Education Inequality Across the Nation:

Some Children Are Being Left Behind

By: Kelsey Ort

We stand in the shadow of Jefferson who believed that a society founded upon the rule of
law and liberty was dependent upon public education and the diffusion of knowledge.1 However,
todays current public education system is failing. The inequalities between wealthy and poor
school districts across the country are growing in number and spreading throughout the nation at
an alarming rate. A society once founded upon public education has become one that does not
provide equal education opportunities for all. In fact, more than 40% of low income schools do
not get a fair share of state and local funds, and this is a problem that must be mended.2

What is Education Inequality and Why is it Problematic?

Public education once played a key role in ensuring that children of all backgrounds and
statuses received the proper education that would allow them to develop into successful
individuals later in life. However, the current school system, which is based predominantly on
taxes from members of the districts surrounding community, has caused a substantial difference
in resource availability between the educational institutions throughout the country. Wealth is
becoming increasingly concentrated at the top of the income distribution, and this has created a
tremendous divide among districts of high and low income regions; as a result, the children who
are attending these schools are receiving varying degrees of education, causing an unnecessary
gap in the achievements between students of differing districts.3
Educational inequality refers to the uneven distribution of education and resources among
certain social groups and is running rampant throughout the United States, robbing students of a
uniform level of education, which is essential to a prolific economy as generations grow and

develop the means to be productive members of society.4 Inequality persists during a time when
all youth should be given equal opportunities to succeed in this ever-growing and changing
world. Too many of Americas most disadvantaged children grow up without the skills needed to
thrive in the twenty-first century.5 There is a myriad of contributing factors which constitute the
underlying causes behind this phenomenon that is present across the nation.
Among these factors is the fact that a majority of society refuses to accept this problem or
aim to rectify the situation. Unfortunately, the United States is seeing an increase in the gap
between the wealthy and non-wealthy school districts. The richest 25 percent of school districts
receive 15.6 percent more funds from state and local governments per student than the poorest 25
percent of school districts, the federal Department of Education pointed out in March 2015.6 This
gap has been steadily increasing, and does not appear to be on the decline at any point in the
foreseeable future. In fact, the gap has grown 44 percent since 2001-02, when a student in a rich
district had only 10.8 percent resource advantage over a student in a poor district.7 In less than
two decades, the gap between wealthy and poor school districts across the nation has nearly
doubled, and this is causing serious ramifications for todays school-age individuals.
To put this into perspective, the poorest school district in the United States, located in San
Perlita, Texas, has a median annual household income of just $16,384, or less than third of the
national median income level. A typical household in the Scarsdale, New York school district
earns $238,478 per year.8 Due to the fact that school districts are funded primarily from local and
state taxes, these two districts are in no way providing the same level of education, as can easily
be visualized by viewing the following bar graph which depicts the vast differences among

income levels between these two areas of the United States.

Median Household Income: San Perlita, Texas vs. Scarsdale, New York

Column2

Unfortunately, the United States has always seen a negative stigma associated with poor
areas of the country. Many individuals feel as though those who are living in these areas and
who are not able to provide for their families as well as other parts of the country have brought
this upon themselves. As a result, poorer parts of the country are seen as taboo and are therefore

discriminated against. This social construction of negative tensions building around the idea that
the less fortunate individuals of society are choosing to live this way only serves to create a
wider gap among the education inequality struggle. If all of America were to understand and
accept that these areas are not asking for this type of lifestyle, then the gap between the wealthy
and poor school districts the gap that is causing a lapse in the way the American education
system is meant to be could begin to be tightened and perhaps erased once and for all.

How Do We Begin to Solve This Problem?

Fifty years ago, Congress passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or ESEA,
to address disparities by providing Title I federal funding to schools that serve students from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds.9 However, this law has not achieved its intended goal
to ensure that federal funding would aid in struggling educational institutions. In actuality, more
than half of the states spend fewer dollars per student in high-poverty districts than in lowpoverty ones. In Pennsylvania, for example, the highest-poverty districts spend more than 30
percent less per student than the lowest-poverty ones.10 In more than half of the states, there are
hundreds of high-poverty schools that receive less funding than schools that serve more-affluent
students.11 This is an awful reality that has no doubt contributed to the increase in education
inequality that can be seen nationwide.
Increasing the amount of funding that a school district receives is an issue in itself;
however, with more funding available for schools in high-poverty areas, the country would most
definitely see an increase in productive members of society emerging from school districts such
as these. The graphs that follow display the positive benefits that Pennsylvania was able to
implement by increasing a fraction of the state funding; the potential for more improvement
depends upon each state being willing to provide even more state funding.

