Low Funding Equals Low Success

Low Funding Equals Low Success

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 have put them at a disadvantage in getting a quality education.

Unequal funding through out the country demonstrates the unfairness some school districts face. According to "School Funding," an article by PBS, the facts and figures of government spending on public schools is very imbalanced. In order to understand the problems of education in America, it is necessary to look at the way public schools are financed. As the article notes, "expenditures are not equal from state to state because of the different costs of education and inputs and real estate and teacher salaries"(1). An example is New Jersey spending twice as much as Utah per student. It is more striking to see how a district within a state varies tremendously as well. The example it used to compare the disparity is how district spending in San Antonio, Texas ranged from $2,112 to $19,333. (2) Because of that disproportion, low income schools have the short end of the stick.

The federal government has tried to alleviate the gap by passing laws that benefits schools more equally. President Bush set up a program to ensure that all children are getting the quality education they need and deserve. President Bush's "No Child Left Behind Act" is a program that sets standards for academic success and requires schools to achieve a certain level in yearly testing. According to an article written in the Boston Globe, President Bush purposed spending $1.5 billion to expand this education reform to public high schools and require the students to take a yearly test in reading and mathematics. (A1) Teachers and school administrators criticize this act because it is under funded and unworkable. The National Education Association says that "testing just gives more bureaucracy and paperwork . . . parents and teachers want smaller class sizes, textbooks, and supplies."(32) The article does state that the Department of Education credits the "No Child Left Behind Ac"t for improving reading and math test scores. It addresses that although progress has been shown in elementary schools, it is more complicated at the high school level because there is a greater tradition of putting students on different tracks. (33) It points out that although the No Child Left Behind Act is backed with good intentions, but it is difficult to implement.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, state education policymakers are focused on establishing a more thorough academic standard of achievement among schools and students. Student scores on state mandated standardized tests are used to assess school performance, which the federal government recently increased requirements for academic improvement in the "No Child Left Behind Act" (Carey 1). It describes how states are developing systems to track the continuing progress of every pupil, making promotion and graduation dependent on academic progress, and evaluating the performance of administrators and teachers based on the students' achievements (2). Wealthier schools have less of a problem integrating this in their school system and see more benefits from it.

The No Child Left Behind Act creates challenges for school districts that serve large numbers of low-income children. The relationship between poverty and lack of academic achievement is significant, continuous, and eminent. Without the funds to offer support for children who are at risk of academic failure, high poverty school districts face a strong chance of failing to meet strict academic standards. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities points out that the federal government recognizes this need and therefore "set up funds through the "Title 1" program that provides additional funding to states and school districts based on local poverty rates" (2). A large number of states have adopted similar policies, in that they give education funding to school districts on the basis of poverty.

State poverty based education funding programs can be implemented and improved. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, when education finance officials did a survey in the 49 states with several school districts, they found that state poverty-based education funding programs vary substantially. State policies are different because of many reasons: the level of funding provided, definition of poverty, formulas used to allocate funds, how the funds are targeted to high poverty school districts, and restrictions on the use of funds.

Currently, 38 states distribute some education funds on the basis of poverty. (Carey 3) In the 2001 - 2002 school year, "a total of 75 separate programs in those states distributed $8.7 billion to schools." (3) Funding in states for poverty based education varies significantly in terms of size, focus, and method of funding. Thirteen states provide additional funding by "adjusting the limit of their basic state aid formulas which is the large distributions of state funds which forms the backbone of public support for education"(3). Eighteen states have established separate "categorical" grants to assist poor students, providing supplemental distributions that add to basic state aid. Seven states utilize both approaches. (Carey 3) So, the discrepancy for funding differences comes from the many ways states choose to disburse their funds.

To estimate the number of low-income children in each school or school district, most states follow the same method of gathering student poverty data. According to Carey, the most commonly-used measure is eligibility for the federally-funded free and reduced-price lunch program. Carey observes that "twenty states base some or all of their poverty-based education funding distributions on the number of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, while 10 states use the number of students eligible for free meals only. Six states rely on poverty data calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Census, three states use the number of children in households receiving