effective teachers. Some teachers choose not to work at a low-income school because of the commute, or pay.

As an incentive to work at lower-income schools, teachers could receive lower tuition for their college if they promise to work at impoverished schools, so they will want to be there and help their students learn because it is competitive. In Ireland, Canada, and Finland, their students perform better in math and reading because their teachers are being paid above-average salaries (edweek). U.S. teachers are paid 22 percent less than comparably experienced and skilled college graduates doing other jobs (edweek). This makes very qualified teachers turn away from teaching at our public schools because of the pay they will receive.

We would prefer to incentivize teachers instead of using a program like Teach For America because this creates an endless cycle of less prepared teachers being placed in very challenging classrooms. These teachers typically only stay in the school for a short period of time, and the schools that need the most help do not get to benefit from having well qualified veteran teachers. The children receive an inferior education because they do not get a good teacher who knows how to teach in a difficult environment and has been working in one school for a long time to build relationships with the community.

Lower-income families will appreciate the pay raise for effective teachers because it will give their children a better education and bring them more opportunities later on. A downside to this solution is the cost, it would cost taxpayer dollars to pay the teachers of the community more.

The level of support for this solution would be somewhat divided because wealthier people would not want their money going to public schools when they could pay for a better education at a private school. This solution could be implemented by the state and/or federal government giving funding to the districts because raising teacher salaries can not be accomplished without their help.