- January 11, 1999 at 12:00 am #11066
Why do poorer regions of a state get less money for education (i.e. colleges and universities), highways, etc.? This seems to be the case in South Texas, where I live.
Original Code C8. Click here to see responses from the original archives.
User Detail :Name : John-T, Gender : M, Disability : none, City : San Antonio, State : TX Country : United States, July 15, 1999 at 12:00 am #36073
When I was a newspaper reporter in a small town in Indiana, we asked the same thing. The answer we received was that larger areas put more money into the pot, so to speak. The city of Dallas puts in more money to the state’s coffers, so the city of Dallas should get more out. Also, areas with high population bases have more representatives in the state house and Congress. Therefore, they have more votes and thus more power. Also, high-income areas can afford more, and maybe better, grant writers.
User Detail :Name : B23442, Gender : M, Race : White/Caucasian, Age : 23, City : Kokomo, State : IN Country : United States, June 18, 2003 at 12:00 am #26750
The question,’Why do poor districts have underfunded schools?’ is easily answered in Illinois. We fund schools from property taxes. So, where the property is more valuablethere is more money for the schools. High value industrial areas in Chicago suburbs have better schools than agricultural counties in Western and Southern Illinois because property taxes support them. A more equitable solution to school funding would be from income tax that is more evenly distributed around the state but the collar counties have the clout and don’t want to give up anything. So poor schools stay poor and the students do to.
User Detail :Name : Tim24596, Gender : M, Sexual Orientation : Straight, Religion : Methodist, Age : 50, City : Springfield, State : IL Country : United States, Education level : 4 Years of College, March 15, 2006 at 12:00 am #19418
Even though this is a bit off-topic, I think that it is important. Schools in lower-income areas do receive less money because the residents of the area pay less taxes, but it goes beyond that. The school struggles to attract good teachers, who can get higher-paying jobs in wealthier neighborhoods. The students at these schools often have more problems in their home lives as well. Between hunger and gangs and parents that are never home because they have to work all the time, children in these areas don’t really have enough time to be students. This further prevents good teachers from considering teaching at these schools. Good teachers with a conviction to help those less fortunate are the only ones who find their way to these difficult, low-paying jobs. Besides attracting good teachers, these schools often labor mightily to find other sources of revenue for their schools. Schools in higher-income areas have parents who can give their time and money; teachers who make any investment bring large returns, and students with bright, promising futures uncomplicated by the trials of a lower-class family. Their teachers have time to write grant proposals and talk with individual students. They know that if they call a parent, that parent will probably have a lot of interest invested in their child and respond in a positive manner. These teachers do not have to struggle to get good learning tools, or up-to-date textbooks. The school atmosphere is better because no one is worried about violence or the uncertainty of life waiting for them outside the doors. Some of this may be hyperbole, but I think it’s important to realize that there’s much more to the issue than how much money a school receives from the government.
User Detail :Name : Amanda, Gender : F, Age : 21, City : Chicago, State : IL Country : United States, Occupation : Daughter of a public school teacher, Education level : 4 Years of College, Social class : Middle class,
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.