Title this font should be the size of your title Education, Schools

Title this font should be the size of your title

Education, Schools And Inequality: Reducing Education Inequality In Low-Income Areas Through Reinvestment Strategy This is not a proper proposal title. Remember that the format should be something like:

The Impact/Effect of [Independent Variable] on [Dependent Variable] [optional: in your population]

Principal Investigator: Nancy Suarez–font size here can be larger

Per RFP guidelines, there must be 1 inch left and right margins. Remember as well that the first sentence of each paragraph must be indented (except for the Abstract).


The primary aim of the study proposal is to examine the appropriate strategy for reducing education inequality among low-income district schools. In this case, the study will assess how reinvesting funding in education will promote education equality in low-income district schools. The proposal shows that the research will use mixed qualitative and quantitative methods to assess how education funding will enable the quality of education in low-income district schools. The proposal suggests that online surveys and direct interviews will be vital in collecting research data. In the same way, the proposal shows that inferential and descriptive statistics will help analyze the study’s quantitative data. Contrarily, the narrative and content analysis will examine the study’s qualitative data. Finally, the proposal has incorporated a literature review showing causes, impacts, and solutions to low education and education inequality in low-income district schools.


Education inequality is a public crisis affecting the U.S and the rest of the world. This is because the issue prevents equal access to education and required achievements for students from different socio-economic backgrounds. Owens’s (2018) study shows high disparities among students’ accomplishments in public schools because of education inequality. The students in low-income district schools have low achievements compared to those in schools based in the middle- and high-income areas. As a result, this limits social and economic growth and empowerment opportunities for students in low-income areas studying in district schools.

Bloome et al., Dyer, and Zhou (2018) indicate that income inequality is among the primary causes of education inequality among district schools in the U.S. This also proves why students in low-income district schools have limited access to education and success. In addition, in low-income district schools, students have limited access to educational resources and facilities. This is because the district schools in low-income areas also have limited access to financial support and capital to support education programs and development initiatives. As a result, these students face a lack of experienced and competent educators, technologies, and facilities to support the curriculum and co-curricular developments in low-income district schools. The final 1-2 sentences of the Introduction need to mention the research methods which will be utilized in the proposed study.

Literature Review –

Causes of Education Inequality in Low Income District Schools–your subheaders should be a bit less prominent than your headers

Bloome et al. (2018) depict that high-income disparity is among the primary courses of education inequality among district schools in low-income areas. This is because, in public schools, students access education that varies based on their affordability and availability of financial resources in their backgrounds. As a result, students from low-income areas backgrounds access low standards, low quality, and unreliable education from district schools in their neighborhoods. On the other hand, students from high- and middle-income backgrounds access reliable, high quality, and high standard education in schools around their communities. As shown by Schneider et al., Hastings, and LaBriola (2018), this impliesnote that students from low-income backgrounds have high risks of accessing low-quality education compared to those from middle- and high-income communities. This is because parents from low-income backgrounds have limited access to financial resources (Schneider et al., 2018). The constraint makes it hard for them to spend significant funds on educating their children.

American University (AU) (2020) report shows that poor education funding systems and models are among the major causes of education inequalities among public district schools in low-income areas. AU (2020) reports that the current model of funding public schools depends on system property taxes. This dependency creates extreme flaws in funding public schools because the value of property taxes is lower in low income compared to middle- and high-income neighborhoods. As a result, low-income district schools receive less financial support than those in the middle- and high-income locations (AU, 2020). In the report, AU (2020) shows that the difference in funding for every student between low- and high-income district schools is close to $ 1000 for every financial year. Consequently, it affects the ability of students to access quality education, technologies, facilities, and educators in low-income district schools, as illustrated by Reardon’s (2019) study. In the research, Reardon (2019) indicates that students find it challenging to access quality early and middle childhood education from district schools because of limited funding in low-income public schools.

