Four ways of providing additional funds for low-income students are compared: (a) Separate programs for such students may have stigmatizing effects. (b) Districtwide discretionary funding may lead to programs that benefit middle- and higher-income students more than the intended low-income recipients. (c) Buildingwide funding for schools with many low-income students offers a way to avoid stigmatizing and/or diversionary effects of other funding paths. This method is recommended for large-scale trial. (d) Vouchers given exclusively to low-income families are a fourth possibility, as yet largely untried.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, L. , & Pellicer, L. (1990). Synthesis of research on compensatory and remedial education. Educational Leadership, 48, 10-16.
2.
Coleman, J. S. , Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.
4.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C., § 2701 (1988).
5.
Forte, L. (1991). State Chapter 1 brings riches-at a price. Catalyst, 3(3), 2-11, 48.
6.
Jencks, C. , Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effects of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Sendor, B. (1991). Upholding Congress' preference for the "least restrictive environment."American School Board Journal, 178, 16-17.
