Smith 1

Kyle A. Smith

Professor Goeller

English 1201

3 July 2019

The Funding Gap Created by Low-Income School Districts

When someone looks at schools in different areas of the United States, one of the most

important things is the performance level of that school’s students. Everyone wants the best for

their kids, but unfortunately some people can only afford what their circumstances allow them,

resulting in living in a low-income school district. These schools are highly underachieving

mainly due to the lack of funding from state and local taxes. The school funding comes from the

property tax of the houses in that school district and living in a low-income districts affect’s a

child’s education and life success. Many people are not even aware of the issue, which creates

an even bigger problem for the children. Therefore, the public-school funding gap should be

resolved by the government because it will allow students the chance to receive an equal

education, thus allowing for better school performance and success throughout life.

In the United States, public school funding comes from federal, state, and local sources.

Out of those funds, nearly half come from the local level through property tax. Property tax is a

tax payed by local community members based on the equity value of their home. People with a

more expensive house will pay more money towards the school, whereas those that live in a

poorer area with a cheaper property pay less (Biddle & Berliner). This payment plan creates a

disparity between schools and school districts. This means that kids in the same state can receive
 Smith 2

the same amount of government funding, but different amounts of local funding for their

education.

The way the U.S. funds their public schools is through property tax. We are one of the

few countries in the world to fund our public schools this way. Most countries will fund schools

equally, poor or wealthy, and will actually give more to the schools with higher percentage of

lower-class children (Biddle & Berliner). This actually the exact opposite of what happens in the

U.S., because our government allows the students from more privileged families to receive a

higher quality education than the students already living in struggling households.

In 2018, South Korea had the world’s most successful public education system, and a lot

of that stems from how they fund their education. They have a Ministry of Education that

provides 75% of a public school’s funds. The rest of the funding is made up through admission

fees and tuition. This system allows for all schools to be funded equally, based on their

education needs. South Korea also provides a reward system for teachers based on their

students’ performance. They give incentives for bonuses, higher pay, and the chance to study

abroad. If a school seems to be falling behind, the Ministry provides extra funding to the school

for further teacher education, and other school needs, to help have higher achievement rates.

They also receive parent and student tutoring/counseling (NCEE). I think that the way South

Korea funds their schools is a great way for the United States to get an idea of how to fix their

funding problem. They even provide more funds to aid under achieving schools to increase their

performance, while simultaneously tutoring both the parent and the child on how best to succeed.

In this school system, all schools are funded same amount from the government, unlike in the

U.S. where there is a gap between districts.

 Smith 3

When the government is classifying schools as low, or high-income, they record the

percentage of the students on reduced or free lunches. The program run by the government

helping to provide reduced lunches for the poverty level families is the National School Lunch

Program. The program recognizes two separate levels of poverty for families of four as of 2005.

The first of those is a family having an annual income 185% of the poverty level, which results

in them making $34,873. This allowed these students to have the option of receiving reduced

lunches. The second level requires a family to be 130% below the poverty level, which results in

the family making a combined $24,505 annually. This allows theses students to have the option

of receiving free school lunches. The government then looks at these numbers and based on the

amount of students on these programs, they can deem a school as low-income. Knowing how

high the poverty rate is in the United States, it is shocking how our schools are so impoverished,

yet our nation is so wealthy at the same time.

Now knowing about the poverty in our school districts, we can come to see how that

affects their funding, creating the funding gap. These impoverished school districts receive less

money from income taxes because of their low value of homes in their districts. It works the

same way with wealthy districts getting more money, because their property taxes generate more

money for their schools (Hall et al., 1). From these differences, the wealthy districts outperform

the poorer ones. Higher-income students will receive better chances to succeed in school, and

life, giving them higher odds to graduate from college. Low-income students on the other hand

have less opportunities to be successful and will therefore fall behind developmentally compared

to the counterpart wealthier districts (Suitts, 37).

