Friday, September 14, 2012

"Our Children's Burden" & Au Chapter 1




Throughout its history, the United States has overwhelmingly spent on education rather than social welfare programs. Wells explains that this trend has resulted in the federal government relying on the public education system to close the expansive gap between rich and poor students. At first this goal may seem reasonable; however, the reality is that the federal government has set up a system that is inherently flawed. Wells explains that schools are expected to create social equality (presumably through closing the “achievement gap”), yet they do not have a “strong social safety net to hold up children whose families lack money for food, shelter, or health care” (Wells, 28). Instead of investing heavily in social welfare programs and trying to transform society as a whole, like many European countries, the federal government relies on the public education to teach students to learn how to rise out of poverty and how to achieve equal statuses as their counterparts in society.
While our core national value of equality amongst all remains extremely important in society, it seems as if it has misguided our policy makers and has led them to ignore the needs of certain groups in society, all under the guise of “equality of opportunity” (14). Our policy-makers have avoided giving “handouts” to the poor through ample social welfare programs and have instead relied on the idea that “self-help” through things like education is the better route to take. What policy makers fail to realize is that people cannot simply “learn their way out of poverty,” because it impossible for schools to exist outside of the social context of the community in which they are located (17). As Au explains in his first chapter, most schools in America are not helping students rise out of poverty; instead, they are reproducing the inequality that exists in society.
One of the main themes that we have focused on thus far in class is privatization and its potentially negative impacts on public education. In her article, Wells describes the “child benefit theory,” an educational policy derived by Catholic educators in 1965 and which preached the idea that money should follow each child in the system, no matter where they attend school (26). Although Wells does not extensively discuss what ultimately came of the child benefit theory, she does explain that this idea allowed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to pass through both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the 60’s. Another important outcome of policies like the child benefit theory was federal spending on public education increased dramatically from about $1 billion to $3.5 billion (27). We can see a resurgence of these ideals in today’s educational policy conversation in proposed policies like school vouchers, and increased educational spending. Theoretically, when money follows children to their school of choice, the student gets a better education because schools compete for students’ voucher money. However, instead of an elevated level of education for all, with more privatization, we have increasingly seen that schools are not performing any better and are not closing the achievement gap.
Perhaps it’s time for our policy makers to take a completely new approach to solving educational issues and the achievement gap. Well’s argument that we need better social welfare programs seems to be a promising one. While improving education is not an easy task, it’s a necessary one and one that should be at the forefront of politicians’ minds. After all, aren’t the children of today the future of our country?



18 comments:

