For as long as critics have questioned whether school foundations worsen inequities by raising millions for certain schools, school foundations have countered that they're only balancing the equation, writes Mario Koran for Voice of San Diego. The argument goes that low-income schools get Title I and other state funds to meet the needs of disadvantaged students. In fact, Title I -- federal money for students living in poverty -- comes with strings attached, to be spent on activities like boosting student achievement rather than music, gym, or athletics. True, principals can push boundaries in Title I spending, but ultimately it must go for a narrow list of programs. Foundation money, on the other hand, goes for extras, and over the years has morphed into a budget staple at some schools. The two kinds of money don't represent an apples-to-apples comparison, but raw totals show that schools that get public money do come out a little bit ahead -- especially since they don't have to raise it themselves. The losers are schools in the middle, with low-income students but insufficient numbers to trigger funding, and weak PTAs. It would be just as fair to blame foundations for causing disparities as it would to fault districts for unequal distribution of Title I funds. But this much is clear, Koran says: The money doesn't even out in the end.

 More

Source:  Public Education News Blast

Published by LEAP

Los Angeles Education Partnership (LAEP) is an education support organization that works as a collaborative partner in high-poverty communities.