America: the land of dreams and opportunities, yet we are failing our children. Education is the base for success in life. Children in the education system do not have a chance of achievement because the funding is not there. Many studies conducted indicate a student's chance at success relies heavily on their access to resources. School budget cuts are made that have a direct negative effect on their students' academic performance. Low socioeconomic status children have an educational gap due to the inequity of funding. Counterarguments are stating that school funding is not the root of America's educational system problems, but students are suffering because of policymakers' decisions. Schools need to be adequately funded and given the needed resources for students to have a chance at success.
School Funding and Its Allocation
There are several ways schools receive and allocate their funding through federal, state, and local resources; proceeding are the many complications of how each school does so.
Peña, Rodrigo H., et al. gives an example of how Texas received their funding, “Thirty-six percent of funding came from local taxes, 33% from state funding, 9% from federal funding, 17% from local bonds and sale of property, 3% from local funding and 2% from equity transfer” (2). This example can be used for states across America. A large percentage comes from local property taxes which has a large impact on the schools in those districts. Schools in a low socioeconomic status neighborhoods suffer because of property taxes being used as local funding. These institutions are not receiving enough money to successfully set their students up for success and achievement, thus leaving an educational achievement gap. There is not equal education for all students. For example, Jaekyung Lee states, “Achievement gaps constitute important barometers in educational and social progress… Particularly, impoverished and racially segregated schools have greater difficulties meeting the standards with fewer instructional resources and less qualified teachers” (64). Lee’s statement of student struggles is supported by what Peña, Rodrigo H., et al. states, “the achievement of at-risk students or low socioeconomic status students is affected by having lack of resources and inexperienced teachers” (5). States across the country depend on a great amount of funding to come from local taxes but ignore that it is negatively affecting the students and educators of the system.
A child cannot choose where they are born at or what financial bracket they will belong to. However, they should not be punished for living in a certain neighborhood. Being withheld of a fair, equal education is a form of punishment in my opinion. Students need to be set up for success because they are our future generation and we cannot say we are doing ourselves a favor by not investing in their education. Investing now will lead to great leaders later in life, but what if that kid that is supposed to be the next leading neurologist lives in a poor neighborhood and now their chances of being successful are slowly taken away from them. Lee states, “The advocates of opportunity to-learn (OTL) standards have argued that every student must have equal access to high-quality learning by specifying key inputs (e.g., per-pupil spending, textbooks, teacher training) in the form of binding standards” (64). Each child should not have to worry about if they will need to share one book with three kids in a class or if their teacher is qualified enough to give them one on one help.
Lee expands his research and states,
This research considers racial and socioeconomic gaps from adequacy and equity perspectives for improving the distributions of school resources and student achievement outcomes. Simply reducing disparities between groups in their test scores and learning opportunities is not a success; there must be improvement in the adequacy of resources for low-achieving, disadvantaged minority groups to meet desired performance standards. Researchers need to understand whether the distributions of school/teacher resources and student achievement are equitable and adequate as well as how well the nation accomplishes these two goals simultaneously. (65)
I grew up in Chicago Public Schools K-12, and I have seen firsthand the effects of not having funding and resources. I was considered to be in the low socioeconomic status, so all my schools lacked the necessities for me to grow academically. I remember clearly and angrily having to beg the librarian to let me use a computer to write or research for my classes. The entire high school had to share about 15 computers which is ridiculous. According to Peña, Rodrigo H., et al., “…students need to have quality teachers and principals, new facilities, and the newest technology resources. However, many school districts do not have the resources or the funding from the federal or state government to provide all the necessary resources to ensure student success” (4). I could not afford a computer at home, so I had to rely on my school’s resources that were scant. If my school had the proper funding for the resources I and my pupils needed, our chances of succeeding would have increased. I also remember being told several times in middle school to work really hard to test into a “good” high school because they had all of the supplies needed; it was assumed that if you got into one of the good schools, you were automatically going to be successful because of the funding for resources and the teachers that were there. I was told this around the age of eleven and twelve and it is sad to look back on that now. From a young age, I had a disadvantage because of where I lived and the public school I had to go to.
Policymakers and school administrators are making budget cuts and not allocating the funds set up for student success and achievement. The budget cuts that are being made are affecting teachers as well. Per Peña, Rodrigo H., et al.,
During the budget process, school districts may consider to provide competitive salaries to retain experience teachers in school with high numbers of economically disadvantaged students… In addition, curriculum and instruction has been compromised by increasing the number of students in every classroom, and districts have not been able to retain and hire good teachers due to being unable to offer competitive salaries. Furthermore, some school districts are forced to use fund balances in order to provide better salaries to teachers. (5)
Pena talks about the students and teachers in that example. Teachers will move out of districts that have a high rate of low socioeconomic status students so that the school will be able to provide them with a higher salary, which leaves inexperienced teachers to students who need help the most (5). The problem is the children who are not academically successful due to these budget and allocation decisions; on the latter, students are also not being challenged.
Thinking of the special need classes at schools, it is imperative that they have experienced teachers and other support staff, such as therapists. My brother, who is disabled, also had to go to a Chicago Public School for most of his school years prior to us moving to the suburbs. While my brother Joshua was at Chicago Public Schools, the classes did not have the correct student to teacher ratio. This not only is dangerous for the students, but also scary and unfair to the teachers. All the children in Joshua’s class were completely dependent and needed a lot of help. The school did not have the resources absolutely needed for this kind of situation. Comparing this to the school he is currently attending, which is a public school in our suburb, the difference is astonishing. Because of the location, his school receives more money from the local taxes. In his current school, there are more than enough teachers for each student, and enough nurses and therapists needed. This is one example of how much budget cuts and allocation of funds affects all kinds of students and teachers.