  1. Ally describes the favoring of “equality of opportunity” as opposed to “equality of results” that Wells outlines. Wells puts forth a strong argument that American individualism and the Protestant ethic play a part in fueling hostility toward “handouts”, or programs that aim for equality of results, because social welfare policies run counter the American dream discourse (9). Additionally Wells asserts that there has never been a strong force pushing for government provided social services because, historically, unions sought these benefits from corporations (11). This insight falls in line with many of our discussions regarding the problematic involvement of private corporations in the provision of services that, in a democratic society, we should want the government to ensure for all citizens. As Wells points out, trusting corporate employers to ensure social welfare benefits compounds racial inequality because minority groups have traditionally been excluded from receiving these benefits. With the current move toward entrusting corporations to manage our schools as well, we see those same concerns arising. As Ally noted, schools don’t exist independent of a particular social context. Thus, it is unreasonable to put the weight of overcoming social inequality solely on our schools without also considering the socioeconomic environment in which those schools are operating. Without some semblance of equality outside of the classroom, we can hardly expect schools to single-handedly negate pervasive social inequalities. And yet, the current political atmosphere indicates that we are continuing to do just that. While Americans have historically relied on schools to overcome social inequalities, it is critical that we recognize the ways in which the environment external to the school is inextricably connected to the environment within the classroom.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ally discusses how the federal government has continued to rely on the public education system throughout history in order to attempt to improve the achievement gap in society, as Wells argued in “Our Children’s Burden.” I agree with Ally’s point that policy makers in our government have “ignored the needs of certain groups in society” and therefore do not look to implement social welfare programs that could actually start to lift people out of poverty. While President Johnson argued that “poverty will be eliminated through education” in 1964, it is clear that education still has not solved the problem four decades later. As we have discussed in class, students’ academic abilities are now being evaluated solely on standardized test scores due to the passage of No Child Left Behind. It is important for the government to acknowledge the disadvantages that these children performing poorly in school face outside of the classroom. Wells mentions how schools failing to achieve “adequate yearly progress” are under the control of a highly unequal educational system where some students have far fewer resources and opportunities (31). Some students are not receiving assistance with basic needs such as health care and nutritious food. When comparing the United States to European countries, I agree with Ally in that a better social welfare program may be able to improve the public education system as well as the achievement gap. Because federal education policies have not improved the lives of poor, under-privileged children, it is time for the government to look elsewhere. Although it will require time and money on the government’s part, it is evident that the public education system needs to be revamped. Education appears to be key to social mobility so students deserve equal treatment outside of schools regardless of their race or class.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When reading the Wells article, I found it interesting that there is a strong resistance to social welfare policies that don’t have to do with education. On page 9, Wells points out that the majority of Americans believe that the government should not be responsible for helping the poor, yet in many European countries, there is majority support for the government to be involved. There is an overwhelming belief in America that poverty is caused by laziness rather than society, and therefore that societal reforms would not be helpful in overcoming poverty and the increasing level of inequality in the U.S. (10). Our national value of equality still holds, yet we have struggled to find a way to gain this equality because of the belief that closing the achievement gap through testing is the solution. Although there is support by the government through education, something is still not working. Ally and Laura make a great point in that something needs to be done to change the overwhelming pressure that has been put on our education system. Schools cannot be the sole factor in changing social inequality, because they just don’t have the resources. No Child Left Behind was an attempt to fix social inequality through education, and was believed to be successful at first. Standardized testing was the new means to measuring the accountability of schools and educators. Yet standardized testing is inherently not fair because of race and class inequalities, and has contributed to the continuation of the equality gap (Au, p.4). In order to close the inequality gap and the achievement gap in the U.S. we must take the burden of social policy off of our education system, as well as shift the focus of education from high-stakes testing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I was interested in the self-fulfilling prophecy and vicious cycle of the American public's lack of trust in the government. As Judt suggested, the greater the inequality in society, the less trust the people have in the government. Given the inequalities that exist now, as Laura mentioned in her post, since social welfare largely runs counter to the American Dream and myth of meritocracy it won't be accepted by the public and a feasible option. We, as a society, don't believe that our government has our best interests in mind. Considering the trends toward privatization, I can't really blame us. Also, when stereotypes work their way into public consciousness, it can very hard to remove them. The linkage between social welfare programs now and poor people of color has been detrimental to the overall framework, though this was not the original intent. Wells illustrates this, noting that " 'handouts' in the form of cash assistance, were acceptable during the Depression when the devastation of poverty was far and wide and when most recipients were white," (p. 18). I believe that race is definitely a factor is the public distrust of social welfare programming as well. However, the less we trust our government, the farther we slide into the abyss of inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Ally that policy makers must reconsider their approach if they hope to reduce and/or eliminate the educational and class divide. Both authors argue that the government’s attempt to equalize children’s lives using strict testing standards under No Child Left Behind have failed because of their inability to address the existing social conditions outside of schools that produce and reproduce inequality. Wells explains this phenomenon when she writes, “Americans are far less enthusiastic about a welfare system that provides extensive protection to the disadvantaged….” (9). Reading Wells’ article, I was shocked and angry to find that the US lags so far behind Europe in terms of social welfare spending. The hostility towards social welfare policies seems to contradict the American ideal of egalitarianism, demonstrating that we may not be as “exceptional” as some claim.


    When talking about the American founding in one of my other classes, we focused on this American desire to ignore the existence of classes because of our “exceptional” republic and ideals. It seems that policy makers are doing this with their refusal to address the root causes of the achievement and wealth gaps and their claim that everyone has “equal opportunity”. Even though policy makers have enacted harsh standards on public schools and increased educational spending inequality and poverty have increased, reinforcing class divides. It made me angry to read about policy makers’ decision to solve social inequality by helping people “learn” their way out of poverty, trumpeting this “equality of opportunity” approach (Wells 14). In doing so, those in power are able to put the blame on the schools and individuals, instead of looking at the way in which their policies have created/reinforced inequalities. Why are policy makers still able to use these methods and ignore social welfare when the former has proven ineffective and the latter has been effective through out history?

