During my high school years, I attended a low budget, run down school, in a small town. The next town over, with a significantly …show more content…
141). Similar to Neill, Meiser may disagree with my idea of funding affecting the quality of education, because Meiser created a successful school on a regular school budget. Meiser’s school was successful because her school adopted an “open” education system, a philosophy that states that everyone should have access to high quality education and resources. Because Meiser believes that everyone deserves equal opportunity to high quality education, she may agree with my idea, that everyone should have equal funding. However, because she provided high quality education to students on a “regular” school budget, she may disagree with my idea that high quality education comes from high …show more content…
Because urban school are stereotypically underfunded compared to suburban schools, my idea suggests that urban schools receive a low quality of education. Donnell states, “. . . a ‘deficit paradigm’ in which everyone associated with urban school – city kids, their parents, their teachers – is viewed as damaged goods,” (Donnell, 2013, p. 152). Therefore, thinking that urban school students receive a lower quality of education than suburban schools falls under the definition of Donnell’s deficit paradigm. Donnell believes that the attitude of adults in urban schools affects the education that students receive rather than funding, Donnell goes on to state, “In thriving urban school, everyone associated with life in the school fiercely believes that each and every child can succeed at high academic levels,” (Donnell, 2013, p. 155). However, if the urban schools received the same amount of funding as suburban schools, the urban schools would have the same potential of success as the suburban