Inappropriate leadership in public education funding is also contributing to education inequality in low-income district schools. AU (2020) reports that poor leadership leads to poor funding policies for public institutions in low-income areas. In the same case, poor leadership also promotes the implementation of education funding programs that undermine the needs of low-income district schools (AU, 2020). For instance, the government’s Title I education funding received insignificant funding because of poor leadership. Poor leadership also affects how leaders oversee the use of funds allocated to Title I education programs. This makes it challenging for the program to meet the needs of needy students in low-income district schools (AU, 2020). The highly disadvantaged district schools in low-income neighborhoods receive insignificant funding, making it hard for them to meet the increasing needs for quality education among students. In the demonstration, Bloome et al. (2018) illustrate that because poor leadership affects public schools’ funding, district schools in low-income areas fail to develop and expand their education programs. In this sense, the schools lack the resources to increase education facilities, resources, and teachers.

Impacts of Education Inequality in Low Income District Schools 

You have already discussed this study–do not repeat information unless it is a new aspect of the study not previously discussedAccording to Owens (2018), education inequality is among the significant causes of poor achievements and performances among students in low-income district schools. Owens’s (2018) stud shows that compared to students in the middle- and high-income public schools, those in low-income district schools perform poorly. Poor academic performance among learners in low-income district schools includes the lack of education facilities, technologies, and human resources such as teachers. For instance, Madani’s (2019) study indicates that the lack of quality teachers in low-income district schools affects students’ academic outcomes. In the same case, the absence of teachers and unavailability of other educational resources such as books and e-learning facilities also affect students’ educational performances in low-income district schools.

You have already discussed this study–do not repeat information unless it is a new aspect of the study not previously discussedAccording to Bloome et al. (2018), education inequality in low-income district schools affects students’ chances of being high-and-middle income-earning adults. This is because education is an economic empowerment tool that allows students at different educational levels to improve their financial lives in the future (Van, 2020). Zhou’s (2019) study shows that students face challenges accessing and completing a college education in low-income communities. As a result, this also affects the chances of students in district schools to access and complete post-high school education. Therefore, this diminishes students’ chances in low-income district schools to access quality employment opportunities. Bloome et al. (2018) show that limited access to and completion of college education among students in low-income district schools affects their chances of accessing job opportunities that solve their economic issues. Therefore, from Van’s (2020) report, education inequality affects limits students from being responsible members of society while contributing to socio-economic development and progress.

Solutions to Education Inequality in Low Income District Schools 

To solve education inequality in low-income district schools, funding reinvestment is an appropriate strategy. According to Okhremtchouk and Jimenez-Castellanos (2018), the strategy requires education financiers to increase the funds directed to public education facilities in low-income areas. This is in line with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which supports public education development and financing in low-income and rural areas in the U.S. In addition, the AU (2020) report indicates that increasing funding to low-income district schools will support education equity in the sector (AU, 2020). Through the grant, district schools will access exemplary quality educators, technology, and facilities to promote the education of students from low-income communities.

AU (2020) also indicates that through reinvestment funding in education, district schools will raise the standards and quality of educational facilities and resources. For instance, the funding will improve sporting, classroom, laboratory, and technological facilities in these schools to promote the education of economically disadvantaged students. Moreover, increasing funding will enhance the abilities of district schools to hire quality teachers to promote the education of students. This is because these district schools will be in better positions to monetarily compensate educators for their jobs (Institute for Policy Research (IPR), 2017). For this reason, the IPR (2017) report indicates that the benefits of increasing school expenditure include improved education outcomes and students’ performances in low-income district schools. As a result, this will increase the education, graduation, admission, and completion rates for students in low-income district schools (IPR, 2017). Consequently, the policy or strategy will increase the chances of graduating students from low-income district schools to have higher adult wages and reduce adult poverty.

The proposal must consist of full paragraphs–there should not be a stand alone sentence here for the hypothesis

Research Hypothesis 

Funding reinvestment strategy will control education inequality among district schools in low-income areas.–this is not a properly formulated research hypothesis. It should be something like this: Low income district schools that receive a funding reinvestment strategy will experience lower levels of educational inequality than low income district schools not receiving a funding reinvestment strategy.

The proposed study will examine the perception of education authorities at district levels regarding the effectiveness of funding reinvestment in reducing education inequality among district schools in low-income areas. The hypotheses will also help assess the education sector’s professionals’ perception of the effects of funding reinvestment on the reduction of education inequality in low-income district schools. In the two events, negative reactions and perceptions would imply that the strategy might have negative results in controlling education inequality in these schools. On the other hand, positive reactions would mean that the funding reinvestment might promote education equality and success in low-income district schools.  The review of the literature in this section should be trimmed to the most essential and relevant elements as they pertain to the focus of your study. Some additional information needs to be added here: 1) You need to sum up what we already know from this literature but just as importantly 2) to sum up what we do not know and/or what has not yet been done (i.e., the gap in this literature). You then need to 3) connect your hypothesis here to this gap, as the purpose of your study and hypothesis is to fill in this gap.