    However, in order to implement these necessary social welfare reforms, it is essential that policy makers and the media first work to change the normalized discourse as a safety net for “black urban ghettos” and instead focus on the ways in which social welfare improves the stability of the economy, therefore benefiting all people.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The point I found interesting in both of the readings, that many contributors above have touched on, is how education has been used as a means for fighting poverty and inequality. Although this is only my second class in education at this school, and I have little to no political knowledge, it is painfully obvious to me that simply increasing opportunity for public education will not fix this country’s economic inequality. In my opinion, in most cases, the life you are born into predetermines the outcome of your educational experience. As we saw from the documentary “Waiting for Superman,” luck and money can get you out of a failing public school, but those are difficult to come by for some. For me, the quote from President Johnson: “We are going to eliminate poverty with education… this is not going to be a handout; this is going to be something where people are going to learn their way out of poverty” demonstrates that the government places far too much pressure on the schools themselves, just like in NCLB (Wells 17). His rationalization that academic excellence will eliminate poverty and racial inequality seems nice in an idealistic sense, but is extremely unrealistic. People in poverty-stricken areas need help to get out of poverty first, and then education can improve. There are so many factors that lead to someone being impoverished that have yet to be addressed in our essentially nonexistent social welfare system. The New Deal serves as a great example of helping those with problems to come out of poverty, and it wasn’t necessarily through handouts. FDR stressed the importance of teaching people to work hard, which is definitely a defining principle of the American Dream, but he did it in such a way that does not seem offensive to those in the lower class. If the government were able to institute programs to help those in poverty increase their life chances, an improvement in public education might follow suit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Both the Well’s reading and AU’s reading really pinpointed a lot of things I get frustrated about concerning our education system. I understand the idea of working hard and earning your successes, but sometimes I feel that the American ideal of exceptionalism and “self-help” becomes too important. There are many cases where all the hard work and effort will not get you out of the situation you are in. Most people cannot completely change their circumstances without a little help from others, and this does not represent the idea that Well’s discusses as “learn your way out of poverty”. As Well’s points out, our country needs to begin to realize the need for both supplementary and complimentary policies in addition to those that focus on education. No one would argue against the statement that education is necessary to help breach the inequality gap, but simply teaching children will not fix poverty. As AU discusses, high stakes testing and the strict focus on achievement within schools not only produces inequality but also reproduces. I have always found this so blindingly obvious. How can a system that requires teachers, curriculum, and students to funnel into one model of education to produce test results and high scores for schools to brag about actually educate children. As Well’s discusses, though in a different manner, what education needs to do is enrich both culturally and intellectually. That being said, simply enriching, intellectualizing, and educating will not solve problems of poverty. You need to look at the social factors, as AU discusses, to realize that help needs to come from all angles. Not everyone is born on the same playing field and each child and family may need a range of support. The biggest concern is equating poor with lazy, and aid with handouts wounding pride. People cannot be afraid to ask for help, and people should not be too selfish to not want to give.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I enjoyed Ally's point on how the United States federal government relies on public education to teach students to rise out of poverty, without giving the poor the resources they need outside of the classroom to be successful. I feel this attitude is reflected in President Johnson's speech where he says "We are going to eliminate poverty with education.. This is not going to be a handout; this is going to be something where people are going to learn their way out of poverty."(Wells 17).

    The language we see in Johnson's speech especially the phrase "handout" is something that comes up often in Well's article. She associates this type of language with the "exceptionalist" attitude that Americans seem to have taken in regards to social policy. This attitude of exceptionalism is made up of numerous rhetorical ideologies which are based on "a fundamental hostility towards America as a welfare state, especially one that gives money to poor people." (Weir, Orloff, & Skopol p.6)

