Public Education
The concept that public education is the great equalizer in this country is in jeopardy. Schools in our poorest states are being shortchanged by policies that distribute federal aid to public schools. Wealthier states are receiving more federal funds than poorer states.
Ideally, public education would arm students with knowledge so that as adults, they’ll be able to move up the ladder and achieve success. However, this is not necessarily true in our a public school system, because states spend the money differently, and the federal government has a very complex formula for allocating money. For example, in Massachusetts, the federal dollars spent per child is $2,310, however there are far more poor students in Oklahoma, where the amount spent is just over $1,000.
Title I money is the largest anti-poverty education program and about $13 billion gets distributed to states by a series of formulas. The formulas basically look at two issues. First is the number of poor children in any given state, but the second factor in the formula is the average per student expenditures in that state. Congress wanted to reward states that spent a lot on public education. This formula tends to reward wealthier states, while states that have less wealth may tax themselves at higher rates, but get less in federal financial aid.
Spending $13 billion in Title I funds is narrowing the gap between rich and poor students within a state, but when we look at across states, we’ll find that the formula tends to make the inequalities in education funding greater, rather than narrowing them.
Title I is commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act and Congress is expected to reauthorize it next year. They'll be reviewing all of the law's provisions not just the funding. Hopefully, Congress can come up with a law, which will address some of the inequalities across states.
Students going to a school that educates mostly kids growing up in poverty are less likely to have qualified teachers and a challenging curriculum. There is a lot that needs to be done, but funding is just part of the solution.
Ideally, public education would arm students with knowledge so that as adults, they’ll be able to move up the ladder and achieve success. However, this is not necessarily true in our a public school system, because states spend the money differently, and the federal government has a very complex formula for allocating money. For example, in Massachusetts, the federal dollars spent per child is $2,310, however there are far more poor students in Oklahoma, where the amount spent is just over $1,000.
Title I money is the largest anti-poverty education program and about $13 billion gets distributed to states by a series of formulas. The formulas basically look at two issues. First is the number of poor children in any given state, but the second factor in the formula is the average per student expenditures in that state. Congress wanted to reward states that spent a lot on public education. This formula tends to reward wealthier states, while states that have less wealth may tax themselves at higher rates, but get less in federal financial aid.
Spending $13 billion in Title I funds is narrowing the gap between rich and poor students within a state, but when we look at across states, we’ll find that the formula tends to make the inequalities in education funding greater, rather than narrowing them.
Title I is commonly referred to as the No Child Left Behind Act and Congress is expected to reauthorize it next year. They'll be reviewing all of the law's provisions not just the funding. Hopefully, Congress can come up with a law, which will address some of the inequalities across states.
Students going to a school that educates mostly kids growing up in poverty are less likely to have qualified teachers and a challenging curriculum. There is a lot that needs to be done, but funding is just part of the solution.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home