Educational Neglet in Low Performing Schools

One should walk around a low-performing school and then travel to a school in a well-financed suburban school district. The differences will be starkly apparent. In the low-performing school, one is likely to find crumbling, out-of-date facilities; minimal use of technology; and many teachers with emergency credentials or teaching outside their area of expertise. In the suburban school, one is likely to find modern, well-maintained facilities, the latest technologies, up-to-date textbooks and certified teachers with ample experience. The students of these low-performing schools deserve better. Many of these schools and their communities have already begun that process and would benefit greatly from the federal government making them and their students a much higher priority. They have learned that the basics can make a difference in their schools. That means more instructional time, aligned standards, parental involvement, more resources and training, instructional leadership and other steps designed to place the student first.
The question of whether money makes a difference in providing public education for students has plagued our nation for over 30 years. This issue first surfaced in the 1960’s, when an influential federal report discussed the topic of whether money made a difference in improving public schools for poor and minority students. The debate continues 30 years later, and the question of how funds can be effectively utilized to provide all students with a quality and equitable education remains unanswered. The American debate over the effect of money on education is tremendously complex. Educators continue to wonder about the impact that money has on education, and essentially on student achievement. Evidently, it is common to find that low-income schools do not perform as well as schools in wealthy neighborhoods. It is clear that educating students entails the expenditure of funds. The debate stands at how much of the actual funds should be expended on education and where should the money go.
The uses of educational resources vary a great deal from state to state. Per-pupil expenditure and teacher salary range from very low, to double or triple the amount depending on the state. As a whole it would be difficult to assess in reliable numbers the ideal cost of educating a student in the United States.
The amount of funds spent on education has a direct impact on:
Class size
Student/teacher ratio
Pre-school programs
Academic intervention programs
Teacher training
The mentioned components are crucial to student academic success. Money is directly related to the overall nature of education; moreover the success of the educational system depends on the funds invested into it.
In schools of different socio economic backgrounds, the most prominent characteristics are differences in student scores on state exams. Students that are enrolled in schools of high economic background tend to perform better on state examinations. The quality of education is not equitable in wealthy schools as compared to low-income schools. Odden & Piccus (2003) conclude that while lower-economic districts still tend to have below-average spending levels, they do so because they also have below-average tax rates. Consequently, low-income families can’t afford quality education for their children. Jeremy Finn (1998) concludes that smaller classes have an advantage over larger classes. Evidence suggests that smaller classes have a higher chance of student success especially in the early grades. In his article, Gerald Bracey describes the use of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the U.S. Department of Education; his comparison concluded “for the elementary level, increased expenditures on administration and instruction served principally to lower pupil/teacher ratios, which directly influenced achievement. “(Bracey p2).
Instructors in low performing schools will attest that their place of instruction is lacking in the resources that successful schools receive, such as the technology and materials that assist in differentiating instruction. In the comparison and contrast of the quality of education afforded to students in affluent schools and the quality of education students receive in poor communities, the wealthier schools receive a higher apportionment of funds for schools because the residents pay higher school taxes. The final product of these educational institutions clearly denotes a degree of academic success for schools that receive more money. The differences in schools and outcomes are grounded on the amount of money that is invested in these schools. “No matter how many elected school officials declare that “poverty is not an excuse” for poor school performance, the fact remains that children in poverty do not achieve well in school.”(Bracey p2). Studies conclude that the schools that receive the least amount of funds perform poorly. Odden and Piccus (2003) clarify that revenues for public schools are almost $400 billion, and consume 3.9 percent of the country’s gross domestic product and 4.5 percent of all personal income. Moreover, the research shows that revenues for public schools grew consistently during the twentieth century, so that by the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century an average of $6, 855 was expended on each public school student. Unfortunately, those dollars were distributed unequally across states, districts, schools and students.
The effects of the unequal distribution of funds, impacts school budget in low-income neighborhoods. William Hartman denotes that during the planning stage of the budgeting process, the district plans programs and services offered to students such as:
· Educational program standards,
· Support and central office activities,
· Resources to be utilized,
· Process paid for the resources,
· The total cost of the educational programs
This is all within the constraints of available funding (p8).
The most current research findings indicate that increased investments in public education can produce substantial benefits in student achievement, particularly among low-income students. Because low-income students lag in academic achievement, and many poor school districts continue to receive funding levels below those of wealthier districts, high-poverty school districts represent both the greatest need for education funding and the greatest opportunity to improve student outcomes. Recent analyses of the cost of closing the achievement gap in these schools indicate that while many states are providing some funding in pursuit of these goals, few, if any, are providing enough money to fully compensate for the educational barriers associated with poverty.
To ensure that no child is left behind, America must make the challenge of fixing the Nation's low-performing schools its top priority. Located primarily in low-income rural and urban communities, these schools suffer from inadequate resources and substandard outcomes for students. They are particularly burdened by the fact that Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the primary vehicle for closing the achievement gap between lower-income and other students, is funded at just one-third of its full level. Low-performing schools need immediate and dramatic assistance to lift them up to the high-performance institutions every school should be.
The good news is that this process is occurring in many previously low-performing schools. But the federal government, in partnership with states and school districts, must take the lead in making it universal.










Reference

Bracey, G. (1997). Money Matters: No It Doesn’t, Yes It Does. Phi Delta Kappa (v) 78
i7 p 162+

Finn, J.D. (1998). Class size and students at risk: What is known? What is next?
National Institution of the Education of at Risk Students. Office of Educational Research and improvement. (OERI) U. S. Department of Education. Washington DC

Hartman W. T. (2003). School district budgeting. Lanham, MD Association of School
Business Officials/Scarecrow Press (Rowman & Littlefield).

Odden, A. & Picus, L. (2003). School finance: A policy perspective (3rd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.