School funds comprise from real estate taxes. California is described as "flat", in terms of its capability to provide funding to districts that have a high poverty rate, meaning that there is no increase in funding to school districts that are located in areas that are in poverty. I feel like funding schools this way is unfair. Arcadia, for example, is known to have a substantially high amount of school funds through real estate taxes. Therefore, they are able to afford programs and materials that can further a student's education. However, school districts where poverty is present means schools are unable to purchase basic materials for students, because they do not receive as much school funds through real estate tax. Thus, students in these impoverish areas are unable to receive equal education as students in areas that are not impoverish. I believe students should be able to receive equal education even if they are living in an impoverish area, because every one should be able to receive good education.
- What are your thoughts on how schools are funded?
- What improvements should be made?
Education is affected by school funding and the effects of it can be seen not just in the US but in China too. In his article "Shanghai Schools's Approach Pushes Students to Top of Tests", David Barboza mentions how schools in rural areas do not have much money and have high dropout rates. This could be because rural towns often don't have much money to begin with, naturally causing them to lad behind in town projects and upkeep. Compare that to the Chinese city schools that seem to have none of these problems. This could be because cities usually have enough money to spend on city and schools. The point is that this money difference has had lead to a drastic difference between the struggling rural schools and the successful city schools in China. Our education system should learn from the mistakes of China and ensure that schools have enough money to provide a proper education.
ReplyDelete