“Funding Academic Success in Low-Income Communities” by Dylan Rehm

“Funding Academic Success in Low-Income Communities”

Dylan Rehm, Bergen Community College

Abstract: This paper is an examination of the academic and social disadvantages that students who live in low-income communities struggle with, along with a discussion of the causes of these issues and suggested solutions. There is a large focus on where funding for public schools is sourced from, the effects a lack of funding has on the quality of education, and how this affects children's academic success, ending with a brief summary of potential steps that can be taken towards achieving reform within primary school systems.

---

The concept of having to survive on less than $6.85 per day is inconceivable for many people, but this is the harsh reality for 36.8 million Americans. In 2023, the World Bank defined this $6.85 as “living below the poverty line” in upper-middle-income countries, translating to $24,860 a year for a family of three in the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). When taking into account that the median gross monthly rent in 2023 was $1,406, this left those families with under $8,000 to cover the rest of their expenses for the year (United States Census Bureau). It must be stressed that this is only the threshold for being considered impoverished — many families are living on even less than this. Not only is it hard to afford medical bills, groceries, and other necessities on such minimal funds, but the financial demands of parenthood add even further stress to already difficult circumstances. In a separate report, the United States Census Bureau estimates that 13.7 percent of children in America were living in poverty in 2023, equating to a staggering number of nearly ten million. Childhood poverty has further implications — most importantly, reduced accessibility to support systems at home and in school, which then feeds into the perpetuation of generational poverty. In the country with the largest economy on the planet, how is it possible that so many people are still left behind to struggle? When discussing poverty, a variety of issues should be addressed, such as labor, housing, and health. Education, however, is especially important to keep in mind when focusing on childhood poverty and the cycle of generational poverty. 

Underfunded schools are abundant in low-income areas, as a large portion of school funding comes from local property taxes. In high-income areas, greater funding enables schools to provide opportunities such as AP courses, field trips, consistent acquisition of updated technology, and a larger staff consisting of highly qualified teachers. Having more teachers allows for smaller class sizes, giving students access to a much more individualized learning experience where teachers can focus on and form relationships with each student. This gives students the chance to work with a teacher when they are struggling and strengthens the bond between student and teacher. Using data from Project STAR, Raj Chetty et al. presented strong evidence that, starting as early as kindergarten, enrollment in school environments of higher quality has a strong correlation with not only increased academic achievement, but more success in adulthood as well (37). Schools in low-income areas do not have the funds to provide such an experience, and the consequential negative effects of this manifest in a wide array of educational disadvantages. The foremost of these results in a lack of essential educational resources and properly qualified teachers, which is then more often than not improperly addressed with an increase to an already bloated top-down and clearly ineffective administration, which provides a shaky foundation for education. On top of that, disadvantaged students tend to have less access to extracurricular activities, behavioral and emotional support, tutors, and at-home support. If all of this wasn’t enough, John N. Friedman, economist at Brown University, notes in his essay “School is for Social Mobility” that COVID-19 highlighted how underfunded schools struggled to maintain infrastructure, putting the health and safety of faculty and students at risk and increasing interruptions in education (1). The remnants of this are still felt and may continue to be felt for the next generation. With all this in mind, proper education is a critical part of a child’s developmental progress, but the United States is currently failing to assist its children equally in securing a successful future. Therefore, in order to ensure students from all socioeconomic backgrounds are given adequate academic resources, it is imperative that academic funding is not exhausted on administrations and state boards of education, but rather that it reaches schools, classrooms, and programs instead.

