Emma Brown: Conflict Theory Analysis

Kozol (1991) explained in his book how one would think that because they live in a free nation and they are entitled to a free education, that they would receive the same as everyone else. Unfortunately, our country was set up with a tax-based formula for school funding. It’s a complicated formula and most people never think to scrutinize it. Basically, taxes based on the values of homes are levied. It is an equal tax in all districts so it is equitable. Ironically, because the properties in poor areas are worth far less than in affluent areas, there is always a shortage. The Shortage in funding creates a significant difference in teacher quality, curriculum and resources Former Secretary John King (2016) explained how schools with highly concentrated Blacks and Latinos are less likely to offer advanced

Savage Inequalities: Children in U.S. Schools by Jonathan Kozol In the article Savage Inequalities: Children in U.S. Schools by Jonathan Kozol, talks about the inequalities that exist between poor internal city schools and more well-off suburban schools. Comparing two New York City schools, he depicts PS 79, where there are over swarmed classrooms, absence of school supplies, and scarcely any funding for school repairs. He then compares PS 79's conditions to PS 24, whom have over the top measures of subsidizing and extensive and very much prepared classrooms. Kozol goes to the pitiful acknowledgment that the rich can manage the cost of the vital resources for an adequate training while the poor stay isolated in lessening government funded schools,

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

The resources available to an urban, lower income school are to be equal to those available to a suburban, higher income school. Two schools in New York, one from a wealthy school district and one from a poor district, were given computers. The State provided the same number of computers to each school, therefore claiming to evenly supporting each school. However, the school with the poorer children had a larger number of students; the nicer school had twice the number of computers in proportion to the number of their students (Kozol 84). It seems that the biggest factor keeping the children of lower income homes behind is the school funding available. The poorer school district does not have the money to spend on the things a wealthier district may, but there is no real evidence that spending money makes much difference in the outcome of a child's education. In many cases, family and background have a greater influence on how well a child does in school (Kozol 176-77). Richard Kahlenberg, a member of the Century Foundation, says, "Research findings and common sense tell us that the people who make up a school—the students, parents, and teachers—matter more (Lewis 648)

Not only are impoverished children suffering from a late start in education, it is known that the neediest schools are the schools who's students are below the poverty line. The students with the greatest needs receive the least funding and resources. In New York the average poor student will receive about $1,000 year in resources at public school; whereas the school's with the least amount of poor children receive around $3,000 per student in public schools. Not necessarily the same number wise but this is the case in at least 37 of our 50 states (Schemo). Inadequate education for impoverished children only worsens their chances of making it out of poverty.

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 conflict theory explains that there is always a disparity that exists in the society due to the presence of limited resources as well as the variations in the skills and knowledge. It will always happen that in the society there are the wealthy and elite, the middle-class people and the poor who have the lower status in the society. The children from these social statuses will always have varying education success, employment opportunities and eventually economic success (Zucman, 2014).

School funding is a mix of different funding sources like federal, state, and local. About ninety percent of funding for education comes from state and local community. K-12 education has failed to keep up with high enrollment. Schools must spend to counter effects of poverty while many European countries alleviate these conditions through government spending. Currently more than forty percent of low income school get an extremely unfair share of state and local funds. Low income school are receiving inadequate funds for their school, whereas other schools in the United States are unfairly distributing their state and local funds. That is unfair to the low income schools because those schools really need the money for school books, field trips, etc. Funding for public schools has been quite unequal for years, but even though Americans are fully aware of this issue no one does anything to solve it. Researchers are trying to show them both sides of this unequal funding issue in public schools in order to help balance the distribution of educational funding.