    I personally feel embarrassed that this attitude of exceptionalism is so prevalent in our society. It is based off of nothing but rhetorical ideology with nothing to back it up what so ever. It is truly frustrating to read some of the data that was collected for this essay especially the study which showed that 70% of Americans felt that people were poor because they were lazy. Meanwhile, when the same question was asked people of West Germany 70% said that people were poor because of society. There is no denying that the root of American's thinking this way is exceptionalism, and it is even more sad that it is impossible to convince the people who do think this way otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well’s mentioned that the United States decided to focus on our education system instead of developing other social welfare programs. The United States has banked on the idea that our education system will end the production of inequality by educating our youth. There is nothing wrong with believing in our youth but when there is a lack of support, lack of equality, and increase in privatization, that pressure cannot be put on the future of the countries youth. Yet, with the implementation of standardized tests, our nation is furthering that gap between succeeding in our goal and continuing to fail. The goal that Johnson had was to end poverty through education, yet we have kids in poverty, attending poverty-rated schools. Wells article made the point clear that we have not done anything to cure our poverty but instead have done everything to delay the desire improvement. rejected bills (the second bill of rights) that would have decreased our inequalities would have at least made sure that out kids were not attending poor schools, which thus would have at least made our public schools more equal than today. Instead, we pass bills like NCLB that have delayed our desired progress and thus increase our inequalities in the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As people before me have mentioned, I too found it alarming that education gets haphazardly thrown into a proposed solution for fighting the great deal of poverty and inequality that plagues the United States. While the issue of race and socioeconomic status has always been a factor in how some measure success, it is a shame to see these issues be at the forefront of how educational levels are measured as well. While I know in the back of my mind that this occurs, it still shocks me how much of a role these issues play in society, particularly when education apparently serves as a tool for combating the equality issues in this country. Like Ryan, I was quite put of by Johnson’s blatant statement about eliminating poverty through education. Such a bold statement really emphasizes that these sorts of ideals have been present in society for so long. Sure, we can accept the fact, no matter how upsetting it is, that children from underprivileged upbringings may be at an educational setback due to poorly run private schools and a lack of resources to go to a private school—or, as we saw in Waiting for Superman, bad luck for getting into a charter school. That fact in and of itself should indicate that the battle of fixing poverty with education is farfetched and unrealistic. Clearly the wage gap is continuing to grow; Wells cites Krugman in saying that the 1950s-1970s had “a compression of incomes and the creation of a strong and better-off middle class,” and that in the past 25 years, the country has seen larger divisions in income and wealth. Perhaps putting less pressure on these schools and improving them for the sake of simply educating their students will ultimately help form the building blocks of what could eventually be a means of relieving poverty and inequality. Until then, we need to look at education as a separate entity that does not reproduce inequality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree with Ally's and Well's attempt to change the public education system. Historically, the federal government half-hearted attempt to bridge the social inequality gap by throwing funds at low income schools has created paradoxical situation. As both Ryan and Monica point out, Well's foresees the need to eliminate poverty through education, however education has done little to end such a phenomenon. Education reform must come from the rebuilding of America's lower and middle class through social programs, like Well's points out. Americans quality of life must improve in order for our educational system to flourish. Statistics show that lower socioeconomic children tend to fail in our public education system. Thus making American public education a breeding ground for reproducing poverty among these children. The federal government must rechannel its funds into these communities, as a whole, rather than just the schools in order to see the successes of public education. By no means it this an easy task. Government has been failing to do so for decades. However, in order to rid the American economy of its fiscal woes the government must give its future workers the skills to change the course of action. This starts with a reconstruction of public education. Stronger social programs are the key to bridge the educational gap in American society, something that needs to be accomplish to change a failing America.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really liked how Ally said kids can't "learn their way out of poverty." This is so true and yet our society continues to value the myth of meritocracy. Society blames the poor families because they are "lazy" when the system itself is flawed. Now don't get me wrong there are some lazy people but to say that the majority of people who live under the poverty line are lazy is not the case. This brings me to my next point. I agree with Pat and Ally's assessment of Wells. Wells sees the role of significance that education plays in the decrease of poverty, but education alone will not eliminate poverty. America prides itself of freedom and equality when in reality our education system itself perpetuates inequality. Like Wells points out more emphasis needs to be put on social programs that actually work. We could point out plenty of issues with our education system but in my opinion it all starts with funding. Until schools are equally funded lower income schools don't have a chance. When I say funding I am including cleanliness and new textbooks as well. If a child comes into a school that is filthy and old what incentive do they have to learn? If we don't care how our schools look or feel why would they?