At both
a

federal

and

state

level,

investments must be made in low-income schools in order to produce positive and substantial
outcomes for educationally disparate students. According to a recent National Bureau of
Economic Research study, for poor children, a 20 percent increase in per-pupil spending each
year for all 12 years of public school is associated with nearly a full additional year of completed
education, 25 percent higher earnings, and a 20 percentage-point reduction in the annual
incidence of poverty in adulthood.12

Fair Funding Incentive Grants

In terms of tackling the issue of states providing a larger sum of money that is allocated
to low-income districts, the idea of Fair Funding Incentive Grants can be discussed. Congress
initiated the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, but it has not been updated to the standards in
which it needs to be.13 While many individuals benefited from this Act, there are numerous ways
in which the Center for American Progress, or CAP, has chosen to step in and seek to alleviate
the roots of the problem. One of these solutions is to initiate Fair Funding Incentive Grants.
CAPs proposal would make the $1 billion available in new funding under Title I for Fair

Funding Incentive Grants to be distributed to states; states would then distribute the funds to
districts via the existing Title I formula.14 This proposal would provide incentive for states to
receive more federal funding, while also encouraging them to put more money into their local
school systems to ensure a higher level of equality among all districts.

Minimum Funding Per Student

Along with this idea comes that of minimum funding for all students. Throughout the
country, there are a great deal of states who have proven to not spend enough money per student
to achieve the attended goals of an American Education. As a result, there is a role for federal
government to set clear expectations for school funding via a minimum spending threshold for
districts to be eligible to receive Title I funds. CAP recommends that the federal government
establish a national per-pupil spending minimum of $7,500 per student after adjusting for
differences in cost of living.15 As stated, this is a minimum amount that is recommended,
implying that, where applicable across the country, a higher amount should be spent per child for
a quality education. Figure 8-11 shows the current expenditures per pupil for elementary and
secondary public schools in 2009, proving that the difference in expenditure per student has been
growing for years.

In

2011 the Department of Education released an article stating that 36 percent of elementary
schools have expenditures that are at least 10 percent above or below the district average for such
schools.16 The figure for high schools is 42 percent, and for middle schools, 30 percent,
illustrating that there is a significant difference in amounts that are spent on students.17 Since
poorer districts are those falling into the category of lower-than-average expenditures, the
establishment for mandatory minimum funding spent per student across the country would assist
in eliminating the overall problem of education inequality.

Eliminate Property Tax as State Funding Method

Property taxes have always been the significant source of funding for schools in the
United States.18 This poses a serious problem and concern throughout the country and raises an

important question: How can all students be expected to receive the same level of education
when they have differing amounts of money being circulated throughout the varying districts?
Pennsylvania is one state that is seeking to eliminate property taxes which would provide many
benefits for the Commonwealth, including providing a fairer and more equal educational system.
The Property Tax Independence Act will eliminate all school property taxes across the
Commonwealth and will replace those taxes with funding from a single state source.19 The most
important provision of The Property Tax Independence Act is that it is tax revenue neutral. To
provide absolute fairness, the legislation has been carefully crafted to ensure that the tax swap
provision of the plan does not raise one dollar more than is already collected by the school
property tax mechanism.20 This method has been introduced in several states across the country
and is showing improvement. If this method is implemented in all states, the possibility of better
education equality is very high. While this idea will increase sales tax to 7% and add items to
the list of taxable items within the state, the plan gives a realistic example to serve as a means of
getting citizens on board with this method and is as follows: While there are those who might
object on an instinctive level to a sales tax on the last two items mentioned, consider this: If you
spend eight thousand dollars annually on individual items of clothing over $50 and non-WIC
food purchases combined, the total sales tax would be $560. If this is less than your school
property tax bill you still will realize a substantial reduction in your overall tax burden.21
Raising the sales tax may hinder individuals from following this method; however, the
benefits of dismissing property taxes to allow equal education opportunities regardless of ones
living location will outweigh this fact. In addition, the sales tax increase will in most cases still
be lower than property and school taxes, meaning that ridding states of property taxes has the
potential to save individuals money.

How Will This Look?

