Statement Of Purpose For Joining The Select Leadership Program

America’s school system and student population remains segregated, by race and class. The inequalities that exist in schools today result from more than just poorly managed schools; they reflect the racial and socioeconomic inequities of society as a whole. Most of the problems of schools boil down to either racism in and outside the school or financial disparity between wealthy and poor school districts. Because schools receive funding through local property taxes, low-income communities start at an economic disadvantage. Less funding means fewer resources, lower quality instruction and curricula, and little to no community involvement. Even when low-income schools manage to find adequate funding, the money doesn’t solve all the school’s

“Education is a major driver of development and is a strong instrument for reducing poverty, improving health, gender equality, peace, and stability” (The World Bank) - so why is it that students are often deprived from an extensive education? In Illinois, education funding has been an ongoing problem. Funding for schools is based on the property taxes where the schools are located, causing those who live in lower socioeconomic areas to receive less educational funding. This is unfair because children who live in lower socioeconomic areas are not able to receive the same opportunities and benefits that are acquired when a quality education is obtained. This is why educational funding in Illinois should be distributed evenly so that every

Public school funding is unfair and unequal in most states. However, more concerning is out of the 49 million children in public schools, students living in poverty are affected the most. There are wide disparities in the amount spent on public education across the country, from a high of $18,507 per pupil in New York, to a low of $6,369 in Idaho (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2015). The question that all stakeholders should be asking is school funding fair?

Most people believe that students do better in well-funded schools and that public education should provide a level playing field for children. Nearly half of the funding for public schools in the United States, however, is provided through local taxes, generating large differences in funding between wealthy and impoverished communities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000a). Efforts to reduce these disparities have provoked controversy and resistance. Public school funding the United States comes from federal, state, and local sources, but because nearly half of those funds come from local property taxes, the system generates large funding differences between wealthy and impoverished communities. Such differences exist among states, among school districts within each state, and even among schools within specific districts.

The educational funding problem in Michigan takes root back in 1809, when the first public school was founded. While funding was not an issue at the time, the way schools were funded through local property taxes eventually created a large problem. Fast forward to 1985, Michigan has long moved past the rural cities of the 1800’s and into affluent suburbs and cities. The size and taxation pools of cities have greatly changed from 1809 to 1985, but the way schools were funded remained exactly the same. This lack of change led to a large disparity in school funding from richer districts to poorer districts. Coupled together with local governments’ inability to convince citizens to vote in favor of millages and tax hikes, the disparity ballooned. In 1993, Bloomfield Hills ranked in the 99th percentile of Michigan schools, was spending on average $10,294 per-student, while Standish Sterling ranked in the bottom 1st percentile, spent $3,738 per-student, roughly a $6,500 difference per-student (Roy 2003). This inconsistency greatly disadvantaged students all the way to 95th percentile, where there

When determining equity and adequacy fixes for funding public schools in New Jersey and Ohio a framework for assessing must be determined. Starting with equity, both states have a history of litigation that determines the educational objects for the framework. Since the mid-90’s to this decade the most influential New Jersey court decisions are the Abbott v. Burke decisions. The New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the state to bring per-pupil revenues in the low-income Abbott districts up to the per-pupil expenditures of successful suburban districts (National Education Access Network, 2016). In Ohio the DeRolph v. State

Public education has struggled with securing funding for years and the opening of charter schools has impacted the budgets of school systems across the country. As more charter schools are created and parents

As a tutor, I have seen the workings Stockton public schools, and compared to what I learned at their age, these students are lacking a proper education. For example, my third grade student, who is learning to multiply, is battling with addition. Meanwhile, my first grade student strains to read simple phonics. It is unfair to see children forced to receive a minimal education because of where they live in and their parents’ financial status. Therefore, my dream is to enhance the curriculum in public school systems within cities that face socioeconomic adversity. I aspire to equate the educational benefits between private and public school systems. Money should never impede a person’s path to education, and it’s unjust that it plays as a contributing

In many states, a majority of local property tax revenues are distributed to local public schools. For this reason those who do not have children or know any children in the area, in search of an education, are opposed to the idea of an increase in school taxes as they do not see any benefits for themselves. Most of these particular individuals also strongly believe that public school systems are inefficient and wasteful, thus an increase in funding will not make much of a difference. According to fact number two in the “Facts About K-12 Education Funding,” investments in education do not necessarily mean that higher scores will be accomplished. As long as the funds are not being spent correctly, there will not be any changes for the better to improve these schools. In recent years, the liability of funding for public schools has shifted from the local property taxes to federal and state sources.

