Donors are donating money to charter schools, and those donors are linked to the government through political campaigns. All this money for charter schools is unfair to public schools, as they usually have more kids than charter schools thus they need more money. Public schools also have more teachers than charter schools, but they receive less money than charter school teachers because all the government funding is going towards charter
There has been a new budget that has ruined several agencies because there is not enough funding with Trump now in office. Within these agencies lies the education department; low-income students will be affected by Trump’s budget cuts. Hence, there will be a cutback on tutoring, books, and counseling these students are entitled to, which will lead to struggling as students would attempt to reach their goals. Regardless, the president should not make the education department cut back on their activities because this will lead to less educated students, more dropouts, and a greater gap between low and high income people. They are cutting off agencies’ budgets, which are needed for a society to function properly.
Increasing school funding is very risky because if the graduation rates don’t go up when students get older they would face the problem of being in debt and won’t know how to pay it off . School funding is also based on the school population size. Why should newer schools with high income students get to have a lot more resources then the other schools with low income students. Why is it that lower income schools aren’t given the same resources to help the students? These students with low income do have the same opportunity as the higher income new schools.
(MP#2) Based on these points, many people affirm that those are the root causes which lead to educational achievement gap to students and they believe that solve all the causes together is the only way to close it. (ELAC) In my opinion, their claim is true but not accurate enough. They ignore the education part habitually because they think those root causes determine all the gaps that we suffer in our society. (ELAC)In fact, school system is the real root cause for all of those aspects. If every school provides students unconstrained management which means allow students to do the things in their ways and develop their different creative thoughts rather than prevent, then more and more students will like to go to school.
On the supply side, there are not many landlords in high opportunity neighborhoods willing to work with section 8 because of increased government monitoring by public housing agencies. Also, landlords are concerned about the perceived behavioral problems that assisted households may bring, such as poor home maintenance (De Souza, 2010). On the other side, many tenants remain in high poverty neighborhoods because of the more affordable housing options. Additionally, many households may be reluctant to move away from familiar environments, assume that they are aware of the other housing options in high opportunity neighborhoods. Although remaining in high poverty areas may be convenient, families should be encouraged to move to high opportunity areas for higher quality of schools and the health benefits that come with leaving high poverty areas.
I think I wouldn't like if I attended a public school rather than a wealthy school. Even though wealth does encourage carelessness I still think it depends on the person you are. Comparing students from public school students to students from SJR I think that public school students are more careless but it really depends on how you were raised. The reason I think that I think that public school students are more careless is because students aren't as committed as SJR students are in studies which makes them in a way careless. Some people from SJR are careless too but I still think that there is a higher number of careless people in public schools than in SJR.
Many Hispanic students begin schooling without the proper resources that many other students receive, and schools are often not equipped to compensate for these initial problems. For Hispanics, initial disadvantages often come from parents ' immigrant status and their lack of knowledge about the U.S. education system. As Hispanic students go through the schooling system, the lack school resources and their weak relationships with their teachers continue to undermine their academic success. Initial disadvantages continue to add up, resulting in Hispanics having the lowest rates of high school and college degree achievement, which hinders their chances for stable employment. The situation of Hispanic educational attainment is cause for national concern.
However, he also emphasises that not all backgrounds are valued equally by society, or by teachers in schools. Bourdieu argues that the ideal type of student imagined by teachers is modelled on middle class values, expectations and experiences. He argues that whole schools are saturated with middle and upper class cultures so much that lower class children are likely to feel immediately out of place, which is why it is important that Early Years practitioners should consider ethical issues to promote the wellbeing of children. (Curtis and Pettigrew, 2009) as a professional practitioner, I partially disagree and agree with Bourdieu’s work. Firstly, I disagree that teachers discriminate children based on their values and expectations due to the fact that teachers and all those who are working with children and young people are bound by legislation to respect the rights of children, young people and their families, ensuring that all children feel included, secure and valued.
Opposers believe that free college would be unsuccessful for three main reasons: first, free college would result in higher tax cost for the public and taxes couldn't be increased enough to provide college tuition funding; second, the tuition money is needed to provide for things like college maintenance and school supplies, and free college will lower the quality of education; and third, a college degree wouldn't mean anything because there would be no competition and colleges will be less incentivized to improve. According to opposers, the extremely high tax raise it will cause is one reason why it won't be successful. “It simply [would shift] costs from students to taxpayers,” said Andrew Kelly, resident scholar in education policy studies and director of the Center on Higher Education Reform at the American Enterprise Institute. Sanders’ plan of free college tuition would raise tax revenue by $13.6 trillion over the coming decade, according to the Tax Foundation’s report (Pianin). That would be insanely
I find it very hard to believe that, when even in the schools, children of different sex, race and age are not even treated equal, so how can the outside world be equal? In the second paragraph of the article Why education inequality persist—and how to fix it, “In contrast, the best-funded schools with the highest percentage of experienced teachers are most often located in the most economically advantaged neighborhoods”. How can we even be close to equality? The declaration does not live up to what it says, or at least the important thins. They invest no time in our children,they treat them unfair, and that is why we don 't have equality now, they make sure that everyone else and themselves are taken care of.