Low levels of performance among the most disadvantaged create long-term problems,
particularly in an economy in which higher skill levels are more and more valued and the wages
available to less-skilled workers are deteriorating.22 Because of this, it is crucial that the entire
United States recognizes that education inequality is a growing problem that must be resolved in
order to provide competent and skilled workers when the children of todays educational system
reach the age of maintaining careers. New evidence shows that poor schools are getting
increasingly short-changed by the states and localities that fund them.23 The Fair Funding
Incentive Grant method will no longer allow this to take place; in turn, this cycle of inadequate
funding to poor schools will be broken, providing new opportunities within education that these
schools may have never dreamed possible.
As the U.S. continues to reckon with a widening income gap between the wealthiest
Americans and marginalized communities, politicians and advocates have often cited education
access as one of the greater contributors and potential solutions to the problem.24 By
tightening the gap that exists between the wealthy and poor areas of the country, equal access to
education will begin to emerge and will provide incredible opportunities to those who would
otherwise never receive a real chance in the world. However, not taking the necessary actions to
solve this problem may produce an even bigger problem down the road.
If steps are not taken to alleviate this ever-growing issue that has become so prevalent
across America, there will be devastating consequences, both short and long term. Income has a
strong correlation with educational achievement on a national level which is seen in many
examples throughout the country.25 Without steps taken to change the fact that areas with lower
income individuals can not provide the necessary education for all students, the fickle wheel of

low income areas will continue to spin. There is a correlation between students who come from
wealthier households and their achievements and graduation rates, likely because of the many
advantages they receive. The majority of the wealthiest districts have at least a 95 percent
graduation rate. Only two of the ten poorest districts have graduation rates higher than 75
percent.26
A lack of a firm education for children from low income districts will result in the
continuation of lower graduation rates and may lead to higher high school dropout rates than
ever before. This will inevitably lead to an inability to achieve higher paying jobs that will
sufficiently provide for themselves and for future generations, which benefits no one and is one
of the numerous examples of why education inequality must be remedied.

How Does This Look?

Contrary to the popular belief that all states across the country utilize property taxes as
the main source of revenue for school districts, there is one state in particular that does not, in
fact, follow this traditional rule. The state of Iowa started researching as early as the 1990s into
the complex nature of educational inequality and from where this issue seemed to derive. Iowa
investigated the possibilities of eliminating property taxes. While this is still a work in process,
Iowa has seen some improvements in their overall allocation of funds and how they are dispersed
throughout the districts to each student. Rather than relying on property taxes as the main source
of funding, Iowa has developed a new formula that is designed to equalize spending per pupil,
provide an enrollment decline cushion, provide advance funding for increasing enrollment
districts, provide property tax relief, and much more.27 The formula that was implemented
regulates the amount of money spent on costs that are not within the immediate range of a
standard education: any additional expenses are calculated into the combined district cost,

10

which the district can then use to seek further funds through a combination of board and voter
approved taxes from the state to supplement the expenditures.28 Iowa has established a rate per
student that each district much spend per student which helps to provide the same level of
education to every student across the state. Since the use of property taxes to fund education has
become increasingly controversial, Iowa has initiated the plan of using income surtaxes as a new
source of revenue or as a property tax replacement.29 This may seem like it could cause similar
problems as the property tax, yet the state has been able to find a way to equalize income values
and the rates are expressed per $1,000 of valuation, which essentially still balances out to
establish the tightening of the educational inequality gap that exists.30
Iowa ultimately serves as an example of a state that has been making significant efforts to
introduce a system to fund the educational system in a fair and equal manner for all. While no
official numbers seem to have been reported in terms of the effectiveness of this strategy, Iowa
remains confident that the data that has been received thus far is promising and looks to show
great improvement in the educational system.31 Additionally, Iowas overall graduation rate as a
state topped 90 percent in 2015 and has climbed statewide for the fourth year in a row during a
time where dropout rates continue to fall in other states around the country.32 The following
graph depicts this statistic in relation to Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and
Iowa has proven to be the leading state for graduation rates among these states.33

11

Iowas tremendous graduation rate is undoubtedly correlated to the funding changes that
have been integrated into the states educational system and should be used as a model for the
other states in the nation.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Taking action to speak out against this growing problem is essential to creating the first
wave of change. Solving this problem is the duty of policy makers and legislators. The problem
and the solution to the problem remain in the hands of those in powerful positions who are able
to enact the necessary changes that this country needs in order for the American Educational
System to prosper. It is imperative that legislators implement policy changes that will ensure that
each and every student within the nations school system receives an equal level of education,
regardless of the state or area from which they come. It is important for legislators to discuss
possible budgetary changes within the districts to ensure that the money is being appropriately

12

dispersed among the schools to ensure the highest quality of education is available to the
students. Additionally, legislators must develop policy changes that will allow for more federal
and state funding to be disbursed to all public education institutions.
Ultimately, these projected policies need to be implemented in order for change to occur.
Passing laws for fair funding incentive grants, minimum funding for all students, and the
elimination of property taxes will begin to allow for the changes that are incredibly necessary to
our nations educational system.
Inequality has become widespread throughout the educational institutions of America and
is an issue that must be rectified. Without changes at local, state, and federal levels, this issue
will continue to worsen and debilitate the future of America as children are not receiving the
same level of education and being offered equal opportunities to succeed. Failing to enact
change will eventually lead to the crumbling of the ideals on which the American Educational
System was founded. This is the time to promote change and provide all youth with every
opportunity to succeed and to cultivate a prosperous American nation.