The resulting funding gap creates many issues in schools. Below are two examples and

graphs of two poor districts in inner city New York City. The schools are labeled as, Public
 Smith 4

School 251 and Public School 291, are used in Hall and Ushomirsky’s article, “Close the Hidden

Funding Gaps in Our Schools”. Figure 1 shows that 251 got almost $2,000 less than most

schools in their area. Figure two shows the total amount shorted, by multiplying the number of

students in their school, you get a total deficit of $1,325,254. This is nearly one and a half

million dollars that the school is shorted to educate their students. This lack of funding could

have gone towards books, teachers, or anything to help the children succeed. 291 resulted in a

total loss of $1,284,165 that could have gone towards the school. (Hall et al., 2). Seeing how

large these funding gaps can get, it becomes apparent how the performance of high and low-

income schools is so different.

Another example of this funding gap is when seen in larger school districts. Fellow

Education trust writers Ivy Morgan and Ary Amerikaner researched and speculate that as of
 Smith 5

2018, the average difference of funding between low and high-income districts was $1000 less

per student. That may not seem like much, but if that district has ten thousand students K-12,

then that district is shorted $10 million dollars. These missing funds deprive schools of much

needed funds they could use to help increase academic performance in their schools (Morgan &

Amerikaner). This is just the average reported by the Education Trust, so there are going to be

some states where the gap is much larger, and sometimes smaller.

This funding gap is caused by the United States’ current stance on school funding. The

government gives the same amount per student to each school. This is would all work out to

create equal funding, but the rest of a school’s funding draws on property tax based on property

value. The poor areas have low-value homes, and therefore the families pay less money in taxes

to the schools. This added to the money given by the government creates a gap compared to the

amount generated by the wealthy properties in high-income areas. This gives the wealthier

districts more opportunity to be successful and perform better in school (Taylor, 53).

In the United States, the majority of kids going to public schools are from low-income

families. This is important, because it affects our country so drastically because a whole

generation is plagued by poor funding. Many of these students will underachieve, fail school,

and be unsuccessful in life (Suitts, 37). This is why the current school funding system should be

changed, so that way we can give students the best chance to succeed.

The funding gap in low income schools has a direct impact on testing scores. There are a

few other things that tie into the low-income area that contribute to these low scores. The first is

the lack of technology and up to date materials that the school is able to provide for the students.

The next one is the inability to pay for high quality, educated teachers, which leaves them with

only less qualified teachers. The final issue that can cause low test scores is being from a low-
 Smith 6

income family. Many of these students grow up in single parent households, and many issues

arise from this that divert a child’s attention from learning.

Possibly one of the most important things in education is the technology used to teach the

students. Wealthy school districts are able to pay for new technology to give their students the

best chance for success, while low-income schools use outdated items. An example of this is the

use of textbooks. Our knowledge of the world is constantly changing, and we are learning new

ways to do things. If poor districts lack the resources to buy new books every so often, they

could be teaching students things that were from twenty years ago and have since changed.

Having old technology often makes a student less motivated to go to school, because they are

embarrassed of what they have, or they just simply can’t learn from it. This drives attendance

rates down, which also affects their school performance. New technology has even been proven

to help teach children, but unfortunately, these schools simply cant afford it with the budget they

have (Taylor, 54). When I was in high school, a few of my classes used VHS tapes from the

nineties, along with overhead projectors. These forms of education are outdated, especially the

VHS tapes, because science always changes, and these resources were almost thirty years

outdated. My school also was in a fairly wealthy district, so it makes me curious as to the

conditions inside a low-income school. Studies even show that class size, and the quality of the

learning environment play a key role in education. Reduced class sizes may play a role in

student achievement, because these children often perform better in school on tests and overall

academic success (Biddle & Berliner). Newer schools can also provide a more constructive and

effective environment for kids to learn. Unfortunately, if a student doesn’t have these, then

statistically they will perform lower on testing than wealthier school districts (Hall et al., 5).
 Smith 7

Teachers are one of the top contributors towards education. Having higher quality, and

more educated teachers will lead to better student performance. The low-income schools lack

the funds to pay for more educated, and qualified teachers for their students. This gap creates an

educational unbalance across the country, because different students receive different qualities of

education. When teachers go to college for longer, and are more educated, they are entitled to

make more money for their years of education. This means that these teachers will go to the

schools that will pay the most money, which just happen to be the higher-income school districts.