If the education system relies most of their funding from taxes, where do they end up getting the rest of the money. The government and administration grant more money to wealthier areas than low -income areas. Wealthier communities are granted more money because they have a higher percentage of funding coming from property taxes. This leaves the low-income students at a disadvantage. People living in low income areas mainly rent and don’t own their own property. As a result of not having a house or owning property, they have little property taxes. If low -income students are not given enough money for funding a school, the students are suffering. With the lack of money causes students to miss out on college prep classes such as AP classes and Honors classes. These classes are pivotal to the students that want to pursue higher education and a road to success. For example students in the low-income areas are given a poor education. They are not given the resources, or quality teachers in order to achieve success. According to George Miller House Education and the Workforce committee, many students are not educationally ready to graduate and attend higher education (Minority 1). This is another reason why low income students should be provided the same classes as a middle class or a wealthier community. In a study, 2 million students in 7,300 schools had no access to all calculus classes, a staple in many high – achieving high schools (Minority 2). Low-income

“ Historically, low-income students as a group have performed less well than high-income students on most measures of academic success” (Reardon, 2013). Typically low-income families come from low-income parts of the state making a school that does not have as much funding as a higher economic schools does lack in resources for their students. The school then has lower paid teachers and administrators, with lower quality supplies. This results in a school which typically has faculty who do not perform as well as the well-funded schools. “The law fails to address the pressing problems of unequal educational resources across schools serving wealthy and poor children” (Hammond, 2007). Students from low and high income families will not be able to achieve the same education because their education simply is not the same.

One of the greatest differences among public schools is the funding they receive. Public schools across the country have incredibly varied amounts of capital dedicated to them which in turn leads to a disparity in the quality of education a student will receive at these schools. The race of a student, the location they live in, and the wealth of their family greatly correlate to the level of education they will receive. As Harvard professor Jennifer L. Hochschild notes, “Districts with a lot of poor students have lower average test scores and higher dropout rates...The highest spending districts report high test scores, and some of the lowest spending districts report the lowest test scores” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). The students who attend schools that receive less funding typically obtain an education that is lesser in comparison to schools that receive more money. The inequality in funding within a state has a severe impact on the variation of education quality. In the case of Connecticut, “The district that spends the most provides almost twice as much per student as the district that spends the least” (“Social Class in Public Schools.”). As a result, the schools that receive less funding work with more outdated textbooks and equipment, while schools with more funding can afford to buy new equipment and provide a better environment for the

According to the conflict theory on social stratification, those in the upper levels of a stratification structure hold a monopoly over the community's or society's desirables and the use of their monopoly to dominate others. In "Imagine a County", it reads about the US school systems that are rigged in favor of the already-privleged, with the lower caste children tracked by race and income into deficient and demoralizing classrooms. Public schools budgets are determined by property taxes, allowing the higher income districts to spend more money than the lower income districts. When talking about conflict theory, there are the bourgeoisie and the proletariats, which in this instance are the wealthy and the less fortunate. The wealthy schools are packed with well stocked libraries, and the poor schools are lucky to have up to date books. This not only causes conflict between the two "classes", but a high level of inequality as well. These elements of this society tend to contribute to the instability and inequality of this society.

Conflict Theory sees social life as a competition, and focuses on the distribution of resources, power and inequality. Unlike functionalist theory, conflict theory is better at explaining social change and weaker at explaining social stability. Conflict theory has been critiqued for its inability to explain social stability and incremental change. For example, a conflict theorist might ask, "Who benefits from the current higher educational system in the U.S.?” The response is for a conflict theorist accustomed to imbalanced amounts of wealth, is the wealthy. After all, higher education in the U.S. is not cheap. The education system frequently siphons through poorer individuals, not because they cannot contend academically, but rather that they cannot afford to their education, monetarily. For this reason the poor are unable to achieve higher education, they are generally also unable to gain higher paying jobs, and, therefore, they remain poor. This tehn becomes a vicious cycle of poverty.

Department of Education, “documents that schools serving low-income students are being shortchanged because school districts across the country are inequitably distributing their state and local funds”. (Education, 2011). Students that come from low income families are not given the equal chance to get the education that students from high income families get. If students are not given the tools they need to be educated, then they will have a poor chance of succeeding in the world.

However, from a different perspective Social Conflict Approach, Karl Max defined the Social Conflict Approach as a framework for building theory that sees society as an arena of inequality that generates conflict and changes. Conflict theory usually emphasizes on negative, conflicted and ever-changing nature of society. Unlike functionalists who defended the status quo, avoid social change and believe people works together to effect social order, conflict theories challenge the status quo, encourage social change and believe rich and powerful people force social order on the weak and poor. Now the problem is how far do social conflict theories relate to the educational system? As illustrated by Marxist theorists Althusser, education socially