Tale of Two States: Equity Outperforms Inequity

¶ … Tale of Two states: Equity Outperforms Inequity

The Rich Get Richer

"A tale of two states: equity outperforms inequity" is a very interesting article, and one that both politicians and educators across the country would do well to analyze and to discern in regards to their own public policies. Essentially, the article functions as a comparison between the spending and results of spending in the public school systems in both New York and in New Jersey. There are huge disparities between the models for doing so, which is largely why there are similar differences in the results of the academic performances of the students in each of these states. It is noteworthy that a state in which there is a greater allocation of economic resources for under-funded areas of poverty -- such as New Jersey -- is able to consistently outperform states in which there is no commitment to balancing the funding allocated to the rich and to the poor (like New York) .

In New Jersey, there is a regressive model for spending on education within the public school system. As such, for every dollar spent on funding for students in wealthy areas, there is $1.42 spent on students in impoverished areas (CFE, 2014, p. 3). The rationale behind this difference is discussed at length within the aforementioned article, and pertains to the fact that due to more accumulated wealth (in terms of property taxes and for the community in general), schools in more affluent areas are able to fund many of their educational needs without state spending. This fact is not true for communities and students in impoverished areas, which rely upon state spending to present an equal opportunity for students throughout the state and in these areas.

The article contrasts this equitable spending and education of students in New Jersey with the model for spending in New York which is regressive, meaning that for every dollar spent on affluent students and those living in affluent areas, there is only 87 cents spent on students in areas in which penury is present (CFE, 2014, p. 3 ). This model is a continuation of the axiom that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, since the rich are able to access greater educational resources that the poor are not. The crux of the article, however, lies in the fact that due to these differences in spending on public education in both New Jersey and New York, the students in the former are able to consistently outperform the latter. Were there not such a difference in the aptitude of these students, it would not matter how each state chose to allocate its funding. But the New Jersey model is able to produce effects which the New York model cannot match.

It does not matter that the state of New York is spending more money per student than the state of New Jersey is ($16,752 versus $14,226, respectively) (CFE, 2014, p. 2). By choosing to dedicate resources to the students who need it and can not attain them without state funding, New Jersey "outperforms the Empire State when it comes to student achievement, high school graduation, and early childhood education, in large part because NJ funds for equity, raising outcomes for students in high-poverty areas" (CFE, 2014, p. 6).