This leaves the low-income areas with the teachers that are less qualified. Research proves that

higher qualified teachers are able to better educate their students, resulting in higher overall test

scores (Hall et al., 3). Better funded schools are able to attract more qualified teachers. Studies

have proven that this in turn generates higher scores on tests, and overall increased student

achievement (Biddle &Berliner). These low-income schools have less resources to bring in these

teachers, and can’t provide the incentives that wealthy schools can. Much of this goes along

with what the government is doing in North Korea. They give the teachers incentives for their

students performing better on standardized tests, such as study abroad, and raises/bonuses, which

have proved to be helpful tactics improving teacher productivity (NCEE).

Studies even show that the amount of parental involvement in a child’s schooling has

drastically improved student performance. The more a parent is involved, the greater academic

success a child will have, leading to increased graduation rates, attendance, and eventually more

successful careers. Many students in low-income school districts have single parents, or parents

that work multiple jobs to provide for their families. Working these jobs may prevent them from

helping their child with school work, attending conferences, or even arriving at school, which

drastically hinder the students of low-income families. Sometimes if the family is struggling, the
 Smith 8

student will skip school to work a job to help provide for their family, which directly impacts

their education (Huettl, 10). Some students may even be embarrassed to attend these schools

which creates a lack of motivation to show up, so they decide to skip school anyway. These

obstacles presented to the students and families make it nearly impossible for a child to receive

the education they are entitled to. The schools can only do so much with the funding they are

given. This is another area that schools should receive extra funding. Similar to how South

Korea provides extra services to the families of schools performing below standards, the United

States should also adopt a system like this. Schools can provide tutoring services to parents not

only on how to help their child succeed, but also on how the parent could succeed financially.

They can provide planning services on how to use their money, or even set up accounts so that

they can begin to learn how to save money to send their child to college. Both of these options

will help the student in graduating, and also to continue their education.

Unfortunately, many of these students will not even have the chance to continue their

education. Graduation rates from high school are very low for low-income districts, when

compared to their counterparts. Low-income graduation rates area low 73% of the class,

compared to 86% of high-income students graduating. Then when you look at the numbers for

college attendance rates, you see that low-income students attend college 51% of the time

compared to 81% of wealthier districts’ students. This gap shows just how much the funding

gap affects the low-income students’ education (Alexander et al., 300).

Students that are part of poor districts are restricted from the beginning of their lives as to

what they can do. Whatever situation they were born into has a big say as to their success and

the path they take in life. This becomes an endless loop for some families, as they are

continuously stuck in their low-income lives, and their children will be affected the same and so
 Smith 9

on. Many of these children will become high school dropouts and never finish their education.

This will then cause them to make less money over their lifetime, again keeping the low-income

family in the loop of poverty. As mentioned earlier, this impacts their children, who are given

less resources to pursue their education, and will attend low-income schools and therefore be just

as likely to follow in their parents’ footsteps (Taylor, 54). This is very unfortunate for these

children, because this impacts their lives so much. Knowing that the U.S. has one of the highest

poverty rates for industrialized countries, makes it worse, because you get an idea of just how

many people are affected by this.

Stemming off of the lives these kids are born into further creates the problem of the

funding gap. These students were born into poor families. They got an inadequate education,

and therefore were forced to take up a job that didn’t pay as well compared to people with better

education. These people’s children will then grow up in the same low-income household. These

low-income districts have lower valued houses and that is all these people can afford. This

leaves a lot of low-income families in poor areas. This leaves concentrated areas of low-income

families leading to low tax production from property tax. When you combine property tax

revenue and government funds, this leaves low-income schools with less money than wealthier

schools. This gap directly affects the child’s education, and needs to be changed, or it will

continue to devastate these families’ lives.

This problem could be fixed if the nation’s voters and lawmakers were made aware of

how serious this problem is. This problem doesn’t only affect the students of low-income

families, but instead it affects everyone in the United States, and our lack of funding can even

send ripples into the world. Even small amounts of funding added to schools can prove to have a

large effect on students. Studies show that even a ten percent increase in funding towards their
 Smith 10

education will lead to .31 years more of education, and also seven percent higher wages

throughout their lives (Kirabo et al.).

