By Melanie Baltazar
@redlineproject
AI disclosure: Notebook LM was used to generate the podcast and FAQ in this article.
I have lived my whole life in Chicago–my childhood was spent mainly in Back of the Yards– although my family constantly moved from one South Side neighborhood to another. I attended the neighborhood elementary school, Seward Academy, where 86.1% of the students come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
The school battled with limited resources. Classrooms were filled with outdated textbooks and old computers, and there was a lack of extracurricular activities. Our sports programs were minimal, with limited equipment and no full-time coaches.
When the time came to apply to high schools, I knew that whatever choice I made would shape not only my education but also my future. My final choice was between my neighborhood high school, just blocks away, Back of The Yards College Prep, or Lane Tech, a high school an hour away on the North Side.
Ultimately, I chose Lane Tech. I saw it as my chance for success. I knew the school was well-funded and had better academic outcomes than Back of the Yards did. I was immediately struck by the differences between the two schools. As I reflect on my experiences as a high school student, I begin to wonder: to what extent does school funding actually shape students’ experiences and opportunities? More specifically, how does it impact the lives of student-athletes? I argue that funding inequality between high schools creates major disparities in student-athlete experiences and impacts access to programs, participation, and long-term success.
Public school funding in Chicago comes from state, local and federal funding. The distribution of these funds is far from equal. Despite efforts from the state in 2017 to distribute resources more effectively based on district needs by adopting the Evidence-Based Funding formula, there is still a significant gap between available funding and the funding that is needed. According to a report from The Chicago Public Education Fund’s formula revealed that CPS lacks 34% of the funding it needs. This means that schools in lower-income neighborhoods, like those on Chicago’s South Side, continue to struggle with outdated facilities and limited extracurricular activities.
In combination with state, local and federal funding, some schools in Chicago heavily rely on external fundraising efforts to support programs, such as sports, that the school does not have existing funding to cover. However, this often only significantly benefits schools in affluent neighborhoods, according to a paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. Schools in low-income areas have less benefit from external fundraising. This results in a discrepancy in funding between schools in the same district, which widens the gap in extracurricular activities.
While this issue isn’t unique to Chicago, the city’s history with segregation left an everlasting racial and economic divide between the North and South Sides. Chicago’s history with redlining in the 1930s has resulted in notable differences in school quality between Chicago’s North and South Sides. As a result, the discrepancies in Chicago are even more visible.
Lane Tech Athletic Director Brent Bradish said via email how Lane Tech, a school with one of the city’s most competitive sports programs, manages to fund it. He said that while CPS does provide some support for coaches, officials for conference matches, access to stadiums and athletic trainers, Lane Tech has to cover additional expenses on its own. This includes fees for non-conferences officials, uniforms, extra equipment, extra practice space, and most notably the cost of transportation. Bradish noted that the largest percent of the sports budget, a whopping 60%, is spent on transportation for the student-athletes and coaches.
To fund this, Lane Tech charges student-athletes a fee of $125 per season for each sport that the student plays. The school also collects revenue from ticket sales to Friday night football games and money from booster clubs.
These sources of revenue help to cover the cost of extra coaches. Bradish emphasized that because of the extra funding Lane Tech has generated, the school can provide extra teams, which allows more students to participate. The extra tournaments Lane can participate in, along with the extra coaches directly supports student-athlete success and maximizes their opportunities.
Bradish makes it clear that the success of Lane Tech’s athletics program is not only the result of talented students and good coaching–it is the result of the school’s ability to successfully fund programs and provide more opportunities to students.
Bradish said, “Do I feel that these expenses positively impact athletics? Absolutely,” referring to the expenses for extra coaches and tournaments. This is a privilege that many underfunded schools can not afford, resulting in a gap between the underfunded and affluent high schools.
Listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion about this article:
Many high schools in Chicago lack the funding that Lane Tech generates for its sports programs.
Back of the Yards College Prep Athletic Director Ryan Blumberg’s perspective is a stark contrast to Bradish’s. Blumberg said by email that the differences between schools in parts of the city is clear. Limited financial resources has forced Back of the Yards to be creative and focus on garnering passion, community, and access. He said that Back of the Yards coaches often have to manage multiple roles, equipment is reused from year to year, and teams are forced to share limited practice spaces.
Blumberg emphasized that despite the challenges, the student-athletes at Back of the Yards College Prep are incredibly resilient and take pride in their teams. However, he acknowledged that without consistent funding, it is difficult for the school to expand participation in sports and offer more opportunities to its student-athletes. Along with improving athletic performance, consistent funding for a school like Back of the Yards College Prep means more student-athletes gain access to college-level opportunities.
It is clear that schools like Back of the Yards College Prep, those that are underfunded, are not lacking talented or hardworking students. They are lacking resources. The absence of stable and equal funding makes the playing field for high schools uneven. Beyond the differences in facilities and coaching, inequality in school funding affects students’ education, health, and life opportunities.
Research shows that participation in sports has been linked to academic achievement and improved mental health. A 2024 study published by Cornell University found that teenagers who participated in sports at school had statistically better self-rated mental health outcomes in adulthood with fewer depression symptoms, even after accounting for socioeconomic differences.
Along with other studies, these findings suggest that participation in sports during high school can promote success and well-being, but this is only possible if the quality of athletic experiences is equitable.