It is necessary to highlight the disproportionate ways in which minorities are affected by poverty. Though these facts are shocking enough on their own, it must not be forgotten that systemic racism plays a role in this dynamic.. A scrutiny of the census shows that of the 10 million children living in poverty in 2023, approximately 20.3% were Black, 22% were Hispanic, and 19.3% were Native American and Alaska natives, with white children accounting for only 12.1% (Census Bureau). This is due to the substantial income gap present between people of different racial backgrounds. Matthew Desmond, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, writes in his article “Why Poverty Persists in America” that among undocumented workers, many of whom come from these racial backgrounds, “...more than a third are paid below minimum wage, and nearly 85 percent are not paid overtime because of lack of protection from labor laws,” and that, “compared with white families, Black and Hispanic families were nearly five times as likely to lack a bank account.” Desmond also writes in his book Poverty, by America that “There is no metropolitan area in the United States where whites experience extreme concentrations of disadvantage, living in neighborhoods with poverty rates in excess of 40 percent,” while many Black and Hispanic people do (22). Additionally, according to Richard D. Kahlenberg’s New York Times article “Focus on Class, Not Race,” “...the median Black household wealth is just one-eighth the median white household wealth.” To put this into perspective, this means that if the 50th percentile of white families has a net worth of $200,000, the 50th percentile of Black families has a net worth of only $25,000 — an unbelievable difference. Kahlenberg also reports: “Black middle-income families typically live in more disadvantaged neighborhoods than low-income white families.” Since schools are funded by local property taxes, a disproportionate number of Black families living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods means they more frequently have to send their children to underfunded schools. The demographic of low-income areas is one that reflects how segregation and racism in the past have had lasting effects that still persist to this day. Though it may seem as though the United States has progressed past racism, it is now frequently less blatant and rather ingrained within the structure of our society, as the segregation of class and income still translates to the segregation of minorities.

This segregation of wealth accounts for the lack of resources in low-income schools, which have multifaceted detrimental effects. This issue is best addressed in multiple parts. First, regarding physical infrastructure, these schools contain unsafe conditions for both faculty and students. The ever-growing issue of global warming is just one example of an inescapable source of danger — one that requires adequate infrastructure of buildings if protection is to be ensured. For instance, in 2022, the Maryland Department of Planning reported that Baltimore City had a poverty rate of 19.6 percent, while the poverty rate of the United States was 12.5 percent (“2022 American”). That year, according to Baltimore City’s school district Chief Operating Officer Lynette Washington, fourteen schools in that district had no air-conditioning (“U.S. Public Schools”). Similarly, in Denver, Colorado, the city’s school district said there were no air-conditioning units within forty schools. On school days with high temperatures, it can be dangerous to keep people in buildings with no way to cool down, meaning sometimes early dismissals are necessary. The Denver Public School District said that in September of that year, “...more than 30 schools in Denver Public Schools had to send kids home early and four closed for full days this month due to the heat.” Approaches like dismissals and leaving windows open at night are temporary fixes. However, not only do they not fix the problem, but more can arise as a result: bugs make their way in through open windows, and, when dismissed early, students who rely on public transportation are still left in the heat when early buses aren’t available. This then causes “Students [to] get sick, distracted or miss entire days of education when conditions turn abysmal,” but they aren’t the only ones affected — “Parents sacrifice income to provide child care when classes suddenly get canceled” (“U.S. Public Schools”). Issues with leaks, rust, and cockroaches plague these schools that are far beyond the point of needing small repairs. In turn, these schools become less sanitary, susceptible to flooding, and more. Mike Pickens, executive director of the National Council on School Facilities, describes how “‘The average age of a school building now is from 49 to 50 years’ — the highest in memory” (“U.S. Public Schools”).  Beyond infrastructural issues come issues with educational resources — namely, supplies, faculty, support, and activities. 

