The beginning of this podcast started with a much stronger opening segment than the more home-made podcast. Glass got straight to the point and after a little background, dove right in to the interview. The overall sound of this podcast was also much clearer and consistent. In the home-made podcast, the audio shifted with the different interviews which made it hard to stay focused on the speakers ideas because of the varying sound qualities. The main difference and improvement I found was the overall interview style. The questions were very focused and concise which allowed for Jada to give very clear answers. It was helpful to hear a first hand account on the difference between well-funded, and poorly funded schools from a student who had actually experienced this difference. Rather than just research and statistics, this podcast gave us a first look inside these two public schools and Jada’s interview made for a very compelling podcast.
Jada’s situation is a terrible one but unfortunately is one that students living in lower income neighborhoods are experiencing. The difference an address can make on the future of a child’s education is much too great. Jada speaks on the differences between these two schools stating that the school in the Copley-Fairlawn district felt “more educational” and that she “wasn’t going to learn as much as [she] could” in her own district. These problems all boil down to the funding. I think a reform that will help would be more federal funding. The amount of money that public school districts receive from federal funds is not large enough, which is what allows for these huge gaps between the quality of schools that are only “three miles away” as Jada stated. The majority of school funding comes from local property taxes which is low in areas of lower socio-economic status. If the method of school funding were changed and federal funding was increased, this might provide for a more equal distribution of money within these districts which would give all students the resources they need to succeed.
Glass states towards the end of the interview that “no one is planning on changing this system.” He explains that based on money, rich areas mean better schools and poor neighborhoods mean worse schools. Is your neighborhood really your destiny? Will this issue be addressed?
Comments
4 responses to “Under-funded schools”
Amanda,
I would like to comment on the question you re-asked from the podcast, “Is your neighborhood your destiny?” I believe at this point in time, the neighborhood a student grows up is, for the most part, their destiny. However, on a broader level students don’t get to chose what neighborhood they grow in, their parents do. Furthermore, students don’t get to chose their parents. In this regard, perhaps, parents are a students destiny.
However, since we can’t change a student’s parents, I believe that school reform should address the issues of property-tax funding. More funding could change the performance of a school. More specifically, more funding could allow schools to purchase more resources and hire more qualified teachers. Therefore, if we were able to change the system of funding for schools (which seems possible), would we be able to change a student’s destiny?
You offer an interesting question. It would be ideal if every child received a great education no matter where they live, but like you suggested sometimes students don’t choose where they live. This means that in most cases they are zoned to the schools closest to their homes. Thus if they live in poor neighborhoods with lower property tax, then less money is given to the schools. The most interesting part of this conversation is how education has been capitalized into a commodity.
That now families can buy a better education. That because they can afford a more expensive house, they deserve a more expensive education. This is a shocking idea, one that our first podcast covered. That education is meeting economic needs. We have turned a child’s success into a something purchased. A quality education is then not free to everyone. Putting a higher price on a better education is exactly what makes it an economic strategy.
Amanda,
I agree with your call for more federal funding for schools across the board. I believe this would certainly help alleviate some of the monetary discrepancies that exist between schools in poor neighborhoods and schools located in richer areas. One thing I’ve also been wondering that is slightly related is the question of whether this might then in turn help to bring more money into a poorer area. To clarify, I think my question deals with the controversy of whether poor areas create failing schools or failing schools result in poor areas. Therefore, would bringing more federal funding into a poor area with a failing school ultimately lead to the area as a whole generating more money, thereby also increasing local funding for their once-failing school? It sounds like your proposition has the potential to be a win-win scenario, if this dual increase in revenue would be the case.
I have been browsing on-line greater than three hours these days, yet I by no means found any fascinating article like yours. It’s pretty price enough for me. In my view, if all site owners and bloggers made just right content as you probably did, the web will likely be much more useful than ever before.