The findings of studies such as the one published by Cornell reveal the broader impact of funding inequalities. At affluent high schools such as Lane Tech, a higher percentage of students reap the benefits of participating in sports. Conversely, at underfunded schools like Back of the Yards, students don’t only miss out on sports, they miss out on the positive life outcomes, whether social, mental, or academic. Not only do schools with more funding win more tournaments, they also reap the full benefits of athletics.
It is crucial to recognize how funding inequalities for high schools impacts not only the sports programs and the participation they garner, but the long-term student outcomes. If unequal access to sports extracurriculars limits success and well-being for students, finding solutions for this problem then becomes not just an academic issue but a social issue.
There have been efforts at both the national and local level to try to reduce the inequality in funding and level the playing field. At the federal level, Title IX, although mainly focused on gender inequity rather than economic, supports equity in athletics. It can be used as a baseline for how federal policy has the power to enforce fairness in how funding and resources for schools are distributed.
The Evidence-Based Funding for Student Success Act was an attempt by Illinois to more equitably distribute funding between school districts. Community partnerships — through businesses, or local sports organizations — could help supplement funding that schools can’t provide. However, this solution would most likely fail for the same reason that external fundraising efforts fail in low-income areas.
The disparities in high school athletic funding is not isolated. It is tied to the broader issue of inequality in the quality of education. Financial resources shape every aspect of athletics, as shown through the comparisons of Lane Tech and Back of the Yards College Prep. Funding controls how many sports teams can be offered by a school, the quality of coaching and facilities, access to transportation, even how likely students are to be recruited. In a city as economically segregated as Chicago, students’ opportunities are being determined by where they live.
The effects of this issue go beyond sports. Participation in sports programs has been tied to better well-being and educational outcomes. While some schools can afford to invest and expand sports programs, others can barely support the basic programs. For students at underfunded schools, this limits what they can pursue and achieve.
Blumberg said that the success of his students “often comes from grit and commitment rather than material advantages.”
Although the grit is something to be admired, these students should not be forced to develop it because of the lack of adequate funding. Closing the funding gap in high schools would mean closing the opportunity gap, not just for athletes but for all students. Students should have the chance to grow and succeed regardless of their ZIP code.
1. How significant is the funding gap in public schools, even after reform efforts?
The distribution of public school funds (state, local, and federal) is far from equal. Despite Illinois adopting the Evidence-Based Funding (EBF) formula in 2017 to distribute resources more effectively based on district needs, a significant gap remains. According to a report from The Chicago Public Education Fund, the EBF formula revealed that Chicago Public Schools (CPS) lacks 34% of the funding it needs.
2. Why do external fundraising efforts fail to equalize athletic opportunities?
While some schools heavily rely on external fundraising (including booster clubs, student fees, and ticket sales) to support programs like sports, this generally only significantly benefits schools in affluent neighborhoods. Schools in low-income areas have less ability to benefit from external fundraising. This dependency on external revenue results in a discrepancy that widens the gap in extracurricular activities.
3. What operational costs are most impacted by unequal funding in sports programs?
Financial resources shape every aspect of athletics. One of the most significant operational expenses is the cost of transportation for student-athletes. At a well-funded school like Lane Tech, the largest percentage of money spent on sports — a whopping 60% — goes toward transportation. Schools also need funding to cover fees for non-conference officials, uniforms, extra equipment, and extra practice space.
4. How do disparities affect the scope and opportunities offered by athletic programs?
Funding determines how many sports teams can be offered by a school.
- Expanded Opportunities: Affluent schools that generate extra funding are able to provide extra teams, which allows a higher percentage of students to participate. Extra funding also allows these schools to participate in extra tournaments, which maximizes student-athlete opportunities and supports their success.
- Limited Opportunities: For underfunded schools, limited financial resources make it difficult for the school to expand participation in sports and offer more opportunities to its student-athletes.
5. What is the difference in resources and facilities between well-funded and underfunded schools?
The differences in resources are stark, especially in economically segregated areas:
- Well-Funded Schools (e.g., Lane Tech): They can use extra funding to cover the cost of extra coaches. The athletic director noted that these expenses “positively impact athletics”.
- Underfunded Schools (e.g., Back of the Yards College Prep): These schools often struggle with outdated facilities. Coaches frequently have to manage multiple roles, teams are forced to share limited practice spaces, and equipment is reused from year-to-year.
6. Beyond the playing field, how does unequal funding affect long-term student success?
The effects of unequal funding go beyond sports, impacting education, health, and life opportunities:
- Life Outcomes: Research suggests that participation in sports has been linked to academic achievement and improved mental health. At affluent schools, a higher percentage of students are able to reap the full benefits of participating in sports. Conversely, at underfunded schools, students not only miss out on sports but also potentially miss out on the positive life outcomes, whether social, mental, or academic.
- College Access: Consistent funding for schools like Back of the Yards College Prep is vital because it means more student-athletes gain access to college-level opportunities. Funding also controls how likely students are to be recruited.
7. How do student-athletes at underfunded schools achieve success despite resource limitations?
The success of students at underfunded schools often comes from “grit and commitment rather than material advantages”. However, the source argues that these students should not be forced to develop grit because of the lack of adequate funding.
8. What is the ultimate goal of closing the funding gap in high schools?
Closing the funding gap in high schools is seen as a way to close the opportunity gap, not just for athletes but for all students. This ensures every student has the chance to grow and succeed regardless of their ZIP code.