Lowery 1

Kaela Lowery

Mr. Stephen Howard

33361 WR 39C

30 October 2018

Public Education: The Instigator of Poverty

iPads, Lenovo Thinkpad computers, and turf lawns. Outdated textbooks, trailer

classrooms, and dirt fields. Although the contrast between these two hypothetical locations might

seem dramatic, there exists an immense gap -- even within the same city or school district -- in

the quality of school supplies and amenities. This apparent contrast is seen across the public

school districts throughout the United States, often more prevalent in large cities like Los

Angeles. Aside from a public school’s appearance, their success rate is largely varied due to the

differences in funding across districts. With the Los Angeles Unified School District being one

of the largest in the country, they also have one of the most noticable differences between

privileged and underprivileged schools (Gould). The students that attend public schools in

Florence-Firestone, Pacoima, and Watts​ are in worse luck due to the lack of resources and

funding provided (Los Angeles Unified School District). Ironically enough, the schools in these

cities are being threatened with an even further loss of funding due to the new Local Control

Funding Formula that actually dismisses many low income students (Los Angeles Unified

School District). This new funding formula, along with other changes in government policy,

appear to be beneficial, but are actually cheating the lower funded LAUSD schools out of money

through flawed data and misallocated funds. By doing so, the cycle of poverty is more prone to

continuation as the students that are in the most need are being left behind.
 Lowery 2

The inequality of education has plagued America for decades and despite acts being

passed, little to no impact has been made. In 1965, the first effort to make education a civil right

was made by President Lyndon B. Johnson through his ​Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA), which offered federal grants to students and schools as well as scholarships for low

income college students (U.S. Department of Education). With this, the first effort was made to

help students achieve secondary education. Aside from the college scholarships, the ESEA was

acknowledging the unequal playing fields in some public schools. In 2002, President George

Bush created the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and during President Barack Obama’s first

term, he revamped the ESEA and merged it with the No Child Left Behind Act. The NCLB, “put

in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved students and

their peers,” which would then lead to more discretion about which schools would receive more

funding (U.S. Department of

Education). This however

led to quite a few issues as

schools would skew data

and each state had the power

to determine what could be

viewed as proficient

(Education Post). Because

of these inconsistencies and

the continued deficiencies,

the NCLB was then

 Lowery 3

transformed into the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 (U.S. Department of

Education). The ESSA is measured by “1. Student proficiency on state assessments; 2. English

Language proficiency; and 3. Another measure of academic student growth that can be

disaggregated by sub-group. . . 4. At least one additional indicator of school quality or student

success beyond test scores” (Penuel et al. 2). The figure above taken from the Public Policy

Institute of California helps further explain the differences between NCLB and ESSA. Despite

all of these efforts for improvement, there are still many downfalls as states still find loopholes in

order to make data appear more efficient.

Within the Los Angeles Unified School District, it has been acknowledged that schools

within various cities are under performing and do not have the same opportunities as other

neighborhoods. Prior to the Local Control Funding Formula, funds were based off of Proposition

98 -- this means that state funds were distributed equally among districts and were restricted by

categorical funding and revenue limits (WestEd). The new formula allows for funds to be based

off of funds per student with varying demographic differences such as, “low income students,

english learners and foster youth,” with more local control which began in the 2013-2014 school

year (WestEd). On paper, these changes appear to be more than enough, but it is only a small

step to the right direction. These funds may have control over the amount of students on free or

reduced lunch or even assist in supplying classroom furniture, but it does not provide any

assistance in providing students with basic school necessities. In a study focused on determining

the material needs and resources for children in poverty, it is clear that, “when family priorities

dictate that they choose food and clothes over the purchase of books, parents and caregivers must

next rely on public schools to provide a good education for their children,” (Mahabir 6). Most
 Lowery 4

classes assign homework, whether it be on a worksheet or assigned timed readings, which

require paper, pencils, and books to complete. This simple task becomes impossible when

parents are forced to prioritize rent or other payments. A public school can not properly assume

that these basic necessities are available in

every students’ home and despite better

allocation of funds, these efforts do not take

into account the efforts middle to upper

class parents can provide.

Figure 2 provides the average

spending per student in the Los Angeles

School District as $10,667 while the

national average is $11,841 (NPR). It is

considered to be “​the largest school district

in the state and the second-largest in the country” (LA School Report) and as such a large school

district, it is natural to assume that the funding per student would be slightly larger in order to

accommodate the vast amount of students. This however, is not the case, the students in the

lower income areas are left to struggle more than those in middle to upper class areas. Parents in

these lower class communities are forced to prioritize spending money on rent or food, leaving

their children without basic educational necessities. As a public school, students can not be

required to purchase anything, leaving it up to student donations or teachers to provide supplies

such as colored pencils, glue, paper, etcetera. Without these basics, students are already on a

lower playing field. Leader of the California Dropout Research Project and former University of
 Lowery 5

Santa Barbara professor, Russell Rumberger, has determined that, “​[high school dropouts]​ die

nine years sooner on average than high school graduates, earn half a million dollars less over

their lifetimes, are five or six times more likely to be incarcerated, and tend to rank low in most

indicators of well-being, including poverty,” (Ed Source). Not only are these impoverished

students more likely to drop out, but they are more likely to live a life of poverty and likely to

raise children that will follow the same path.

