Similar and Different Solutions to Educational Inequality
My whole life I’ve heard from teachers that the system is stacked against students that come from low-income backgrounds, especially students that attend schools where most others are from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds as well. This is a tenet that Troy Flint of the California School Boards Association (CSBA) includes in their main argument about the inequality plaguing schools in California. Flint notes that in a report from two decades ago regarding students in California that come from “nonaffluent” districts perform almost a full grade below in comparison to their peers nationwide, however, such a gap does not exist in affluent schools. This is important because it demonstrates how socio-economic status significantly affects the quality of education a student in California receives based on where on the socio-economic ladder they were born on. However, low socio-economic status backgrounds are not the only explanation, as Flint goes deeper into the fact that students from minority backgrounds were not challenged in education and according to Flint “given the opportunity to meet high expectations,” that is to say, teachers expectations of students were different between white students and minority students, this bigotry of low expectations helps reinforce inequalities later in education, despite the study revealing that students from all backgrounds performed more or less the same when given the opportunity to meet high expectations. This shows me that expectations of student performance and importance of having someone believe in your capabilities as a student are crucial for attaining educational equality. Flint points out the reason for California’s performance is tied into it being among the lowest performing state when it comes to per-student funding, percentage of taxable revenue spent on education, and student teacher ratios.
Alana Semuels also provides insight into the issue of funding public education in the United States and how without federal intervention into how states fund education, the quality of education becomes dependent on a domino that begins with money. This point ties in well with California, which, despite being one of the wealthiest states in the United States continues to have one of the worst public education systems in the country. The reason for it being tied directly to the belief of the federal government that “there is no right to equal funding in education under the Constitution.” I agree with that notion, in the regards that students that come from low socio-economic backgrounds and attend primarily low-income schools should be prioritized when it comes to funding, something that a government commission appointed by Nixon emphasized. This emphasis towards the federal government being involved in funding addresses a major issue, as states are limited by their budgets, and although the author states that federal interventions is not the be-all end-all solution, that it nonetheless provides a great starting point. If we allow states to continue down a path of funding that disproportionately limits the quality of education that students receive, this will only serve to brew more inequality later on.
On the contrary, the previous sources miss one key aspect in regard to academic performance, one which Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times considers. Poverty is not pretty, students that come from low-income backgrounds are more likely than not to face challenges that can’t be remedied by investing in education or teachers in the classroom, nor can it be remedied by teachers working for no pay after school hours. The solution the author suggests is one that, while dependent on funding, is not just about funding at the school level, but for a place after-school for parents and students that serves as a community center for those affected by poverty. There proposals are intriguing, as it shifts more focus onto factors at the community level that affect personal and educational growth in students at an early age, if students are not assisted when they’re young and given a place to succeed at, then investment in later education serves no significant purpose.
The authors, while all supporting investment in education, have different views of how to tackle the problem, with Lopez mentioning charter schools as a possibility and Flint bringing up models in France and the United Kingdom that make the quality distribution of teachers and peers more equal. It is evident that there is no one shoe fits all solution, but given the inequalities of the education system in the United States, it’s worth trying to find one that’ll support those most in need.
