Higher education is one of the most competitive ways of growing sustainable future generations. Low income and minority students face a number of hurdles in their quest for education. Even though a number of these problems may have rooting outside the confines of the schools. There is evidence to the effect that lack of funding among low incomes students in higher learning has a significant effect on the gaps within the education sector (Deruy, 2016). As such, instead of narrowing the academic achievement gaps, institutions have successfully created education systems that have widened the gaps (Tucker, 2017). Notably, some of the inequities within the academic field have been unchallenged for so many years. Studies have herein found out that most budgeting practices within schools tend to favor learning institutions with low numbers of poor students. As such, the intentions of most advocates and policymakers tend to rob less fortunate students from funding that can help further their education.
Schools that have a higher number of poor students tend to attract and employ teachers with a low level of experience and less advanced degrees. Therefore, more educated, experienced, and expensive teachers will be attracted to the affluent learning institutions such as Harvard University. With reference to the quality of knowledge dispensation, low-income students in higher learning institutions are likely to miss the valuable education further widening the disparity gaps (Marshall & Alston, 2014). Legally, Title 1 funds should be keen on addressing the attainment of the achievement gaps within the education sector. However, the existence of comparability provisions within the Title one which demands that school must promise prior to the achievement of federal Title I money that the educational services provided are same in both Title 1 and non-Title I schools. However, there is an increasing realization of the flaws within the comparability laws (Cho, 2012). In most instances, the provision provides a number of options to demonstrate comparability which does not require comparison to the expenditure in Title 1 schools and non-Title 1 schools. Future studies must focus on the disparity in quality teachers and materials as wells as weak policies that have resulted in funding disparities among the students from low-income families.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The educational acquisition is expensive in every front. Most low-income students are not capable of affording high end or middle income higher educational institutions. There is a wide disparity in the quality of teachers and teaching materials in low-income level schools. This causes the widespread attainment of inequality. Under public institutions, there is a need to come up with systems that allow for equalizing and providing equal opportunity in terms of access to quality teachers and learning materials. Studies to determine the gap in achievement of test scores among students revealed that students from poor families are likely to fail test scores at 40%-50% (Reardson, 2012). Learning institutions in low-income environments tend to be highly crowded further leading to lowered quality and gap disparities. The rugged legal provision that seeks to favor well-established learning institutions continues to be injurious to the low-income level students. The disparity in quality teaching and access to learning materials resulted in students who are less competitive. Moreover, it affects their self-esteem and ability to access employment opportunities. Studies must, therefore, focus limited options owed to low income from students that affect access to quality education in institutions for higher learning.
Over the years, there has been an attempt to addressing the funding gaps which remains largely ineffective. However, I post that self-directed education is an ideal way of reducing the gap. This must come with the realization that the current education system tends to be more rigid, and narrowly task driven that has helped fuel the achievement gaps between students. Self-education is a sure way of developing self-empowered and goal driven students at a more manageable cost. Above all, it will reduce the funding disparity among schools as there will be no coercion and the pressure to register to study in most of these learning institutions. Research must focus on how self-directed learning can break the barriers to low funding among low-income families.
References
Cho, H., et al. (2012). Do reductions in class size raise students’ test scores? Evidence from population variation in Minnesota’s elementary schools. Economics of Education Review, 31 (3), 77–95.
Deruy, E. (2016). In wealthier school districts, students are farther apart. The Atlantic , May 3, 2016.
Marshall, J., & Alston, D. (2014).Effective, sustained inquiry-based instruction promotes higher science proficiency among all groups: A 5-year analysis. Journal of Science Teacher Education 25 , 807-821.
Reardon, S. F. (2012). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor. Community Investments, 24 (2), 19-39.
Tucker, M. (2017). Differences in performance within schools: Why so much greater than in outer countries? Education Week’s Blog , Sept. 6, 2017.