Understaffing is a prevalent issue in schools across the country, more so in low-income areas due to lower salary offerings and less ideal teaching circumstances. CNN correspondent Gabe Cohen writes, “Schools are competing for a shrinking pool of teachers, and wealthier suburban districts are winning out over those with fewer resources, especially rural schools and those that support more low-income families and students of color” (“Why Teachers Are Burning Out”). He quotes Chad Aldeman, policy director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University, as saying, “‘[Teachers] are not going to the schools that are the most disadvantaged.’” Well-qualified teachers are perhaps the most vital resource for students to have in order to excel in the subjects that they are taught. John N. Friedman notes that, along with his co-authors, they found that, “...when better teachers arrive at a school, the students in their classrooms earn around $50,000 more over each of their lifetimes. This adds up to $1.25 million for a class of 25 in just a single year of teaching” (“School is for Social”). However, on average, in secondary schools in America, an astonishing one-third of teachers do not have a major or minor in the field they are teaching. In high-poverty schools, this increases to a range starting at 51 percent up to 64 percent. Furthermore, in these schools, “Some 21 percent of students’ teachers failed the certification exam compared with 7 percent of white students’ teachers” (Jacob 135).  In the journal entry “Deconstructing Teacher Quality in Urban Early Childhood Education,” Professor at Texas A&M University Jemimah Young asks:

If teacher quality and student performance are linked, as confirmed by prior studies, it begs the question, why are so many inexperienced teachers employed in under-resourced, predominantly African American, urban schools? Those who attend these schools, on average, start kindergarten behind in basic academic competencies as a result of the lack of academic skill development in early childhood (28).

She also states that approximately one-third of teachers only hold an associate’s degree or no degree at all. However, a degree isn’t the only thing that makes a teacher qualified — an understanding and awareness of cultural differences is incredibly important to accommodate a multicultural student body.

Teacher demographics must align with student demographics: a well-supported statistic that is often neglected during the staffing process. For example, students whose race matches that of their teacher tend to experience not only more support from and a better connection with their teacher, but experience a social benefit from it as well (Young 27). Young makes the point that “...many pre-service teachers assume that issues of race, poverty, sexuality, and other multicultural concerns are not developmentally appropriate concerns for children in early childhood. However, many of these students struggle daily with the effects of these issues, across all age groups (31). In a survey of Black male high school students conducted by Conrad E. Hamlet, he presents that the students expressed that they:

Wanted their teachers to see them as… multi-dimensional, with complicated lives, as a person who had a child to take care of, and had lived on their own. Students wanted teachers to understand that students worked at night in order to attend school in the day and to see them as a student who had made a multitude of mistakes before enrolling in school for maybe the last time… The teachers’ understand(ing) of ‘self’ is important to these participants because they felt it enabled them to academically succeed (53).

Professor of Educational Psychology Jason Osborne states there is strong evidence to support that, largely in Black males, a lack of understanding by teachers leads to academic disidentification, which can cause poor performance in school. No other group presented significant disidentification. Black males specifically are also more often neglected due to a lack of representation in male teachers. 

According to Richard Reeves, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and President of the American Institute for Boys and Men, the proportion of male teachers in K-12 institutions is 23 percent, which has decreased from 33 percent at the beginning of the 1980s (“The Case for Helping” 619). He states that “Boys develop, on average, a little later than girls. The gap is mostly in the development of noncognitive skills, which are important for school success, especially in adolescence” (619). He notes there is some, albeit limited, evidence that an increase in male faculty may assist male students: “Thomas Dee (2006) estimated that if half the English teachers from sixth to eighth grade were male, ‘...the achievement gap in reading [between girls and boys] would fall by approximately a third by the end of middle school,’” with no detriment to the performance of girls (619). Though some studies have shown no correlation between the two, there are differences in the approaches taken by male and female teachers, which may be important when keeping in mind the developmental gap between male and female students, especially regarding conduct. 

