Unit 4 Essay

Roderick Hooks

EN 106

2/6/2020

Inequality in American Schools

Puritans of Massachusetts established the first public school and decided that these schools will get funds from property-tax receipts. Initially, the system of using property tax to fund local school was performing equally. In her article, XXX argues that education is unequal in the United States because students from poor district perform at levels several grades below those from the richer district. This is because of inequality in the money supplies to schools to fund public schools. Public schools are financed by different states depending on their contribution to tax collection. Most of the poor districts contribute low property tax because properties are less valued and only poor people stay in those districts. Because of this, public utilities such as schools lack adequate resources to support learning. The standard measure for economic hardship does not present the magnitude of the learning gap between poorest and richest students. The federal government and education sector in the United States needs to formulate policies that support the implementation of equal acts.

Public education became mandatory at the end of the 19th century and the responsibility for educating students was given to states rather than the national government. States gave more money for schools, even for schools that relied on property tax. However, regional disparities that arose due to increased urbanization lead to inequalities in schools. Areas with less valued properties or poor families had less money available for schools. As a result, schools in poor districts had fewer resources to support education. In the early 20th century, states started to provide grants to all districts to ensure equitable funding. Nonetheless, wealthier districts increased property values making the state subsidies to increased, hence, causing more education disparities. Advocates and activists have filed claims to push for equality in the American education system. Most of these efforts failed due to opposition in the Congress, the audience for this essay is to inform the federal government and local government that poor districts where most of the disadvantages students come from need more money to finance their education.

States should design a formula that will allow districts to share revenues for education to be more equitable. My argument is that states should give poor district enough money for disadvantaged students to have the ability to perform as wealthier students. Students in wealthier district have access to school psychologists, personal laptops, up-to-date exercise books, and counsellors. High-poverty areas do not access these resources. These areas have more students who need extra help, yet they have fewer tutors, guidance counsellors, and psychologists (Semuels, p1). They also have poorly paid teachers, bigger classes size, and poor facilities. This situation is experienced because local cities and towns operate most schools in America; these schools receive funding from local property taxes. Poor districts and areas raise less money compared to wealthy places such as Greenwich and Darien, which have homes worth millions of dollars. Researchers affirm that the education system is unconstitutional because of inadequate funding and unequal distribution of resources.

Although the government contributes between eight to nine per cent of schools nationally, the funding is not enough. Government contributes mostly through programs such as free and reduced lunch programs as well as Head Start. Students in all school have the right to receive education as stated in the No Child Left behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act. The economic hardship standard measures used by the education system do not present the correct statistics on disparities in achievement gaps. As Dynarski quotes, “the problem is much worse than these statistics show” (Dynarski, p2). She argues that schools, districts, and federal government use the unpolished standard measurement for economic hardship. The free and reduced lunch offered to disadvantaged students is among the issues that need to get addressed. A researcher at the University of Michigan found that economic hardship measures understate the achievement gap after analyzing the data found in Michigan Consortium for Education Research. For example, Dynarski quotes that, “about half of eighth-grade students in public schools get free and reduced-price lunch” (Dynarski, p8). However, they perform at levels several grades below their classmates in wealthy areas. I affirm with Dynarski opinion that years that students are eligible for subsidized meals to intensify the depth of disadvantage.

Due to lack of resources, disadvantaged students receive poor education. Teachers are also frustrated and demotivated to conduct their duties forcing them to leave. For example, public schools in poor areas have more students and lack enough computers to perform computer projects and they are forced to share. More so, students are highly suspended from poor schools because teachers and guidance counsellors have no time to deal with these cases as compared to wealthier areas. Poor districts do not offer electives, art classes, field trips, and gifted and talented programs as offered in wealthier areas (Semuels, p8). Public schools in poorer areas have a large class size, older schools, and some schools have poor depilated facilities. Moreover, absenteeism is experienced mostly in poor districts due to poor facilities and lack of resources. These factors contribute to poor performance in school for disadvantaged students. As I conclude, the federal and states governments should increase their expenditure on education to ensure equitable schooling. Delegating the responsibility of education funding to local cities and towns will contribute to more disparities.  

Work Cited

Dynarski, Susan. "Why American schools are even more unequal than we thought." New York Times (2016).

Semuels, Alana. "Good school, rich school; bad school, poor school." The Atlantic (2016).