|
|
Post by natashaauer on Jan 14, 2016 7:59:56 GMT
America continues to be plagued by the increased poverty rates that arose from the recession and cast-off from recent wars. This increase in poverty has negatively affected American society- unemployment rates have soared, loans and scholarships have been cut back, and crime rates continue to climb. As a society we need to come together and work towards alleviating the leading causes and effects of poverty. Knowledge plays a key role in today's wealth spectrum- those that push to increase their knowledge become more qualified for higher-level jobs which in turn increases their annual income; those that do not - or rather cannot- focus as much on their education do not obtain the skill sets needed to ascend to a higher-level job. In order to reduce this issue, public schools should be funded more by the government (taxpayer money)rather than being funded by the people in its district. Localized funding, which is what we generally do today, puts kids in a low-income neighborhood at a disadvantage. As Wellington brought up today, M-A's Foundation for the Future receives an average of two million dollars per year in private donations from families whose children attend M-A. This is about 1.5 million more than what the second largest foundation for another highschool- Carlmont- brings in each year. That 1.5 million more allows for more programs, more staff, more laptops, and more resources which gives us M-A kids a large advantage over other students in our district. By setting a baseline for government spending for schools, those schools would have an easier time funding better resources, therefore increasing their students' education and hopefully enabling those kids to achieve higher possibilities.
Some could argue that federal funding is not worth it because some students would not take advantage of that system, therefore wasting government money. It is true, there is a portion of students who do not demonstrate a willingness to learn; however, their lack of caring proves that we need to start making public schools more equal. These kids' attitudes stem mainly from two things: either they do not have the academic support they need from their school because their school is not well-funded or they lack the drive to learn. Thousands of kids across America are at a disadvantage because their public school cannot offer academic support like the one-on-one tutoring centers or hundreds of computer that M-A has. Government funding would allow schools in poor neighborhoods to allocate the resources they need to increase their students' education. In addition, students lack the drive to learn because many have grown up in an environment where education is not held at a high standard. They have not grown up with a hard emphasis on education so they see school as more of a burden than an opportunity. This is why we need to put in larger efforts as a society to aid public schools- America's unemployment rates, poverty rates, and incarceration rates are going to increase if kids lack the ability and the drive to achieve higher goals because of their socioeconomic background. It is something we can help with, and it is our duty as people to give others the same abilities as we have
|
|
|
|
Post by laurelpatrick on Jan 14, 2016 8:27:14 GMT
Natasha makes good points- education plays a key role in the development of poverty, whether it be a poorer quality of education increasing the likelihood of falling into poverty or a higher quality of education facilitating an escape from it. Furthermore, a government-determined baseline for spending on schools would help improve the education of children living in poorer areas. However, you have to consider that since government funding is created as a result of higher tax rates, this may reduce the amount of money going into schools whose funding already exceeds this level. Many parents don't contribute that much to local schools- if you look at a list of MPAEF or Foundation for the Future donors, you can see that only a few individuals contribute large sums of money, with the majority of donors listed under lower donation levels. If the government begins to take more of that money to fund poorer schools, these parents are now inclined to give less to local foundations in order to prevent themselves from redistributing too much of their income into the education system. While it would be ideal to allocate more government funds into improving the quality of education in poorer schools, it may be unrealistic if it has to come at the expense of other schools.
|
|
|
|
Post by katedenend on Jan 14, 2016 16:38:52 GMT
Laurel has an interesting point that if taxes are increased for schools then less donors will give voluntarily, but donations to school districts are tax deductible so it is probable that these parents will still donate to the schools. An increased focus on education from the government is important due to the fact that many schools are getting little to no money at all, since they do not have the small collection of wealthy donors wealthy donors that schools like M-A have. Also, by giving more money to education, the government sends a message about the importance of education and its role in society. By putting an increased value on education, more are motivated to utilize the system and improve through learning.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashgordan on Jan 14, 2016 20:23:12 GMT
I think education plays a key role in decreasing the wealth gap, but, building on points made in other threads, I think improving domestic life will be integral to the effort as well. According to www.brookings.edu, infants from the highest and lowest socioeconomic quintiles scored the same on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, a cognitive test proven to be effective on young children. However, by age four, the children from the highest quintile had begun to score in the 69th percentile, while those in the lowest quintile scored between the 32nd and 34th percentile. This shows that the children's environment had an effect on them throughout their childhood. |
|
|
|
Post by erikroise on Jan 15, 2016 0:54:33 GMT
I think flashgordan makes a good point. Children's domestic life can have serious effects on their social trajectory. Also, the level of education a student gains at home is often determined by the level of education of their parents. Because of this, it may take several generations before the academic divide between low and high income families is closed. However, if we continue to promote equal education at schools, each generation of parents in low social statuses will become increasingly knowledgeable and able to take part in the education of their children. It may take many years, but eventually the academic playing field should level itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilykbrumley on Jan 15, 2016 3:52:39 GMT
I agree with flashgordon and erik's point that domestic life is an important factor that goes into determining an individual's opportunities, but it seems difficult to regulate at a government level. Regardless of how beneficial it may be, can the government really tell parents they have to instill certain values in their children? For children who are not lucky enough to live with people who value education or were even able to go to school, school is the only place where they can advance their knowledge and have a hope of building a better life in the future. More than that, school shapes one's character and interests, and without the proper school environment children with unfortunate family situations will often turn to gangs and violence so they can feel like they belong somewhere. By properly funding all schools so these people can have the good teachers and opportunities they need, one is also giving them a sense of belonging and subsequently decreasing crime rates. This is why the government needs to fund schools in a way that does not depend on property taxes, so the children who need it most can benefit from having a good school experience. By equally funding schools regardless of the wealth of the area or test scores, we can take one step closer to the "level playing field" that education should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by anapark on Jan 15, 2016 3:58:51 GMT
I agree that greater access to education can have a great influence in reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. After a period of time, poverty will be somewhat alleviated as more and more of the less fortunate become educated and help create a safer community as well. However, in order for this to happen, I agree that less fortunate schools need to receive strong support from the government, but not have the government take away from other schools in the process. Adding on to what Kate said, society and our political leadership need to place a higher value in education so that more people will be inclined to use it. Although education reform cannot solely resolve the issue of poverty, it will ultimately contribute to a diminishing impoverished class.
|
|
|
|
Post by hannahelisofon on Jan 15, 2016 7:12:09 GMT
I believe that a good education can work as a fundamental basis for an alleviation of poverty. Although education itself cannot be the solution, it, long with other government instituted systems/programs, can make a significant impact toward lessening poverty in America. There were many really strong points brought up in this thread like the need for more government funding for lower income schools and the pros and cons of this solution and the influence that one's environment has on education. Overall, in order to promote equality within the school systems throughout America it is necessary to spread the responsibility among society. That being said, it is difficult to come up with a clear cut solution as the issue of raising and lowering taxes can always be controversial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicholas on Jan 15, 2016 8:45:53 GMT
I think education is key to eliminating poverty. However, it's not only about better schools and teachers. Kids need safe homes, good medical care and food to succeed in school. Kids in poor families may also have uneducated parents or parents who are working so many hours just to provide that they can't help with homework. We should look at the entire life of a kid living in poverty and offer assistance to make change. This includes programs to provide meals and also tutoring and homework help. The government should fund schools equally but businesses and individuals have a responsibility to use their finances and knowledge to help, like tutoring.
|
|