Due to cultural effects, Black male students tend to exhibit more behavior that is viewed as disruptive in the classroom, which, when paired with a lack of understanding of these cultural differences, can lead to increased punishment and improper disciplinary actions, predominantly by white female teachers (Hamlet 55). Black male students are suspended or expelled from school more than any other group and face disciplinary discrimination in smaller instances as well. They often experience lower expectations from teachers, and many are placed in the back of classrooms as a result of disruptive behavior, increasing their chances of academic failure. For students from low-income communities, this behavior frequently stems from issues such as increased exposure to violence, a response to feeling unsafe in schools, and a diet consisting of fewer nutritional foods and a lack of support at home, Wellington Williams Jr. says in his dissertation, “Female Teachers’ Perceptions of African-American Male Elementary School Students Who Misbehave” (36). Additionally, Williams also claims, “Academically failing African-American male students misbehaving in the classroom are often grouped into special education and disability categories without addressing the individual underlying social, emotional, physical, psychological, and intellectual issues” (4). Williams goes on to explain how teachers unfamiliar with these underlying causes misunderstand and overreact to a situation, leading to more negative teacher-student interactions. This greatly influences student retention and increases the risk of juvenile detention and prison. Female teachers are often fearful of violent behavior from male students of any race and are more likely to view misbehavior as a threat. It has been found that these students then view male teachers as more authoritative and potentially listen to them more. As seen in a statistic from the same study, “Seventy-five percent of the participants agreed that African-American male students who have a strong male role model displayed decreased behavioral issues and increased academic success” (82). If a student lacks a male role model at home, male teachers can fill this role. There is also a practice of grouping these “failing” students into the same schools, which then receive even less funding. Unfortunately, increasing male faculty in low-income schools is difficult, as it has been found that, as a result of the misogynistic foundations society has been built on, “Women, generally, will accept lower salaries in return for part-time or flexible work that accommodates their family commitments” (Hamlet 25). Hamlet states, “The enhancement of teacher quality is likely to be costly. Increases in teacher incentives such as loan-forgiveness programs, heightened teacher preparation [requires] other effort to prepare, recruit, and retain high-quality teachers [which is] associated with a cost factor” (30). Nevertheless, as Friedman notes, “Covid… triggered a momentous policy response. K-12 schools received nearly $200 billion in funding across three federal stimulus bills, much of which was aimed at combating learning loss,” along with assistance in low-income communities “...by supporting increased internet and device access” (“School is for Social”). This allowed students to remain involved in remote education, even if they were unable to afford access to the necessary resources on their own. So, if we found the money then why can’t we continue to provide such an amount?

The only way to remedy these extensive issues within low-income schools is to attempt to find the root of the financial issues at hand. Finding a solution will never be as simple as the United States allocating more money to education, especially since there are already debates over whether or not education is a responsibility of the federal government, given that the right to education is not included in the Constitution. Some may argue that the United States federal government already spends too much money every year on education; according to the Department of Education, in 2024, their total budgetary resources amounted to $241.66 billion. Though this may sound like a large sum of money, in 2024, it accounted for only 2 percent of the fiscal year federal budget. Additionally, while the United States spends 5.44 percent of its GDP on education, higher than several other nations, it falls below UNESCO’s benchmark of 15 percent of public funding, putting forth only 12.7 percent (Hanson). When referring to a 2021 report, the president and CEO of the International WELL Building Institute, Rachel Hodgdon, says, “While states and the federal government contribute roughly 45 percent and 10 percent, respectively, to school districts’ annual operating costs, the capital investment required to build and modernize buildings falls most heavily on local districts and taxpayers.” While federal and state government funding may fluctuate slightly year to year, the latter point always remains true — one that immediately sets low-income communities at a disadvantage regardless of federal funding. So, though increased federal funding could help, the issue is indeed much deeper than that.

FIGURE 1: www.nj.gov/education/about/org/

In order to ensure that all of the money being poured into schools is being used to its full potential, a redirection of funds needs to be considered. On a state-wide and more localized scale, widely stretched and overstaffed school administrations allow for exorbitant amounts of funding to be lost on their way down to the individual school level. This can be seen throughout state boards of education and higher-ups in the system. For example, as shown in Figure 1, the New Jersey State Board of Education contains 40 offices, a Chief of Staff, and a Special Assistant. Keep in mind that for the 2023-24 school year, the average full-time superintendent had a salary of $193,671, per NJ.com. According to the New Jersey Department of Education School Directory, there are nearly 500 superintendents in the state. This equates to $96,835,500 allocated to salaries on average for the school year, and superintendents aren’t even included in the above Organization Chart. With such a top-heavy and bloated administration, by the time funds reach the classroom level, schools are left with less money to put towards repairs, activities, and most importantly, paying teachers adequate salaries that make staying at their jobs desirable. Not only is an increase in salary important, but better insurance plans, paid time off, and at-home resources are beneficial to teachers.