III. Method

Participants–again, subheaders in this section should not be as prominent as your header

The study participants will include key stakeholders in the public education sector, primarily in low-income district schools.–anywhere in the world? What is your study population (i.e., who has any chance at all of being selected for your sample)? What is the sampling frame from which the sample will be selected? What is the sampling strategy–how will these individuals below be selected? These include education professionals such as teachers, school administrators, and postsecondary education administrators. In addition, participants will also include curriculum developers, special education teachers, principals, and school counselors. The study will involve nearly 100 education sector stakeholders as key participants. To control gender bias, the research will incorporate 50 male and female participants. In addition, all the study participants will be members of the adult age group. Therefore, participants of the research will include those aged 25 years and above. 

Instrumentation –full paragraph is needed–no stand alone lists or items. This subsection is about defining and categorizing your variables. How are you defining ‘low income’? How are you determining ‘education quality’–how many categories will this variable consist of?

The study will have both dependent and independent variables. The dependent variable will be education quality, while the independent variable will be funding to the low-income district schools. For this reason, changes in education funding will directly impact the quality of education in low-income district schools. 

Dependent Variable: Education Quality  

Independent Variable: Education Funding 

Procedures –all subheaders need to use the identical font type and size. This subsection needs a bit more information about the specifics of the two data collection activities–much of the information is general and not specific to the particular situation here.

The study will use the mixed qualitative and quantitative methodology. This is because the study will collect and analyze both numeric and non-numeric data to answer the research question while approving or disapproving the research hypotheses (Rutberg & Bouikidis, 2018). The study will use surveys and interviews as the key data collection instruments, as illustrated by Mkandawire (2019). In this sense, the study will incorporate the face-to-face interview method in collecting the qualitative data. This will assist in collecting data from participants within the researchers’ reach. On the other hand, the research will use online surveys to collect quantitative data. The research will incorporate at least eight close-ended questions for the online surveys for demonstration. The participants will receive the questions via email because it is a convenient online communication method, as demonstrated by Hawkins (2018).  

The anticipated ethical concerns during the study include failure to collect objective and practical data because of unreliable participants. The study will use face-to-face interviews to create a positive rapport with respondents to manage this. The language barrier is another ethical issue that might arise during the study. According to Brown et al., Spiro, and Quinton (2020) observe that participants may fail to understand survey and interview questions because of language barriers. For this reason, the study will incorporate different languages to reduce language barrier issues during data collection. Finally, privacy issues may arise in the research. Managing the issue will may require participants and researchers to sign confidentiality agreements

IV. Analysis –font size and type need to be identical with previous headers

The primary data analysis methods that will apply in the study will be descriptive statistics and inferential statistics techniques. These approaches will help in analyzing the quantitative data of the research. Here, the study will analyze collected data using mean, mode, standard deviation, et cetera. 

On the other hand, narrative and content analysis techniques will be essential in analyzing the study’s qualitative data. The approaches will examine participants’ attitudes, perceptions, and reactions using their answers to survey and interview questions. The approach will examine all the respondents’ answers, including how they support or disapprove of the study hypotheses.

V. Discussion a bit more details are needed here in the last portion–remember that this is the final opportunity to make a “pitch” to your funder and reader about why the proposed study is a worthwhile endeavor to pursue.

The primary limitation of the study may include the lack of reliable participants. The participants may be unwilling to provide honest information while handling interview and survey questions. This is because different barriers or socio-cultural and personal issues might affect participants-researchers’ rapports. 

The significant implication of the study includes providing information about the effects of funding on the quality and equality of education in public schools. In addition, the study will help stakeholders in education to establish how reinvesting funding will enhance education equality in low-income district schools. As a rest, this will allow low-income students to access quality education to improve their future and resolve poverty issues affecting their backgrounds. Works Cited and Ethics Consent Form need edits. With some survey questions, it seems as though it is possible to provide more than one response but no instructions are given to this effect in the question wording.