Firstly, with more people unsuccessfully completing their education, there will be less

qualified people in the workforce, if they even work. Many will be unable to find jobs without

high school diplomas, which will bring up our unemployment rate in the U.S. if this problem

were to be resolved by the government, the most probable resolution would be through

government funding. The most likely solution is a transition towards total state funding for

public education, whether that be state or federal governments. This has already been attempted

successfully in Indiana back in 2008. They completely abolished the use of property tax for the

purpose of school funding. The state pays for public schooling, but property tax is still in use for

public school buildings and teacher’s salaries. By transitioning to this method, Indiana has

increased its state testing performance from 2007 to 2017 (Smith & Unnamed Contributor). I

believe that the government should start to follow in the path that Indiana took. The way that

Indiana funds their schools based on student population rather than by property value has proven

to be effective.

The possibility of a change in where our funds come from is another reason everyone

should know about this, because if our government were to fund schools completely, our taxes

would most likely rise. This affects everyone in the United States, not just those receiving an

inadequate education. Though this increase in taxes would take a toll on taxpayers, the benefits

from giving equal education chances to all would be overwhelming, and therefore a priority on

everyone’s mind. Citizens of the United States should be dedicated to the welfare of the

children, and part of that is providing an equal education to give everyone a chance to succeed.
 Smith 11

The communities would grow, and all people in America would be given that right to have a

quality education, which would continue to make the United States the land of opportunity.
 Smith 12

Work Cited

Alexander, Kern, and Andrew Wall. Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk

Children: An Econometric Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials. Journal of

Education Finance, 2006, Adequate Funding of Education Programs for At-Risk Children:

An Econometric Application of Research-Based Cost Differentials.

Baker, Bruce D, et al. Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card. Education Law Center,

2010, Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card.

Biddle, Bruce, and David Berliner. “A Research Synthesis / Unequal School Funding in the

United States.” Unequal School Funding in the United States - Educational Leadership,

Educational Leadership, May 2002, www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership/may02/vol59/num08/Unequal-School-Funding-in-the-United-States.aspx.

Accessed 23 June 2019.

Hall, Daria, et al. “Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our Schools.” The Education Trust, 2010.

edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Hidden-Funding-Gaps_0.pdf.

Huettl, Kelly. “The Relationship Between Poverty and Student Achievement.” St. Cloud

University, April, 2016.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/961c/eb8470c075ec25208fc0252af7eceaadad88.pdf.

Jackson, Kirabo et al. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes:

Evidence from School Finance Reforms.” The Quarterly Journals of Economics, vol.

131, issue 1, February 2016, doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv036.

 Smith 13

Morgan, Ivy and Amerikaner, Ary. “An Analysis of School Funding Equity Across the U.S. and

Within Each State.” Funding Gaps 2018. The Education Trust, 27 February 2018.

edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/. Accessed 21 June 2019.

Smith, Aaron and Unnamed Contributor. “School funding disparities should alarm all, not just

those who lean left.” The Hill. The Hill, 10 April 2019.

thehill.com/opinion/education/437669-school-funding-disparities-should-alarm-all-not-

just-those-who-lean-left. Accessed 21 June 2019.

“South Korea: Governance and Accountability.” NCEE, National Center on Education and the

Economy, 2019, ncee.org/what-we-do/center-on-international-education-

benchmarking/top-performing-countries/south-korea-overview/south-korea-system-and-

school-organization/. Accessed 29 June 2019.

Suitts, Steve. Students Facing Poverty: the New Majority. Educational Leadership, 2016,

Students Facing Poverty: the New Majority.

Taylor, Julie A. Poverty and Student Achievement. University of Michigan-Dearborn, 2005,

Poverty and Student Achievement.

Figure 1. Hall, Daria, and Natasha Ushomirsky. “Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our

Schools.” The Education Trust, 2010. Page 2. edtrust.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/Hidden-Funding-Gaps_0.pdf.
 Smith 14

Figure 2. Hall, Daria, and Natasha Ushomirsky. “Close the Hidden Funding Gaps in Our

Schools.” The Education Trust, 2010. Page 2. edtrust.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/10/Hidden-Funding-Gaps_0.pdf.