Revising the Budget
With so many problems at hand with the education system’s funding for resources, it may be challenging to think of a way to help or change the way it is currently handled. However, if we want to help the children of our future, we need to think of creative and feasible solutions to the school funding crisis.
Some states and cities have come up with an idea of how to allocate funds and about who gets to make those decisions. An example of local distribution is participatory budgeting. Laura Pin defines participatory budgeting as “the direct allocation of a budget by residents, rather than politicians or bureaucrats” (114). Participatory budgeting gives a powershift to the residents and parents in these suffering districts rather than having it all one party's decision. These budget discussions usually happen at school board meetings, which is open to the public; parents, teachers, and neighbors can go. Through the meetings and process between everyone involved, the more each person is learning about the budget and where it is going to in their school (127). The more parents are involved with the school’s budget, the more they can help allocate it to the proper departments for resources needed for student success. The downfall of this solution is that not every parent can attend the school board meetings due to several outside factors. However, because teachers and people from the neighborhood can go, they could help speak on their behalf.
Alongside allocating the budget differently, there has been a study about social impact borrowing and how it could help school funding (1). Judy Temple and Arthur Reynolds stated “Recently, coalitions of private investors, philanthropists, education practitioners, and government finance analysts have emerged to create opportunities to expand education services that promise high rates of social net benefits without raising taxes or reducing other expenditures” (1). They describe social impact borrowing as “a specific way of financing services under a pay-for performance financing system” (4). This creative idea could be a tool we use towards a solution for the school financial battle. Social impact is being used to describe a private investor or someone who could benefit socially from the success of their investment which can also be called mission investing (4). If we think of high profile people, such as celebrities or other main people in the spotlight, we can see how one might use this for their own social gain while also helping the education system. Per Temple and Reynolds,
This type of borrowing has great appeal to governmental or nonprofit organizations: the organization offering social or educational services secures a new source of money to expand a program addressing a social challenge; the private investor can earn a return and also promote socially desirable outcomes, and the government pays back the loan only when successful. Payment by the government is intended to come from the savings generated by the program’s success so no additional sources of public revenue may be required… One type of risk is called performance or impact risk, which refers to the possibility that the education intervention might not have the expected effect on students and consequently may not generate cost savings. (8-9)
While looking at solutions to any problem, one will have to weigh the benefit to the risk and decide what is best. In this given school funding problem, I think trying anything that is reasonable and feasible should be done to help our children. The idea that Temple and Reynolds came up with, social impact borrowing, I believe it is great and more research should be done so we can implement it in today’s school and push for higher student achievement rates.
More needs to be done with school funding and resources for students to have a chance at success. Per Norman Eng and Allan Ornstein, “An emphasis on opportunity and mobility allows us to think beyond the achievement gap, high-stakes testing, and accountability, which the public finds limiting” (623). Trying to push myself and look beyond what school funding is doing, which is leading the educational and achievement gap, I need to refocus of what can I do to help our students succeed. Eng and Ornstein mention a solution that targets high school students and real world work rather than pushing a 4 year University on students, it gives them a chance at something else (625). They state “alternatives like career and technical education (CTE) have begun to gain political and education support… a systemic, career pathways movement can help a broad majority of high school students thrive in school, gain the technical skills that are increasingly vital to a technology- and knowledge-based economy, and, at the same time, earn a respectable middle-class wage” (625). This solution idea is great because not all high school students want to go to college after high school, or some cannot afford to do so. With this solution, we’re looking at after students finish school, they will at least be able to make money on their own and not depend on the government, which later leads to more funding to be allocated to school districts that need it the most. This type is a prophylactic solution because we try to stop the problem before it starts. If the government is essentially saving more money because of career and technical education, they can put some back into the education system.
America: The Land of Dreams and Opportunities
America, the great country we call home, is currently falling short to our children’s education needs. Failing our children while they are students is failing future America. Regardless of any laws and plans in place, there is no such thing as equal education. Students’ achievement and success are in correlation with the proper funding. Knowledge and education are vital for one’s success in life, and that all starts with K-12 schooling. Students are going to school without the needed resources because their school does not have funding. The schools are lacking resources, qualified teachers, and opportunities to grow. To give students a chance at success, we need to find and implement a solution, such as social impact borrowing or spreading awareness of participatory budgeting. The school funding problem will not fix overnight. However, it is our obligation and duty as American citizens to help change the education system to set students up for success and give them an equal opportunity.
Works Cited
Eng, Norman, and Allan Ornstein. “Introduction: Reframing the Inequality Debate toward Opportunity and Mobility.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 72, no. 4, Dec. 2016, pp. 619–628. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/josi.12186.
Lee, Jaekyung. “Educational Equity and Adequacy for Disadvantaged Minority Students: School and Teacher Resource Gaps toward National Mathematics Proficiency Standard.” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 105, no. 1, Jan. 2012, pp. 64–75. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=EJ948595&site=ehost-live.
Peña, Rodrigo H., et al. “Low SES High School per Pupil Allocation and Its Effect on Achievement.” Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, vol. 21, Oct. 2018. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1194258&site=ehost-live.
Pin, Laura. “Does Participatory Budgeting Lead to Local Empowerment? The Case of Chicago, IL.” Alternate Routes, vol. 28, Jan. 2017, pp.114–140. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=sih&AN=122658375&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Temple, Judy A., and Arthur J. Reynolds. “Using Social-Impact Borrowing to Expand Preschool-to-Third Grade Programs in Urban Schools.” Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 20, no. 4, Jan. 2015, pp. 281–292. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx direct=true&AuthType=ip,sso&db=eric&AN=EJ1084710&site=ehost-live.