The federal and local levels have attempted to reduce the achievement gaps that dominate the American education system through various reforms. Achievement gaps, formed by segregation in public housing due to federal and state government policies, widen socially and economically decade after decade, causing socioeconomic segregation in schools (Rothstein, 6). Children raised in low-income, racially isolated neighborhoods come from disadvantaged learning environments that negatively affect their learning. The local approach to closing achievement gaps focuses on improving the learning environment for students through local funding and curriculum. The centralized approach aims to correct financial inequalities and lack of uniformity that local reforms cannot address. Centralization, through reforms to financial inequity and uniformity, will more effectively close socioeconomic achievement gaps and correct the pervasive divisions that the American education system allows for today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay Reforms at the local level base their goals on the fact that external factors do not determine a student's success and can be overcome through quality education. However, neighborhoods characterized by severe economic depravation and racial isolation, typically found in urban areas, fail to accommodate students from these local schools because a quality education cannot be provided due to school funding problems. “Poverty and race can hinder academic opportunities in multiple ways. And the cognitive, emotional, and nutritional disadvantages of growing up in poverty – realities that can significantly reduce a child's chances of success later in life – are often exacerbated by inequalities in school funding” (Wong, 6 ). With insufficient funding, primarily funded by property taxes, children in disadvantaged areas have an unstable foundation that is crucial to their educational success. Even if the money collected through property taxes were redistributed more heavily to areas more critical to student success, it still would not allow students in poor schools to reach the level of those in rich schools - the money collected is already so limited. . Thus, localism attempts to close the achievement gap by funding property taxes locally, but fails. Localism also attempts to narrow the achievement gap by varying standards and curricula set by states, cities, and districts. Localism argues that they can better serve the students who attend that school because they are more aware of what students need to help them succeed in their studies. However, even with a curriculum taught by teachers who meet students' needs and push them towards a higher level of learning, "disadvantages accumulate, with children from lower social classes inevitably having lower average achievement than those from middle-class children, even with the highest quality of teaching. ", (Rothstein, 2)". Localism cannot close achievement gaps through reforms to local curricula and standards because it still cannot address the problems that hinder student learning in the first place. Higher standards,.