As previously mentioned, the majority of funding comes from taxpayers and local districts. As argued in the 1973 US Supreme Court case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, “...school districts located in lower-income areas of Texas were at an inherent disadvantage compared to those in more affluent areas, as locally raised school funds primarily come from property taxes, which are higher in wealthier neighborhoods” (“School Funding”). Therefore, “...wealthier citizens who pay higher taxes thus have access to better-funded public schools, which creates a systemic inequality that perpetuates privilege of the wealthy at the expense of students from lower-income households.” This perpetuation happens due to the issue of school choice, which is now being further expanded and encouraged by an executive order signed by the president on January 29, 2025 (White House). Naturally, families who can afford to do so would rather place their children in ideal institutions, feeding more money into these schools and taking it out of others, creating a cycle that inevitably leaves these already underfunded schools with increasingly less funds. Funding comes largely from property taxes, which means that any area with lower property value is automatically generating less revenue. Bruce Baker and Mark Weber establish in their report published through New Jersey Policy Perspective that “...without state aid, districts with low property values would have to pay much higher effective tax rates to fund their schools compared to districts with high property values.” They provide research that states that the town of Irvington, New Jersey, which has high poverty rates and low property values, would need a tax rate six times higher than the town of Millburn in the same county, which has lower poverty rates and higher property value. They conclude their report with several suggestions, specifically that it would be beneficial to “...regionalize industrial and commercial property taxes to distribute their revenues more equitably and correct racially and ethnically disparate local share requirements.” Similarly, Jennifer L. Hochschild, Professor of Government and Professor of African and African American Studies at Harvard University, suggests redrawing district and neighborhood assignment lines in order to increase diversity in social class and funding (“Social Class” 833). The downside to this solution is that it often receives pushback from those who are in the wealthier communities, who often feel their money should not go towards other districts. However, with careful consideration of these various approaches to the distribution of money, a combination of them could start a push in the right direction.

The positive impact proper funding would have on schools and, in turn, students in low-income communities is extraordinary. With the ability to provide increased salaries and bonuses to teachers, the rate of retention would increase, and more experienced and qualified teachers could be incentivized to work in currently underfunded schools. Student participation would increase with more racially diverse representation within faculty, and with teachers who have a better understanding of the environments in which they are teaching, students will be more adequately supported. This increase in teacher quality would directly improve the quality of education. It is also known that in low-income communities there are higher crime rates, and a study conducted by E. Jason Baron, Joshua Hyman, and Brittany Vasquez showed that “Students who attended better-funded schools were 15% less likely to be arrested through age 30.” In addition to being less likely to commit a crime, Friedman, the Brown University economist, reports that they tend to be more civically engaged, happier, and healthier. He also “...found that students who were randomly assigned to higher-quality classrooms earned substantially more 20 years later, about $320,000 over their lifetimes” and that “...when better teachers arrive at a school, the students in their classrooms earn around $50,000 more over each of their lifetimes.” Other aspects within the education system, aside from teachers, improve student life as well: updated supplies/equipment, as well as extracurricular engagement opportunities.