13

Endnotes
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8

9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16

Matt Blunt, Readable, available at http://www.allreadable.com/671dK171 (last

accessed March 2016).
US Department of Education, More Than 40% of Low-Income Schools Dont Get a
Fair Share of State and Local Funds, Department of Education Research Finds,
available at http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/more-40-low-income-schools-dontget-fair-share-state-and-local-funds-department-education-research-finds (last accessed
March 2016).
Center for American Progress, The Persistence of Educational Inequality, available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/news/2011/12/02/10805/thepersistence-of-educational-inequality/ (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid.
Russell Sage Foundation, Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage, available at
http://www.russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/social-inequality-and-educationaldisadvantage (last accessed March 2016).
Jill Barshay, The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade,
Hechinger Report, available at http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-andpoor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade/ (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid.
Evan Comen, Thomas C. Frohlich, Michael B. Sauter, and Sam Stebbins, Americas
richest (and poorest) school districts, USA Today, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/10/03/24-7-wall-st-richestpoorest-school-districts/73205874/ (last accessed March 2016).
Center for American Progress, A Fresh Look at School Funding, available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/05/18/113397/a-freshlook-at-school-funding/ (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Yoshiaki Azuma and Herschel I. Grossman, Educational Inequality, National Bureau
of Economic Research Study,17(3) (2001): 323-327, available at
http://www.nber.org/papers/w8206; Center for American Progress, A Fresh Look at
School Funding, available at
https://www.americanprogres.org/issues/education/report/2015/05/18/113397/a-freshlook-at-school-funding/ (last accessed March 2016).
Center for American Progress, The Persistence of Educational Inequality, available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/news/2011/12/02/10805/thepersistence-of-educational-inequality/ (last accessed March 2016).
Center for American Progress, A Fresh Look at School Funding, available at
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/05/18/113397/a-freshlook-at-school-funding/ (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid.
Adam Gamoran, "American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the
21st Century," Sociology of Education 74(6): 142144; Center for American Progress,
The Persistence of Educational Inequality, available at

14

17
18

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/news/2011/12/02/10805/thepersistence-of-educational-inequality/ (last accessed March 2016).

Ibid.
Jeff Frantz, Bill to eliminate property taxes raises questions about equal funding for
schools, Penn Live, available at
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/04/school_property_tax_eliminatio_1.
html (last accessed March 2016).
Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition, The Property Tax Independence Act,
available at http://www.ptcc.us/solution.htm (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid
Ibid.
Russell Sage Foundation, Social Inequality and Educational Disadvantage, available at
http://www.russellsage.org/research/social-inequality/social-inequality-and-educationaldisadvantage (last accessed March 2016).
Jill Barshay, The gap between rich and poor schools grew 44 percent over a decade,
Hechinger Report, available at http://hechingerreport.org/the-gap-between-rich-andpoor-schools-grew-44-percent-over-a-decade/ (last accessed March 2016).
Julie Mujic, Education Reform and the Failure to Fix Inequality in America, The
Atlantic, available at http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/educationsolving-inequality/412729/ (last accessed March 2016).
Evan Comen, Thomas C. Frohlich, Michael B. Sauter, and Sam Stebbins, Americas
richest (and poorest) school districts, USA Today, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/10/03/24-7-wall-st-richestpoorest-school-districts/73205874/ (last accessed March 2016).
Ibid.
Leland Tack, Iowa, Iowa Department of Education, 3, available at
https://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/Iowa.pdf (last accessed April 2016).
Leland Tack, Iowa, Iowa Department of Education, 5-7, available at
https://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/Iowa.pdf (last accessed April 2016).
Ibid.
Gary Schwartz, Funding, available at https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/schoolfacilities/funding/iowa-demonstration-construction-grant-program-harkin-grant-program
last accessed April 2016).
Leland Tack, Iowa, Iowa Department of Education, 5-7, available at
https://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/Iowa.pdf (last accessed April 2016).
Leland Tack, Iowa, Iowa Department of Education, 9-12, available at
https://nces.ed.gov/edfin/pdf/StFinance/Iowa.pdf (last accessed April 2016).
Gary Schwartz, Funding, available at https://www.educateiowa.gov/pk-12/schoolfacilities/funding/iowa-demonstration-construction-grant-program-harkin-grant-program
last accessed April 2016).

15