Equal school funding is at the top of my list when it comes to poverty and inequality in the school system. Although schools are educating more young people than ever before, their deficit of funds and programs hinder them from meeting the needs of an array of students.
That could be enough to supply a student with a lunch or any other supplies that are needed to be successful. Another source of how much money is being taken away from these schools comes from the article titled Unequal Education author Ary Spatig-Amerikaner states, “Across the country schools spent $334 more on every white student than on every non-white student (Spatig-Amerikaner 13). Why do the school systems see students of minority groups less than any other normal white student? All this money that is taken out from these schools is having a detrimental effect on the student's performance when it comes to their academics. There is a reason the school systems are given a certain amount of money for each child.
“Only 8 percent of low-income students take a rigorous course load, compared with 28 percent of affluent students” (CED 2005). Ignoring this group and not providing enough guidance can definitely prolong the economic crisis, especially when many of these students may actually have a strong possibility for success and leadership. This crisis, will not only extend poverty cycle within this group, but decrease their confidence level that can make them lead to destructive paths. “Children raised in low-income, single parent families often suffer from a number of critical cognitive, health, and nutritional deficits that are likely to limit their future academic achievement and educational attainment” (ETS). Lower-income students may more likely suffer from malnutrition and other health problems, which may cause them to lack concentration in classrooms and trainings for the workforce.
The more current issue is that the gap has widened between the educational successes in high and low income students, which is exactly what Krugman is arguing in favor towards. Low income students are generally found in low income communities which have fewer resources to devote to their schools. With inadequate funds and resources, these kids are not getting the equal opportunity in education as kids in high income communities. Kids... ... middle of paper ... ...n to the students of all economical status rather than taking from it. If the gap can widen so quickly then there is hope that it can also close just as quickly with the right action.
Studies have shown that the higher a school’s percentage of poor kids, the worse that school tended to perform on SATs (Washington and Tagami). If students in poverty are making lower test scores than the wealthy ones, then they are less likely to get accepted to college, and if they do get accepted they have less a chance to obtain scholarships or grants. Mike Rose, nationally recognized writer, educator, and specialist in composition, says that “this is the first time school has meant anything to them” (Rose 196). School means something to these students, mainly because they know in order to get out of poverty they have to complete a degree. Getting out of poverty is a must have for majority of these students because they want to be able to make a better life for themselves.
High school dropouts are two-and-a-half times more likely to be on welfare than high school graduates, according to the California Department of Education. Now really think how our society would be without school. It would be filled with poverty, anarchy, and rebellion of the ignorant generations that didn’t receive the right structure. But let’s stop imagining how it would be. We have a great educational system that is most definitely for the best of kids.
Lane Kenworthy mentioned in his book, Social Democratic America, that the No Child Left Behind reform is useful, but it is by any means not making schools better. The reform does not benefit all children; back to the classroom with one quarter of the children that attended an early education program, those children within the one-quarter will be stuck at the rest of the class’s level. Those one-quarter children will not be able to move forward until the other students catc... ... middle of paper ... ...em unreasonable, but if we think about how much our government spends on programs designed for the educational problem, it would be substantially saving money. Consider this, we have many problems within the school system such as children getting held back, adolescents not having the desire to graduate high school, and dropouts. An early educational program would adjust these problems and give children the incentive to carry on with their education.
In recent years, education in the United States has slowly decelerated when compared globally. Compared to students in other countries such as China or Germany, American students tend to slack when it comes to their studies. This concerns parents, who want their children to receive the best education offered. Single sex schools have proven to provide this need for a quality education. With only one percent of all schools in America sexually segregated (Whelan), the admissions process can be strenuous; however, as the population of locations these schools continue to increase more students can attend them.
Early learning certainly affects a child brain structure and creates an aspiration to learn more past age level. It is a proven fact that they are less likely to need assiantace from the government and drop out of high school. They even are less likely to be in trouble with the law and more like to go to college and become very successful. In low income setting and for children who don’t attend preschool is Thirty percent is most likely to drop out of high school. Forty-five percent is
But American students must play catch-up with the rest of the world, and todays public school system is not prepared to facilitate the major leap forward that our educational system needs. Before 1965, America's public school system was producing better educated students with less money and fewer supplies than today. Each class was approximately 40% larger than today's classes, and they functioned with about one-third of the real dollar expenditures of present day schools. They taught with fewer books and less equipment, and did not have any of todays audio-visual material and equipment. Then, between 1965 and 1980, real dollar expenditures per student doubled as teacher to student ratio dropped by one forth.