Executive summary

This brief examines the factors limiting educational access for low income high school students across the United States, and it proposes policy solutions for equitable improvement. It outlines the fundamental obstacles that students face, particularly in the STEM area, and it highlights the role that independent initiatives such as the Don’t Oppress Youth Success program in Gresham, Oregon provide. Through increased funding, new approaches towards discipline, and independent projects, these policies aim to address systemic obstacles and provide students with the resources they need to succeed.

Overview

Access to quality education is a significant challenge for students living in low income areas. Lack of funding and adequate resources create major gaps in learning. Students from poor backgrounds often lack the necessary exposure to academic opportunities. Students from rich backgrounds have advantages in many career fields, particularly in STEM careers. These unfortunate circumstances perpetuate the cycle of poverty. Quality education is a necessity for building stable communities. There is a desperate need for more policies that prioritize accessible education. By increasing funding, and valuing mentorship, schools can help close the gap in education.

Pointed Summary

• Educational disparities in low income communities result in limited access to critical resources.
• Educational gaps prevent students from exploring high demand fields.
• Community led programs demonstrate potential policy solutions.

Relevance

Education is a fundamental factor in economic development. Entire regions can be defined based on their socioeconomic status, and businesses are affected by this heavily, on top of community well being. Schools in poor areas lack the resources to offer rigorous and competitive programs or advanced coursework. This disparity limits student  potential and widens gaps of achievement. Addressing these inequalities has far reaching implications, as educational access directly affects future earning potential and community well being.

History

Educational inequality is an issue rooted in systemic underfunding of school districts. Oftentimes, it is created through income inequality, where school districts are drawn to separate wealth from poverty. Various policies, such as Title I funding were designed to combat these vast disparities. Title I funding is labeled as part A of ESSA or the “Every Student Succeed Act” and provides financial assistance to districts and schools who serve a larger population of children from families experiencing poverty. However, lack of budget and inconsistent usage has limited their effectiveness in practice. Recently, interest in the STEM field has increased, but due to these funding inequities, low-income students are left at a disadvantage in pursuing careers in these fields.

1. Current Stances

While educational inequality is widely recognized as an issue, opinions vary on how to address it. Educational inequality has been an ongoing issue since the conception of systemic education. While initially, it was women, and people of color being discriminated against, now it is against those born to low income families, and is done much more discreetly. Federal and state initiatives have increased support and funding for STEM education, but many low income schools remain underserved. Community led efforts, like Student led nonprofits and programs, are bridging some gaps, yet these initiatives lack the scalability that state and federal policies could provide and support. Increasingly, public & private partnerships and community investments emerge as convincingly viable solutions.

2. Tried Policy

Programs such as ESSA, or the “Every Student Succeeds Act” aim to address these educational disparities by directing funds on a need based system, meaning that schools with more issues are prioritized. However, practical outcomes have often fallen short of expectations. Independent solutions and student lead initiatives like DOYS or Don’t Oppress Youth Success show community efforts being implemented to support students and are considerably more effective. Without broader policy support, such programs struggle to be sustainable in the long term.

Policy Problem

A. Stakeholders

The rapid issue of educational inequity has affected a number of different groups including, but not limited to students, families, school administrators, educators, community leaders, government officials, policy makers, and local business owners. Anyone that is directly or indirectly impacted by the educational system and its disparities is a key stakeholder. Business owners face losses and damage to property due to the product of poor schools, while low income families bear the social consequences of having a lackluster education.

B. Risks of Indifference

Without meaningful interference, educational gaps will continue to hinder the success of low income students. Not addressing this key issue will increase the need for social services like counseling and advocacy. This issue is more than just an altruistic act of charity. It is a way to protect our communities, by preventing more youth from going into juvenile detention. By providing pathways to success in these low income areas, teens can stay off the streets and learn to become functioning members that contribute to the welfare of society. Additionally, the added economic impact of an educated workforce can help boost the local economy, in turn, increasing the value of the surrounding area.

C. Nonpartisan Reasoning

Ensuring equitable access to quality education benefits society as a whole by promoting economic self sufficiency and reducing a reliance on social services. While policy approaches may vary across the country, the objective of providing adequate resources and opportunities for students remains to be a widely supported initiative, as education is something that all people can stand behind. Opinions split on the means of how to achieve such goals. Some advocate for increased government spending, or reallocation of tax payer dollars to education and infrastructure, while others emphasize the role of third party intervention and private partnerships

Policy Options

Increase Funding for STEM in Low Income Schools

Direct state and federal funding to the development of STEM programs in low income areas in order to promote careers in that field. Such funds would support the purchase of lab equipment, updated technology, and training for educators to deliver STEM curriculum. Tax incentives could encourage private sector involvement, bringing additional resources and expertise.

Expand Mentorship and Career Exposure Programs

Support of mentorship programs. One example being the Don’t Oppress Youth Success program held at Gresham High School in Oregon. A mentorship program that pairs high school students with struggling middle school mentees in an attempt to help foster a sibling-like connection between the two. Data has shown that in their first 2 cohorts, fights have decreased, and grades have increased. By promoting mentorship at a state level, students can gain exposure to careers and build practical skills. Such programs could be implemented through partnerships with local universities, companies, and nonprofit organizations.

Conclusions

The improvement of educational access for low income areas is a critical issue in the United States. Quality education can ensure equitable opportunities, as well as building a stronger, more skilled workforce. By rerouting resources from other sectors to education, and expanding the use of mentorship, policy makers can create future pathways for the success of all students. As the DOYS program in Gresham shows, even low level initiatives can significantly impact student’s' academic and career trajectories, showing the potential of these proposed policies to foster a more inclusive and thriving educational landscape.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Gwen Singer, Mason Carlisle, Lilly Kurtz, Paul Kramer. and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Fellowship Program within the Institute.

Work Cited

1. Garcia, Emma, and Elaine Weiss. “Education Inequalities at the School Starting Gate: Gaps, Trends, and Strategies to Address Them.” Economic Policy Institute, 27 Sept. 2017, www.epi.org/publication/education-inequalities-at-the-school-starting-gate/.
2. Martin, Carmel, et al. “A Quality Approach to School Funding.” Center for American Progress, 13 Nov. 2018, www.americanprogress.org/article/quality-approach-school-funding/. 
3. Oakes, Jeannie. “Adequate and Equitable Education in High-Poverty Schools: Barriers and Opportunities in North Carolina.” Learning Policy Institute, 18 June 2021, learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/leandro-high-poverty-schools-brief. 
4. “Oregon Department of Education : Title I-A Improving Basic Programs : Title I-A Improving Basic Programs : State of Oregon.” Www.oregon.gov, www.oregon.gov/ode/schools-and-districts/grants/esea/ia/pages/default.aspx. 
5. Stanford University. “Landmark US Cases Related to Equality of Opportunity in K-12 Education | Equality of Opportunity and Education.” Edeq.stanford.edu, edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-4-lawsuits/landmark-us-cases-related-equality-opportunity-k-12-education. 
6. We Are Teachers. “What Teachers Need to Know about Restorative Justice.” WeAreTeachers, 29 Aug. 2023, www.weareteachers.com/restorative-justice/.