      Delete
  12. As Olivia said in her post, Social welfare has become a construction that has leaned from an economic base to a more racial base. Minority groups have learned not to trust government policies regarding them because they have become so culturally biased. Given what we have now, a wide separation between the wealthy and the poor, statistics that conclude that minority groups are the county’s poorest, and the privatization of some of our major businesses and markets, it is easy for us as a people to not have trust in our system. It we are truly a democratic system than what efforts are being made to restructure with the help of the people that these policies are affecting. I thought wells did a great job of concluding the argument when she said that we have to focus on our society as a whole, as a community, and focus on the common good rather than the good of the individual or individuals (20). The trouble with focusing on a specific group of individual is that it doesn’t benefit us as a whole. I think a lot of what we have been talking about in class and through this reading calls for a type of reformation that will do all these things such as promoting those free markets, equality, and a democratic society. But this will only happen when social welfare policies start focusing on the welfare of everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As many of our classmates have commented, Au and Wells speak about inequality perpetuated in schools by combing discourse of education with discourse of social inequality. Both authors examine how schools train citizens of the United States, thus it is a representation of society and priming children for the role they will play as future citizens in the U.S. This idea of social order beginning in school is a theme that relates directly to the practices being spoken about, mainly standardized testing. If we think about education as a representation of society rather than thinking about it outside of society as a whole, we see the same social problems reproduced within the classroom. Our class and the authors we read agree almost unanimously that education needs to be reformed, but before we do this, it may be of value for researchers, teachers, and community members to think about how schools function within the social systems they represent.
    Au speaks directly to this by framing the phenomenon of standardized testing as a form of reproducing social inequality in a systematic representation of Well’s notion of American Exceptionalism. Exceptionalism takes its most aggressive form in the familiar “bootstrap ideology” that is re-affirmed by standardized testing. Testing has been somewhat successfully supported by the public due to the educational and social discourse supporting the notion of social mobility for all through education regardless of race or socio-economic status.
    Each reading is describing the ways in which schools function as building societal structures. This can be scary or it can be, as Au suggests, hopeful in that teachers, students, and leaders have autonomy to function within the system. It is this autonomy that can help change the direction of education currently functioning as a poor excuse for social welfare, which may hardly survive the move toward privatization. However, the question with the most focus is about our schools, but isn’t it also about our society? How are we defining people in the country, their place, worth, and value as equal citizens? The achievement gap is more like a quality of life gap reproduced and reaffirmed through one of societies most trusted institutions. I believe it is this idea that both authors are trying to get us to grapple with, and before we propose realistic solutions, we must de-construct the socially oppressive systems (i.e. standardized testing) within schools.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree with all of the posts so far. Both articles try to explain the tensions between the "American Way" (a strong belief in meritocracy) and the implementation of this mentality at the school level. One of the things I found really interesting is a point that was brought up in the Au reading on page 7. According to Bowles and Gintis, "Formulation asserts that schools mainly function to serve the needs of capitalist production in nearly a one-to-one correspondence, and this provide one explanation of how and why school produce inequality". As we discussed in class, capitalism right after the New Deal was more inclusive and sought to fill the gaps in the "bust" cycles of capitalism. Neo-liberalism, however, has completely turned that idea on its head. The individual is more important (the idea of collective identity is slowly being phased out) and uplifting the market seems to be prioritized. This creates a cycle of inequality that is frankly becoming harder to reverse. Many people feel uncomfortable with the thought that the government needs to intervene because it limits our personal freedoms. The problem is that inherently, some minority populations do not have the social capital to easily conform to the new market driven capitalist vision. In other words, the idea of meritocracy loses validity because we are not on a level playing field; social status and capital plays a large role in the success of some and the demise of others. How can we fix this? It is difficult, but a start would be to stop trying to run schools like a business. In the end, it benefits everyone in society if all people are able to be educated in the best way possible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As Wells traced the decades of social welfare policy and the transforming role that education was called upon to fill throughout the 20th century, I became aware of the ways that we, as American society, have deceived ourselves. It seems that with such inspiring phrases as ‘hand up’ and ‘equal opportunity’, as well as the omission of certain key facts, the entire public has taken on an unrealistic view of the role education, building off concepts such as ‘the American dream’ and complete agency. I think that this is one of the primary lies Americans tell themselves- that we possess such a degree of agency that, if teachers and students actually tried, then everyone would have a good education and everyone would be able to get good jobs and the world would be a happy place. An interesting question I’ve found myself asking is- have the educators bought into it? From much of what I’ve heard, the answer is all too often yes. We hear tales of starry-eyed new teachers who enter schools believing that they have the capability to turn the tide in children’s lives and make up for the difficulties students face, such those posed by a low socioeconomic status. (As policy-makers seem to believe, who needs the stability of adequate nutrition, reliable healthcare, etc. when we have EDUCATION??) The frustration of these new teachers is inevitable, as they have taken on a burden that they were never meant to carry. Perhaps if the public became aware of the lies we believe, we would be empowered to do something! It seems that the battle of the educators and of anyone who actually wants real equal opportunity (as opposed to the empty hope provided by faith in our agency) begins less in the direct shaping of policy and more in the reversal of decades of firmly-entrenched ideology and hegemony.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Both Wells and Au propose important critiques of the implementation of high-stakes standardized testing and the demanding pressure on public schools to rectify all social inequality. I found Well’s incite into America’s ongoing hesitation to provide social safety nets, which would guarantee basic quality of life, particularly interesting. I believe this outcome is a combination of our “bootstrap ideology” and our unwavering belief in the American Dream. But I think there is another important factor that drives our country’s steadfast unwillingness to fund the future – our obsession with instant gratification and economic gain. It appears as though any ongoing project that has its vision focused on the horizon is unacceptable. The American public is willing to subsidize huge MNCs, financial institutions, but not environmental protections (which have zero imagined immediate benefits that are seen in our charts of economic progress). Similarly, war veterans are a subset of our population who we very easily justify publicly supporting but we can’t imagine implementing universal paid maternal leave or dramatically increasing federal spending for public schools. Clearly Americans have strategic priorities in regards to what they support.