Having field trips and after-school programs would open pathways for students to form better connections with their peers and teachers and aid in offsetting the effects that having parents who must work longer hours may have on children. Rebecca Cornelli Sanderson and Maryse H. Richards of Loyola University conducted a study on after-school programs in low-income communities, first noting that, “Juvenile violent crime rates in the community peaked during after-school hours, making late afternoon a particularly difficult time for community youth. According to FBI statistics, 47% of juvenile violent crime occurs on weekdays between 2 pm and 8 pm” (432). Providing a space for children to remain after school helps prevent involvement in and exposure to these situations. For students with parents who work late, it is important to have a place where children can still be under the care of a role model after school. However, this is not possible largely due to a lack of funding. “In a survey of 94 cities, only 35% of children in need of after-school care were actually enrolled in an after-school program.” When investigating this lack of enrollment, 46 percent of non-participants reported lack of a ride home and concerns about safety as a deterrent, 20 percent reported interference through family responsibilities such as caring for younger siblings, and cost was a largely reported issue as well (430). Those who attend these programs tend to have higher school attendance rates and grades, lessening failure (431). With increased funds, public transportation could be made more accessible for students, after-school programs could be made more affordable to encourage enrollment, and the resources necessary for these programs would be easier to acquire. Being able to provide better mental health support and support for disabled children is important, too. It could also be more realistic to provide students with healthier meals that they may not be able to receive at home, as proper nutrition is crucial for brain function and energy. All of this will lead to an increase in social mobility. Students who succeed more in school are more likely to have higher salaries in the future, less likely to be involved in crime, and can help break the cycle of poverty. As Friedman says, “We are leaving a vast amount of untapped talent on the table by investing unequally in our children, and it’s at all of our expense” (“School is for Social”). Even those who are hesitant to provide further funding can’t deny that better education leads to more achievement in the workforce and, therefore, increased revenue and quality of life.

Just as in most other parts of a child’s life, often all a student needs in order to succeed is proper support. It can be easy for government officials and even those living in wealthy areas to view the issue of underfunded schools as primarily an economic issue, and while the path to improving failing educational institutions must focus on financial reforms, it also must be kept in mind that, at its core, this is an issue regarding the well-being of children. Poverty is cyclical and affects every facet of life for those living in it, impacting jobs, housing, medical resources, education, mental health, and overall quality of life. The root of success in life can be attributed greatly to a strong education; attending a well-structured school from a young age increases the chances of going to college and seeking further education, opening up opportunities for better-paying jobs. This, in turn, allows future generations to support their children, providing them with resources and breaking the cycle of poverty. Though much more comes into play when attempting to resolve poverty in America, improving education is an incredibly important start that should no longer be neglected.

Works Cited

“2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” Maryland.Gov, 2023, https://planning.maryland.gov/MSDC/Documents/American_Community_Survey/2023/2023-1231-2022-ACS-Report.pdf.

“Annual Funding Gap for Making the Nation’s Public School Buildings Safer, Healthier and Fit for Learning Balloons to $85 Billion.” International Well Building Institute, 8 Sept. 2021, resources.wellcertified.com/press-releases/state-of-our-schools-2021/.

Baker, Bruce. “Reforming School Funding in New Jersey: Equity for Taxpayers, Excellence for Students.” New Jersey Policy Perspective, 24 Sept. 2024, www.njpp.org/publications/report/reforming-school-funding-in-new-jersey-equity-for-taxpayers-excellence-for-students/.

Chetty, Raj, et al. How does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star. , Cambridge, 2010. ProQuest, doi: 10.3386/w16381.

Cohen, Gabe. “Why Teachers Are Burning Out and Leaving Districts Scrambling to Fill Jobs.” CNN, 31 Aug. 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/08/31/us/teachers-shortage-burnout-vacancies/index.html.

Cornelli Sanderson, Rebecca, and Maryse H. Richards. “The After‐School Needs and Resources of a Low‐Income Urban Community: Surveying Youth and Parents for Community Change.” American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 45, no. 3–4, 25 Mar. 2010, pp. 430–440, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9309-x.

Department of Education (ED) .USASPENDING.gov. “USAspending.gov.” USAspending.gov, 2019, www.usaspending.gov/.

Desmond, Matthew. “Why Poverty Persists in America.” The New York Times, 9 Mar. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/03/09/magazine/poverty-by-america-matthew-desmond.html.

Desmond, Matthew. Poverty, By America. Crown, 2023.

“Federal Poverty Level (FPL).” HealthCare.Gov, 2024, www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-fpl/.

Friedman, John N. “School Is for Social Mobility.” The New York Times, 1 Sept. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/us-school-social-mobility.html.

