It’s hard to deny the benefits of a solid education.
Whether a person wants to become a physicist or a poet, education
opens doors that would otherwise remain closed. But when
one’s inability to access education begins to hinder
progression into a chosen career, it becomes painfully obvious that
our educational system is failing our youth.
Over the past year, Democratic vice presidential candidate John
Edwards has emphasized the idea of two Americas ““ one
wealthy, one impoverished.
According to Teach For America’s Web site, 9-year-olds
living in low-income areas are already three grade levels behind
their peers in wealthier neighborhoods. Those same low-income
children are seven times less likely to graduate from college, thus
limiting their ability to be competitive in today’s
education-oriented workplace.
This problem is exacerbated by the way schools procure funding.
It varies by state, but most use a combination of income tax and
sales tax to fund up to 50 percent of their schools’
budgets.
In wealthy areas, this formula works just fine, but in
neighborhoods where property value is low and discretionary income
just as limited, schools often don’t receive the funding
necessary to adequately meet their students’ needs.
It doesn’t help the situation when the federal government
institutes well-meaning reforms without the funding necessary to
back them. This shortfall places an extra strain upon schools that
already have difficulty meeting financial goals.
The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is frequently cited as one
such federal regulation. According to a September press release
prepared by the Democratic staff of the House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce, nearly $27 billion of
promised funds have been withheld from U.S. public schools.
This means the requirements are in place, but the funding to
implement them is sorely lacking.
To date, President Bush’s policies have been ineffective
in eliminating the gap between low-income and high-income
communities. Children in low-income areas are still performing
below expectation and below their peers in more affluent areas.
Over 1 million high school students drop out each year. How is
this statistic representative of the American goal of equality?
Affluence should not be the determining factor in the quality of a
child’s education.
So what does the other side have to offer? John Kerry and John
Edwards have repeatedly committed themselves to providing full
funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. This action would
alleviate some of the strain on the school districts that are
already financially burdened.
But their plan doesn’t end with the No Child Left Behind
Act. Through their “School’s Open ‘Til Six”
initiative, Kerry and Edwards plan to utilize after-school programs
to boost the opportunities for 3.5 million children across the
United States.
These programs would provide a safe place for children to play
and learn after school, as well as provide transportation for them
once the programs end for the day. Through concentrated efforts at
a young age, children in low-income areas can catch up with their
peers in other areas and improve their chances for success.
Access to education in the United States shouldn’t be
about money. Making finances the determinant in a child’s
education deprives that child of his chance to access equal
resources. In a nation founded upon the concept of equality,
inequality caused by government policy is simply inexcusable.
Clark is the media relations director for the Bruin
Democrats.