    Another interesting aspect of this reading came on a personal level: Wayne Au went to my high school, Garfield High School. Reading his chapter on “The Zip Code Effect” in the context of our shared high school experience was fascinating. Garfield High School historically resembles Berkeley High School in that it serves the highest and lowest achieving students in the district and these groups of students are distinguished by race and class. Garfield usually has the largest number of National Merit Scholars in the city, but also some of the highest prevalence of drug usage and gang activity. Au also wrote an article called “Decolonizing the Classroom” (http://www.rethinkingschools.org/restrict.asp?path=archive/23_02/deco232.shtml) and mentions two classes taught by Mr. Davis. They were "secret" classes: one section of Harlem Renaissance and one section of African Studies. These classes taught the dynamics of power, race, and westernized bias on accounts of history. These are exactly the types of classes that could have an effect on general inequality, however since they don’t fall in line with hegemonic ideology, they are very unlikely to become a mainstream element of educational curriculums.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My classmates have previously discussed the main arguments of the Wells article; that the burden to solving poverty within America is unfairly placed on the public school systems. Without the “safety net” of social welfare programs and affordable care, no matter how much money is being pumped into the poor school districts, equal educational opportunities will continue to be unattainable and the achievement gap will only widen (Wells 33). What is interesting to note is the shifting governmental ideology of how schools should be funded in the hopes of solving the inequity issue while each time continuing to ignore the glaring need for social welfare reform. For example, JFK supported a large federal role in education policy and a few years after his assassination, the creation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 also emphasized a switch from local governance of public schools to more federal control. However, the federal government’s educational programs placed too much of a burden on the public school systems and focused solely on schools’ outputs and test scores while ignoring the need for more funding for small education programs such as “those intended to train teachers, support research, or develop new instructional methods,” (Wells 27). Compounded, without the presence of better social welfare systems, these schools were unable to handle the issues of poverty that were present within the schools and close the achievement gap. Today, as Ally noted, there is a strong shift towards the privatization of the public school system with the implementation and promulgation of charter schools, which receive more outside funds. However, despite this shift in control, schools are not performing any better and inequalities continue to exist. This supports the idea that school funding is not the sole answer to solving the issues of poverty within the US, but rather the reform and implementation of better social provision systems

    ReplyDelete