Hamlet, Conrad E. An Exploration of African-American Males and the Influence of Race, Gender and Teacher Beliefs about their Academic Success, Cleveland State University, United States -- Ohio, 2012. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploration-african-american-males-influence-race/docview/1923387605/se-2.

Hanson, Melanie. “U.S. Public Education Spending Statistics [2024]: Per Pupil + Total.” Education Data Initiative, 14 July 2024, educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics#.

Hochschild, Jennifer L. “Social Class in Public Schools.” Journal of Social Issues, vol. 59, no. 4, 18 Nov. 2003, pp. 821–840, ProQuest, doi: 10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00092.x.

Jacob, Brian A. "The Challenges of Staffing Urban Schools with Effective Teachers." The Future of Children, vol. 17, no. 1, 2007. ProQuest, doi: 10.1353/foc.2007.0005.

Kahlenberg, Richard D. “Focus on Class, Not Race.” The New York Times, 5 July 2023, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/07/05/opinion/affirmative-action-college-admissions.html#affirmative-action-class.

Kausch, Katie. “The 31 Highest Paid Superintendents in N.J. for 2024. See Who Makes $254K+.” NJ.com, 23 May 2024, www.nj.com/education/2024/05/the-31-highest-paid-superintendents-in-nj-for-2024-see-who-makes-254k.html.

New Jersey School Directory, homeroom6.doe.state.nj.us/directory.

“New Jersey Department of Education.” Organization Chart, 14 Sept. 2022, www.nj.gov/education/about/org/.

Osborne, Jason W. “Race and Academic Disidentification.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 89, no. 4, 1997, pp. 728–735, https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.89.4.728. 

“Poverty: Share of Population Living on Less than $6.85 a Day.” Our World in Data, 7 Oct. 2024, ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-than-550-int--per-day#:~:text=population%20living%20on-,less%20than%20%246.85%20a%20day%2C%202023,cost%20of%20living%20between%20countries.

Reeves, Richard. “The Case for Helping Boys and Men in Education.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 43, no. 2, Mar. 2024, pp. 614–622, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22581.

“School Funding.” Gale Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2021. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/PC3010999078/OVIC

Shrider, Emily A. “Poverty in the United States: 2023.” United States Census Bureau, 3 Sept. 2024, www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-283.html.

Tesfahunegn, Mebrahtom, et al. “Continued Support for Improving the Lowest-Performing Schools.” Brookings, 9 Mar. 2022, www.brookings.edu/articles/continued-support-for-improving-the-lowest-performing-schools/

“US Public Schools Get a D+ for Poor Conditions, and Experts Say Problems Are Getting Worse. Here’s What Kids Are Facing.” CBS News, www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/us-public-schools-get-a-d-for-poor-conditions-and-experts-say-problems-are-getting-worse-heres-what-kids-are-facing/.

.

Vasquez, Brittany. “Investment in Public Schools Reduces Contact with Criminal Justice System - Epi Working Paper.” Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, 10 May 2022. https://fordschool.umich.edu/news/2022/investment-public-schools-reduces-contact-criminal-justice-system-epi-working-paper#:~:text=Students%20who%20attended%20better%2Dfunded%20schools%20were%2015%25%20less%20likely,outcomes%2C%20and%20higher%20educational%20attainment.

The White House. Expanding educational freedom and opportunity for Families. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/expanding-educational-freedom-and-opportunity-for-families/ 

Williams, Wellington, “Jr. Female Teachers’ Perceptions of African-American Male Elementary School Students Who Misbehave: A Narrative Inquiry, University of Phoenix”, United States -- Arizona, 2019. https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/female-teachers-perceptions-african-american-male/docview/2316517170/se-2.

Young, Jemimah L., et al. "Deconstructing Teacher Quality in Urban Early Childhood Education." Journal for Multicultural Education, vol. 12, no. 1, 2018, pp. 25-34. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/deconstructing-teacher-quality-urban-early/docview/2015741316/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/JME-08-2016-0046.