Los Angeles is an area in which the income disparity is prevalent to the naked eye and

this is just as transparent throughout the public education system. Just within the Los Angeles

Unified School District, the city of Florence-Firestone, has a population of 70.9% people that

have less than a high school degree, ​Pacoima has a 66.2% population of people with less than a

high school degree, and Watts has a 64.1% population of people with less than a high school

degree (LA Times). The map below from the LA Times provides a more broad scale of the rates

per city of adults with less than a high school education. The project LA Times put together is

called Mapping L.A. and it “. . . provides maps and information about demographics, crime, and

schools in 272 neighborhoods

across the county.” This is direct

proof that with underfunded

schools comes individuals

struggling to find jobs who give

birth to children that are more

likely going to follow the same

path. This data serves to prove

 Lowery 6

how with a lack of education, one is more likely to struggle to provide and build a stable family

lifestyle.

Poverty is another issue that is plaguing America and through fixing the public education

system it will become less common and less likely for those being raised in poor neighborhoods.

Ohio State sociology professor, Dr. Keith Kilty, strongly believes that education is the way out

of poverty. He concludes his paper with, “We have the resources. We must once again make

access to education for all a national priority,” in regards to how America is capable of

generating change in the public education system (Kilty 328). It is easier to get a higher paying

job with a degree, and blue collar jobs are the select few that do not require more than a high

school or junior college degree. However, from a young age children who grow up in poor

households are put a step behind and something as minor as receiving a high school diploma

would be beneficial. As the Borgen Project puts it, “since they have such a difficult time in the

classroom, the kids fall into the poverty trap, in which their lack of education prevents any rise

on the social ladder” (Hillestad). The lack of encouragement that the students receive at home

and the lack of access to simple needs makes it nearly impossible for them to escape -- this is

why the few success stories are always published. By switching the focus of the education acts

on being based off of school funding, they should focus on making basic resources available to

those in need. The perpetual cycle of poverty will only be slowed down once substantial changes

are made to the public education system so that students in struggling areas will be able to

succeed and build their families elsewhere.

It may not be as dramatic as the difference between an iPad or trailer classroom, but the

failing funding formulas do lead to an immense inequality between schools. Los Angeles Unified
 Lowery 7

school board President, Mónica García, admits that, “there’s bias or preference in our current

funding model,” which is why she is proposing a new funding guideline called the Student

Equity Need Index (LA School Report). In this new index report, Garcia hopes to prioritize

academic indicators, health, and safety data in order to develop a more accurate list of their top

schools in need (LA School Report). If this proves to be successful, the most needy schools

within the district would also qualify for better Every Student Succeeds funding. The small step

of acknowledging that there is bias in the current funding model allows for room to change and

chances to develop better formulas like the LAUSD did. If more school districts follow behind,

primary education will begin to take care of the students most in need, leading to a higher chance

of student success rates.

 Lowery 8

Works Cited

“Deasy Invites State Official to Visit Poor Areas in LAUSD.” ​Los Angeles Unified School

District / Homepage​, home.lausd.net/apps/news/article/344397.

“Episode 1 – What Is the Local Control Funding Formula?” ​Local Control Funding Formula,​

lcff.wested.org/lcff-channel/lcff-implementation-videos/episode-1/.

“Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).” ​Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) | U.S. Department of

Education​, www.ed.gov/essa.

Favot, Sarah. “LAUSD Is Poised to Join a Big Push to Get More per-Pupil Money from the

State. But Where Is California Ranked, Really?” ​LA School Report​, 13 Nov. 2017,

laschoolreport.com/lausd-is-poised-to-join-a-big-push-to-get-more-per-pupil-money-fro

m-the-state-but-where-is-california-ranked-really/.

Gould, Karla. “Personnel Commission / Home.” ​/ Home​, Los Angeles Unified School District,

achieve.lausd.net/Page/2135.

Greanias, Laura. “As Gov. Brown Allocates More Education Funding, LAUSD Moves to Make

Sure Its Neediest Schools Benefit the Most.” ​LA School Report​, 4 Apr. 2018,

laschoolreport.com/as-gov-brown-allocates-more-education-funding-la-unified-moves-to

-make-sure-its-neediest-schools-benefit-the-most/.

Harrington, Theresa. “Until Poverty Eliminated, Schools Won't Graduate 100 Percent of

Students, Expert Says.” ​EdSource,​ 23 Oct. 2017,

edsource.org/2017/poverty-poses-obstacle-to-100-percent-graduation-rate-expert-says/58

9190.

Hillestad, Sam. “The Link Between Poverty and Education.” ​The Borgen Project,​ 20 Mar. 2018,
 Lowery 9

borgenproject.org/link-poverty-education/.

Kilty, Keith M. “Fifty Years Later: Access to Education as an Avenue out of Poverty.” Journal

of

Poverty, vol. 19, no. 3, July 2015, pp. 324–329. EBSCOhost.

“Less Than High School.” ​Los Angeles Times,​ Los Angeles Times,

maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/education/less-than-high-school/neighborhood/list/.

Mahabir, Indramati Kumar. “Exploring Educational Material Needs and Resources for Children

Living in Poverty.” Online Submission, Online Submission, 25 Aug. 2010, p. 30.

EBSCOhost.

Penuel, William, et al. “Making the Most of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA): Helping

States Focus on School Equity, Quality and Climate.” National Education Policy Center,

National Education Policy Center, 1 Nov. 2016. EBSCOhost.

“The ABC's of ESEA, ESSA and No Child Left Behind.” ​Education Post​,

educationpost.org/the-abcs-of-esea-essa-and-no-child-left-behind/.

Turner, Cory, et al. “Why America's Schools Have A Money Problem.” ​NPR,​ NPR, 18 Apr.

2016,

www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem.