Kori Halbeisen The Necessity of Equal Educational Opportunity American Heritage Section 19

From before its founding until today, America has been glorified as the land of opportunity. People worldwide have looked to it as the place where anyone could come and have a fair chance to obtain all that their hard work could profit. Education has been a large part of this dream as it has proved to be one of the most important and promising American opportunities. As the public education system has developed and evolved, the opportunity for an education has become an unequal playing field because of the varying qualities of education available. The quality of American public education has become dramatically unequal due to the stark differences in funding for each state and district; it would be the best decision for the government to intervene by equalizing funding for public schools in order to preserve the standard of equal opportunity in America. When the funding of public schools is examined, it is clear that there is a huge gap between what each state and district is receiving and spending. According to the Census Bureau, in 2011, New York, the countrys highest spender on education, spent $19,076 per student, and Utah, the lowest, spent $6,212 per student (Education Spending Per Student by State). Whether this is due to the amount of revenue made by the state or the specific budget of the state, it creates a nationwide inequity for education. Within the states, there is even more inequality as the funding is also apportioned on a district level. Funding for schools comes from the national, state and local governments, however almost half of funding comes from taxes raised from local property in each district (Unequal School Funding in the United States). This leaves some districts well-off and others scraping for pennies as their budgets depend upon the costs of its residents properties. The gap that is clearly present in school spending has perpetuated an inequality in that has put students from certain states and lower income districts at a significant disadvantage, throwing off the goal of equal opportunity for education nationwide. This growing spending inequality is leading to an education gap that has consequences which are too big to ignore. Some may question the affect that funding has on the quality of education, however the results are clear; low-income, poorly funded schools are not performing as well. Through all the statisticbased studies done through the years, there has always been a link between school inputs and

performance indicators like test scores and graduation rates (Unequal School Funding in the United States). Without sufficient funding, schools struggle to hire good teachers, buy good textbooks, build necessary facilities, and provide for many of the necessities to foster a quality education. This puts many students at an educational disadvantage due to the places they live and the schools they are able to attend. The unequal funding of schools has abated the ideal of equal opportunity in America. In order level the playing field for the quality of education public schools, the government should intervene in funding them. Although the government already funds a portion of education nationwide, they need to get further involved with state governments to sustain equality. First, they should set a nationwide quota which states have to meet and cannot exceed for what they spend on education each year. This would even the opportunity for a good education no matter which state a person chose to live in. On the state level, the government should take the share of property taxes raised in each district that are intended for education and divvy them up equally among the districts. From there, each school would be given a spending amount that would be based on enrollment numbers, allowing the state to truly spend a fair and equal amount on each student no matter what area they lived in. This would dramatically help to create equity within states as it would give schools in all areas equal funding regardless of how much its residents made. In Texas in 1989, a similar action was taken by Texass Supreme Court and legislature. This action pumped more state money into schools, obligated the state to supplement local taxes in poorer school districts and required property-wealthy school districts to share some of their riches with the poor school districts (Equity in Texas). For about a decade, it worked to equalize funding however it slowly fell apart as it was poorly regulated and enforced by the state of Texas. If we could redesign Texass system, we could equalize the funding for education on a national scale and give each student an equal opportunity for a quality education. Some people may argue that this change would be overstepping the bounds of the federal governments power, as education is not vested as a responsibility of the federal government in the constitution; however it is not far off from what is already happening. Although the federal government

only provides about 10.8% of funding for education, it has gotten involved in regulating school funding and assessment multiple times in years past; the Second Morrill Act, the National Defense Education Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all speak as examples of this (The Federal Role in Education). The government would not be spending more; it would just be regulating how the money was spent within states. This intervention would therefore hardly overstep government bounds more than has happened in the past and would be worth the valuable creation of equal opportunity. Others may oppose this idea because they believe that wealthier people should be able to have an advantage in education because they are paying a higher percentage of the taxes that are used for funding education. Although this is a valid argument, the need for equal opportunity outweighs this and also does not entirely diminish the potential for the advantage of those who are better off. If wealthier people wish to enrich their childrens education, they often have the options to hire private tutors, send their children to private schools, and attend more prestigious universities to further their education, which are privileges that not everyone has. The equalizing of school funding would provide a basic and equal opportunity to all people, yet it wouldnt completely take away the extras that the well-off believe they have worked for. It is completely unfair that in the public education system many students are trapped in inadequatelyfunded schools while others are given the chance to flourish in well-funded schools. Although it may take away some wealthy privilege, it will not obliterate it, and the benefits of equal opportunity are far more valuable and ethical than keeping the system as it remains. All in all, the inequity of school funding is not something to be ignored. America is known as a place of equal opportunity, and this issue has clearly diminished that equal opportunity. Where a person lives has and how much money they make has started to play a big role in what kind of education is available to them, and it shouldnt be. Although a government intervention may cause some disgruntled feelings from the wealthy or an increase in federal power, the equality that it would perpetuate would be far more valuable to the nation as a whole in preserving its opportunities. The best decision to defend education opportunity, therefore, would be for a government intervention to equalize school funding.

Works Cited Alexander, Kate. "Equity in Texas." Austin News, Sports, Weather, Longhorns, Business. Cox Media Group, n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2013. Web. Biddle, Bruce J., and David C. Berliner. "Unequal School Funding in the United States." Editorial. Educational Leadership May 2002: 48-59. Educational Leadership: Beyond Instructional Leadership: Unequal School Funding in the United States. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Web. "Education Spending Per Student by State." Governing: The States and Localities. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Web. "Federal Role in Education." Ed.gov. U.S. Department of Education, n.d. Web. 21 Nov. 2013. Web.