The Problems Of The Mid Valley School

buildings within. I could also safely say that most of the other schools in the

Lincoln High School, which is located in a low-income neighborhood in San Diego, was a rebuilt after 50 years of failing to educate children. Rebuilding the high school was the answer the community had been looking for they were hopeful. Before the rebuild most students who attended Lincoln did not meet the standards for their grade-level, few graduated and even fewer went go on to college. After years of suffering and neglect there was little doubt That Lincoln High School deserved the $129 million it received from the city to rebuild. But was rebuilding the school the solution for Lincoln High School 's education problem? First we’ll examine, How the problem started, the decision making steps and if the plan was successful.

Pennsylvania has strict limitations on funding schools. Local governments heavily influence the funding that does occur. The school district governance in Philadelphia has been a subject of debate. A large majority of the revenue that the local government receives is from property taxes. In the year 2000 property taxes regarded for almost $10 billion of the revenue in Pennsylvania. That was 30 percent of the total revenue that the local government received and 70 percent of all local government tax revenues. Property taxes accounted for roughly 85 percent of the overall tax revenues for Pennsylvania school districts in 2000. Practically half of all the school district’s revenue came from the compilation of property taxes. The one thing

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

In this detailed and shocking book, Jonathan Kozol describes the horrific and unjust conditions in which many children in today’s society are forced to get their education. Kozol discusses three major reasons for the discrepancies in America’s schools today: disparities of property taxes, racism, and the conflict between state and local control. The first of these reasons is that of the differences of available property tax revenues. Kozol discusses the inconsistencies in property tax revenues and the problem that the poorer districts aren’t getting the same opportunities for education as the more affluent neighborhoods. He says the reason for this is that the

“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

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

In 1910, when this school was first open, many students throughout the United States still attended classes in one-room schoolhouses. Aside from the one-room schoolhouse in Marshwood, Olyphant had progressed beyond that stage. This building was the centerpiece of the Olyphant School District. It had the look of a high school in a major city. At the time all of the streets in downtown Olyphant were paved with red brick. Most of the students lived within walking distance of the school. They were able to walk home to eat lunch. Therefore, no one ever thought of including a cafeteria in the building plans. It was built without a cafeteria or kitchen of any kind.

first were some of the first to decline. This added to the theory that a

There are diverse and contradictory views on school funding inequalities and school performance. Various research and reports have shown in great detail beyond this paper’s scope that inequalities in school funding does cause different outcomes for school children (Jackson, Johnson, & Persico, (2015. Unequal funding leads to unequal education: from the start, schools have different resources and means to educate our children (Kozol, (1991). Other reports suggest that different funding will lead to different social outcomes later on in life (Hyman, (2013); Biddle & Berliner, (2002). The fact is that schools in poorer neighborhoods all over the united states, funding are limited and they have poorer schools (Kozol, 1991). Schools in richer areas and especially in suburban white neighborhoods receive higher funding and they have better schools (Kozol, 1991). Some argue that school funding is not the problem and throwing money at the problem would not be the solution. This is somewhat contradictory because most well-funded schools are predominantly white. The schools are well lit, classrooms are spacious, student-to-teacher ratio is smaller, labs are well equipped, hot lunches are plenty, and teachers are experienced and well paid (Kozol (1991); Jackson, Johnson, & Persico, (2015).

“ 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.

Today, however, it seems as if the public has lost track of the importance of a great educational system. The main issue today’s public schools faces are funding problems. There is not enough money allocated to support the growing needs of school across the nation.

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

The sad reality of it all is that gross funding inequities continue to persist in the U.S and no one seems to be working steadily to rid this problem. When putting funding into education equity should be focused on rather than equality. According to the National Report card there are core fairness principles that must be followed to maintain equal opportunity. The 3rd principle states that the level of funding in a district should increase relative to the level of concentrated student poverty rate. Therefore state finance systems should provide more funding to districts serving larger share of students in poverty (Is School Funding Fair? 7). Examining the school district of Philadelphia one could see that this principle is not being followed. The No Child Left Behind Act was created in 2001 to ensure that no later than 12 years after 2001 (2013) all students will meet the states standards. The act

Property tax is the “most common,” “most dependable and stable income base,” for schools. Property tax can be a complicated process and there are difficulties for taxpayers because assessments can be overvalued or undervalued. A property may be worth less and yet the property tax may be higher than the assessed value of that property. This over and under valuing can be frustrating to a taxpayer that lives in a home that they can’t sell for the million dollars that their home’s property tax is assessed at and yet they are paying property taxes for a million dollar home. I would think that in areas where there is less property to be taxed, there would be less income coming in to those school districts, making it less equitable. It could be vastly different from one area to another.