Student Essay on Education Is a Necessity

Education Is a Necessity

Summary:   In a refutation to Caroline Hoxby's claim that local property taxes are a good way to provide education, funding schools solely with property tax is not effective because the property revenues of poor families do not compare to those of the richer families; thus less money goes toward the poor children's education.

Many young people dream about having successful careers as lawyers, doctors, or CEO's of major corporations, but to achieve these goals they must be adequately educated. However, not all people are given the same opportunities as others. Why? Education is effected by the funding of schools. According to Caroline M. Hoxby, Assistant Professor of Economics at Harvard, local tax revenues are an "effective and efficient means of providing education...and gives incentives to both residents and school staff" (2). However, in Savage Inequalities, Jonathan Kozol argues that funding schools solely with property tax is not effective because the property revenues of poor families do not compare to those of the richer families; thus less money goes toward the poor children's education. Therefore, I agree with Kozol in that local property taxes are an unfair way to fund schools because students of poor districts are not given adequate education nor do the parents have sufficient amounts of money to finance their schools.

The bottom line is schools need a good amount of money to keep themselves running properly, however providing those funds only through property tax will not ensure that. Kozol states that typical wealthy suburban homes are "worth more than $400,000" (54), while in a poor urban district homes costs as low as $4000 (19). Since property tax is based on the value of homes, it is clear that the wealthy homeowners are able to contribute a larger tax base in proportion to its student population. However, for urban communities which mostly consist of poor families, the meager values of their home do not provide enough money to adequately pay for their children's education. To accumulate more money for schools, poor communities "tax themselves at higher rates than do the very affluent communities" (55). Unfortunately, this increase of taxation still does not make a noticeable difference because of their low revenues. Furthermore, wealthy families continue to benefit from their local property tax since it gets counted as a tax deduction, so every homeowner will receive a portion of their income back from the federal government (55). Since the wealthy suburban homeowners have more expensive homes, they will get a more substantial deduction. Therefore, with the extra money to spend, these parents donate money towards their children's education. In the poor urban districts the value of their home aren't as high, so the amount of tax deduction they receive is obviously going to be a smaller amount. Thus property tax alone is an inefficient way to fund schools for poor families because the value of their homes do not compare to those of the rich neighborhoods. This system of funding schools is unfair for the poor districts because they are unable to allot enough money to finance their schools properly.

Property tax revenues used to fund schools in poor districts such as East St. Louis do not provide the students with an effective education. Due to the lack of proper funds, students such as Pamela of Du Sable High do not receive enriching learning experiences from their courses. Kozol interviewed Pamela and discovered "she is taking Spanish, literature, physical education, Afro-American history and a class she terms 'job strategy'" (70). The courses students take in high school reflect and determine if a student has potential to attend college and learn in a challenging and demanding environment. However, because her school did not offer any classes that show her potential in academics, the classes that Pamela was taking did not reflect her capabilities. Taking classes like physical education and "job strategy" courses do not enrich her mind nor will it appeal to college officials. In comparison, one of the wealthy schools in the suburbs offers their students "fourteen different AP courses" (157). AP classes alone demonstrate some of the advantages and better learning experiences affluent high school students receive. They will most likely have a better chance of getting a higher education; thus poor students do not have a chance up against these affluent students. Moreover, not only do poor districts offer their students classes with little variety, but even more compelling is that the classes cannot supply their students with proper equipment. For example, an eighth grade science class were using workbooks in a laboratory without any lab equipment (139). It is absolutely pointless to take such a class, which involves hands-on learning, without the tools to conduct experiments. If courses such as science are not provided with essential tools, the students cannot observe or analysis what they are learning from their workbooks. In Camden, another city in East St. Louis, half the students in a twelfth grade English class had no textbooks (141). Similarly, students in an English course cannot learn about literature if they have no text to read. It is clear property tax alone does not provide an effective education for poor students because the indigent families are unable to contribute enough money for the schools to supply materials needed for learning. The system of funding schools is unfair for the impoverished students who are not receiving equal experiences from their courses.

Hoxby states that money from property tax gives incentives to parents to maintain an effective and efficient schools; however her claim stands true for wealthy families not poor families. In the documentary "Making the Grade," Ailed an impoverished student, attends an inner city high school in San Francisco. In a common scenario her parents are not involved in their daughter's education. It's not that Ailed's parents do not care about their daughter, they are only unaware of the way funding systems work in the U.S. Furthermore, Ailed's parents are non English speaking immigrants from the Philippines, so they have work low paying jobs; Ailed's mother works as a cook, and her father as a welder. The constraint of the parents jobs inhibit them from even attempting to do something about the education their daughter was receiving from her school. They are not in the position to adjust their schedules or take a day off to change a system they do not even understand. After all, Ailed's parents have to pay for their bills and feed their children. On the other hand, Damon, a middle class student, attends a well-funded high school. His parents are graduates of UC Berkeley and with their education they have a better understanding about the funding systems in the U.S. With their resources they make incentives to provide Damon with everything he needs in order to pursue an effective education. Hoxby's claim is not true for all people; therefore property tax does not give an incentive to parents.

Caroline Hoxby's statement about local property tax being a good way of funding schools is not true because students of poor school districts do not receive equal treatment in education. In reality this method of funding schools is neither effective nor efficient which clearly illustrated in the lives of the impoverished students. Every student deserves to get equal opportunities for education. Many people are granted this opportunity, but what about the poor, disadvantaged students? Their education will not allow them to reach their goals of becoming a CEO or a lawyer. However, equal opportunities might be possible with equal funding, this change would have an immense impact on those poor students; it will give them a chance at Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, privileges our founding fathers established for everyone.