With everything going on in our nation (USA) and around the world, this question has come up many times: How come public schools in poorer neighborhoods aren’t as good as public schools in affluent neighborhoods?
Many people have been telling me that some states, like CA, have a general fund for public schools where they collect tax money and distribute it amongst schools evenly. Whether that fund exists or not, how come, for example, LAUSD schools in Crenshaw, CA are worse than schools in more affluent neighborhoods of Los Angeles.
I am having trouble finding articles or even understanding about this. I was hoping someone with more understanding can explain.
In: Other
One of the biggest issues is that school budgets are often based on property taxes. So more property taxes from wealthier residents=more money for schools.
There are schools in poor neighborhoods where they spend more per student than in average neighborhoods, that’s not the difference.
Schools in poor neighborhoods have poor students in them, who live in poor households, often with only one parent. There is nothing the school can do that offsets the side effects of having one poor parent. That’s why the problems of the past don’t go away. The systemic disadvantages are persistant, and extra action will be needed to offset it. Making things “equal” isn’t enough.
If it’s in the same county, then it basically comes down to the teachers. No one wants to take a job that’s multiple times more difficult and challenging for the same pay, especially when you are underpaid and work more than your contract hours. So basically if you aren’t dumb you try to move to a “good” school ASAP.
High income families have more resources to put towards their children’s development, such as pre-school, after school activities, tutoring. The amount of time you spend with your child can give them a cognitive advantage. Low income parents have less time to read to their children, often can’t afford pre-school, and often have less stable home environments. Stress from poverty such as housing conditions or poor nutrition affect a child’s physical and cognitive development. This puts low income students at a massive disadvantage and it makes it harder to catch up.
Inter generational poverty is a bitch.
Taking aside the way in many states schools are funded by local property taxes which means wealthy areas have a ton of school funding and poor areas have poor funding, there’s a major uphill battle once you have multiple generations in poverty.
You have kids where parents don’t have a high level of education it’s hard for the parents to show to their kids the value of education.
You have kids where parents are working multiple jobs, they don’t have much time to sit with kids to go over homework.
You have girls who are looking down the barrel of 20 years working minimum wage jobs, who see having a baby and getting married at a way too young age as an escape, albeit wrongly.
You have kids who have to go get jobs in evenings and weekends, to either support family finances or be able to buy things more affluent teenagers take for granted, every hour spent doing this takes away from school and study time.
Then there’s a constant pressure of crime, that adds stress and strife to kids lives.
For many even if they do well, then what? The cost of college education is so high it may as well be at a campus on the moon.
Compare to an affluent area – the kids have parents who have university educations, their friends are all the same, they have a clear path ahead of them that sees them trying hard and staying in school, and any jobs are purely “character building” and often fancy volunteer type gigs to boost college applications, for degrees the kids can very realistically pursue due to well funded parents.
Although one anecdote doesnt make a statistic I can tell you about my wife who is a good teacher and has worked in both poor and more affluent schools.
It is not the resources available or the quality of teaching, it is the amount of time the teacher has to spend actually teaching.
In the poor schools a lot of effort is spent in coping with behavioural problems, bullying, truancy, vandalism, attitude, poor attention span and the negative affects of the kids homelife and bad parenting that they bring into the classroom. Schools are noisier, control is difficult, violence is higher and many of the kids are having problems simply coping with life which gives them little time or mental space to take an interest in education.
In the more affluent areas, kids arrive looking forward to school, listen attentively, participate happily in activities and are just bursting to learn. Behaviour is rarely a problem. Truancy almost non-existent.
I don’t want to suggest from this that poor=bad kids or even bad parents but poverty brings with it a whole host of challenges that in many cases overwhelm the kids and their families and result in behavioural problems that make teaching difficult.
Incidentally, this is in the UK where, if anything, schools in poor areas get more money than elsewhere so it is not about budgets, resources or teacher’s salaries. It is also not about teaching ability. My wife reckons the best teachers she has known were those in poorer schools who could only do that job if they were totally dedicated and at the top of their profession.
This video shows how much of it started. It’s a systemic problem.
Video is about systemic racism but it talks about schools and housing markets too.
Another major contributing factor is the number of tax exempt entities in large cities (especially capital cities).
Universities, public (government) buildings, charities and churches all contribute zero dollars to the tax roll. They take up a lot of space in large cities and do nothing to contribute to the city/state bottom line. So you end up with a huge swath of the city that doesnt pay taxes.
Hartford, CT is a great example of this.
In affluent areas:
* schools have a greater tax base to draw upon
* schools can rely on “voluntary” fees
* students are less likely to face crime, violence, drugs, or hunger
* students are less like to need to work to help support themselves or their families
* students are more likely to be exposed to educated role models
* student see a future involving higher education
* parents are able to provide greater educational resources
* parents are able to provide a stable home
* parents are more likely to value education
* parents are more likely to be educated and able to assist with school work
* parents are more likely to be able to volunteer in school activities
* parents are more likely to help fund college
There are a lot of other comments about budgets, but there is A LOT of money that affluent schools get that aren’t counted as part of the budget. Ed funds, foundations, PTA fundraisers all contribute money to the school that is not part of the traditional budget. Our local Ed fund pays for all science teachers, music teachers, library books, and art teachers at our elementary schools. Crazy to think that schools without our area’s affluence would just have to cut those things.
Latest Answers