The education system in America is stained by racial and structural inequalities that cause those in lower income areas to not receive the necessary resources that enable a student to thrive. These benefits are as simple as certified teachers (Turner), maintained classrooms, and even accredited school districts. The common denominator in the lack of basic expectations is the type of funding public schools receive. The federal government gives “about 10 percent of the money schools have to spend” (Turner), while the state and mainly local dollars have to provide the rest. When the majority of a school’s funding is produced using the local region’s property taxes,

Cory Turner of National Public Radio, writer of Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem, has the answer; “…45 percent local money, 45 percent from the state and 10 percent federal…why is it that one Chicago-area district has $9,794 to spend on each of its students, while another, nearby district has three times that? Two words: property tax,” (Turner 2). The authors of Equity Is the Key to Better School Funding, Marin Gjaja, J. Puckett, and Matt Ryder, say, “Giving kids in high-poverty areas an equal opportunity to succeed requires spending more money on those students,” suggesting that in those low-income areas, local and state government regulations alone and predominately will not be beneficial (Gjaja, Puckett, and Ryder 1). Property taxes when associated with funding for education are insufficient in low income areas, and in return are insufficient for the school. Leaving local and state governments with the responsibility of fulfilling a majority of education costs is a concept we should correct. Turner also mentions that one Arizona school has four-day weeks to save money from electricity bills, as a result of poor rates of property taxes. Budget cuts also contribute to the impairment of districts with lower property taxes and lower income families, an implied point from Michael Leachman’s article, Most States have Cut School Funding, and Some

Many kids dream about finishing school or just getting an education; however, in the United States school funding in low and high income areas are highly uneven. Though funding is not fair, education can be made equal for students. Schools in poverty-stricken areas have a lack of funding resulting in an average education, which can be changed by boosting the amount of funds given to each school district. Increasing school funding not only helps the school it can also help students, teachers and the community. Studies and research show raising funds could possibly increase the education quality, success after high school, and student performance.

It is a common belief that students will perform better in a well-funded school. The National Report Card (NRC) examines the finance systems of all 50 states in the nation measuring how schools are funded based on four different categories: funding level, funding distribution, effort and coverage. “A fair funding system is one that provides a sufficient level of funding distributed to account for the additional needs” of the various populations, ensuring that all students have an equal and adequate opportunity for success nationwide (Krengel, 2014). However, the funding for public schools comes from federal, state, and local sources; however “nearly half the funding for public schools in the United States [being] provided through local taxes” (Biddle & Berliner, 2002, p. 48). Due to the funding being provided through taxes a large “difference is generated in funding between wealthy and impoverished communities” (Biddle & Berliner, 2002, p. 48). Not only is this difference present among communities, but districts, schools within the same districts and ultimately states across the nation, thus causing the issue of unequal school funding.

Funding for schools, especially in the urban schools, have not allowed the district to properly distribute the money. The money does not reflect what is needed to educate properly. The reason for less funding for urban children is because schools receive funds based on taxes, even though the state funds the same amount per student. Due to the low taxes in the urban cities the schools are not funded that well. Absence of needed funding is shown through the quality of teachers that are hired. Teachers in the urban

Funding for public schools in general, is shifting from the federal level, to the state, county and city level, resulting in a need to consider the process by which funds are directed and integrated into public education. The complications with this shift in funding are defined as: “A fundamental trade-off between equity and efficiency objectives in the provision of public education [that] underlies the political tensions inherent in altering school funding responsibilities” (Duncombe and Johnston 145).