High Poverty Urban Schools

Education is often seen as the path to the middle class for those struggling to escape the hardships of poverty. However, the education that poor urban students receive is demonstrably inferior to the education that their suburban peers have access to. The social, economic, and health problems that these students already face are compounded and exacerbated by their low quality education. While policy-makers cite that an emphasis on STEM education can lift these students out of poverty, mathematics classes in high-poverty schools are twice as likely to be taught by an instructor with a credential in a subject other than mathematics and science classes are three times as likely to be taught by an instructor with a credential in something other than science (Wirt et al., 2004). In addition to poor teacher qualifications, high poverty urban schools also face problems of outdated textbooks, textbook shortages, outdated computers/technology, nonexistent laboratory materials, and dilapidated facilities. These conditions not only reduce student engagement and achievement, but also serve as developmental risks. Rather than encouraging educational and personal growth, conditions such as building decay and substandard curriculum act as stressors that undermine intellectual development (Hudley, 2013).

Gaps in Funding: The Education Trust

These disparities in school quality between high-poverty urban schools and suburban schools can be attributed to the vast funding gaps. State and local funding accounts for approximately 93% of education expenditures (Hudley, 2013). Because local funding is derived from property taxes, high-poverty schools are at an inherent disadvantage as property values are far lower in these areas.  The non-profit group The Education Trust has found that nationally the highest poverty school districts receive about 10% less per student in state and local funding than the lowest poverty districts. As for state funding alone, there is a great deal of variation. While some states provide more funding to high-poverty districts, others provide substantially less. Minnesota, South Dakota, and Ohio are the most progressive states with high-income districts receiving upwards of 8% more dollars per student from state and local sources than low-poverty districts. At the other end of the spectrum, Illinois is the most regressive state with high-poverty districts receiving 26% less in state and local funding than low-poverty districts (Ushomirsky & Williams, 2015).

Low-income students are more likely to attend racially segregated schools.

Concentration of low-income minority students in poorly performing schools: US News and World Report

Furthermore, these issues of funding and low school quality are related to and enhance problems at the societal and family levels. First, there is a major disconnect between life at home and life at school as most low-income students enter school with few prior educational experiences. Michael Albertson, a former teacher in the New York City public school district, perfectly summarizes this discrepancy in saying “For middle/high-income families, weekend trips to a local museum provide supplemental knowledge to the instruction they receive in school. On the other hand, many of my high school students had never even traveled from Queens to Manhattan to visit one of the dozens of museums at their disposal.” These students require a curriculum that takes into account their social circumstances, but in an age of standardized tests this kind of tailored instruction is lost.

Additionally, many students have unstable family situations and little adult guidance. Urban schools are notorious for low parental engagement and subsequently students are not incentivized to care about their academic achievement. This trend complements the results of a 2005 study by Harvard researcher William H. Jeynes that found that parental involvement is strongly correlated with higher educational performance. In particular, the study found that the children of parents who invested a lot of time in reading and communication activities and held high expectations were more likely to succeed academically. Another important factor to note is that the majority of students served by urban schools are minorities, particularly African American and Latino students. These students must face the challenges of discrimination, low societal expectations, and stereotypes against the backdrop of a poor education. As former New York City teacher Michael Albertson put it “They [students] are told that if they work hard they can achieve their dreams, yet college costs too much for their family, or their parents do not know where to acquire information about financial aid. They are told that they deserve a great education, but wonder why they are one of fifty students in a class. The city misses garbage day in the Bronx and Queens while the tourist-filled streets of Midtown Manhattan are spotless.” While school should be a place where students can understand and learn to overcome such societal challenges, most urban schools fail to address these needs.

Suburbs of Philadelphia have much higher graduation rates: The Hechinger Report

With so many complex financial and social problems it should come as no surprise that students drop out of high school in big cities more than anywhere else. A 2009 nationwide study by America’s Promise Alliance concluded that the average graduation rate in the nation’s largest cities was 53% compared to 71% in the suburbs. Policy makers must thus answer the following question: what policy changes can better the state of high poverty urban schools? While people hold varying opinions some common recommendations include increased investment in early childhood education, increasing teacher qualification requirements, and devising new state and local funding schemes. Some policymakers have suggested that the solution lies outside the actual school system and that the best action would be to re-conceptualize the minimum wage into a living wage. They argue that families can advance student achievement if they are able to lift their vision from the daily struggle of survival. Lastly, some policymakers like Betsy DeVos, see school choice as the solution to failing urban schools. Regardless of personal policy preference, there seems to be a strong general consensus that something must be done.

Works cited:

Hudley, Cynthia. “Education and Urban Schools.” Pardon Our Interruption. American Psychological Association, May 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.

Ushomirsky, Natasha, and David Williams. “Funding Gaps 2015.” The Education Trust. The Education Trust, 25 Mar. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2017.

Wirt, J., Rooney, P., Choy, S., Provasnik, S., Sen, A. & Tobin, R. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004 (NCES 2004-077). Washington D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Source: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2004077

 

3 thoughts on “High Poverty Urban Schools

  1. The graphics you provided really added to this post. It was much easier to envision the various incomes and large gaps between groups. You also included the perfect mix of analysis and facts with this post, in particular.

  2. It is sad to hear how low income areas suffer educationally. With the lack of attention that these areas get, it is no wonder that children are not getting the education that they deserve, and thus do not place the same value on education as kids from other areas do.

  3. It is sad that money can always get into the way of education. I really appreciate the graphics you used to describe this post. Possibly better funding could help with some of the problems with lack of quality in some areas or even the cost of paying for education. Policymakers can have different opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *