There are plenty of quotes from the Founding Fathers or classical philosophers one could use to start off an article about the importance of education, but let’s just assume that everyone understands this.

Still, it seems to be a concept that needs to be explained to lawmakers, as education budgets fall at a slope steep enough to ski down. Since 2008, the amount spent per student has dropped in 32 states. But the interesting figures lie in states whose budgets have increased over the past 8 years.

Connecticut’s education budget has risen 17% since 2008, but some towns have seen their budgets drop. Towns like Mansfield saw their public school budget slip from nearly $21,000 in 2008 to under $19,000 in 2010.

Larger cities like Hartford, however, have seen a rise in public spending on schools from $390,000 in 2010 to just over $400,000 in 2012.

These trends illustrate hidden problems not seen in raw numbers. Yes, Connecticut’s education budget has risen since 2008, but it has not been portioned out around the entire state. Instead, the state government has focused on high population, low performing areas.

While the mention of Connecticut might muster up images of pastel-clad families sprawled out on wicker furniture, the state is actually home to two of the lowest income cities in the nation: Hartford and Bridgeport. Since the turn of the century, social scientists have drawn connecting lines between socio-economic status and accessibility to and quality of education. With Hartford having a high school dropout rate of 71.2%, it seems these lines are still bold.

So it seems that redirecting public funds to inner-city schools was done with noble intentions, but it’s not as rousing as it might at first seem. The dropout rate has remained the same since the spending increase. Even if the schools are improving, few students stay through to reap the benefits of them.

The entire country sees this trend. The states can throw as much money at under-performing schools as they want, but their dropout rates rarely change for the better. Some have taken this as reason to cut funding to low-income area schools with a “lost cause” attitude.

Clearly, this too would have serious consequences: essentially sentencing children in those areas to a sub par education for life.

Before a solution can be posed, one must explore the roots of the dropout problem. Ultimately, it is a mixture of money and mindset. Even if a student in a low-income area were to complete their four years of high school, few in those circumstances could afford to attend college afterwards. This fosters an environment where formal education seems pointless. It doesn’t seem like this cynical attitude will be easy to curb, despite the plethora of Lifetime movies depicting a curmudgeon of a teacher inspiring their students in the inner city to embrace a love of learning,

Well, put yourself in the shoes of a low-income area student. They most likely have blue collar parents who are always concerned with money. To them, education ought to be about money, more specifically getting a job. And while in mindset, their teacher hands them a torn copy of Catcher in the Rye and orders them to read it by Monday. And the question of how this book about a moping rich kid will help them hold down a job someday enters their mind. And simply: it probably won’t.

See, the traditional education system is noble in design but has unrealistic expectations of students and the world. The standard K-12 system is not designed to teach students grounded, pragmatic skills, but instead teaches them how to learn. This sounds odd, but it makes sense when you reflect on your time on high school. You might not remember a single date or battle name from your Modern European History class, but that class taught you how to take effective notes on a text and do research. And those skills have stayed with you.

Those skills, however, don’t have any real use in a blue collar job. They only help students who pursue higher education which focuses those learning skills into a specific course of study. But, as aforementioned, higher education is not an option for many students in low-income areas.

A shift in focus is needed. Certainly, the traditional option should be open to students with a wide-mind edger to absorb English, History, and Philosophy. But more trade-oriented programs are needed for these low-income areas. Trade schools are an excellent alternative to traditional high schools as they don’t require higher education and they often have programs to set students up with jobs after graduation.

As of now, city and state governments have been trying to inflate a ripped balloon. If they in fact changed their focus to reforming an outdated system, they could see a shrinking dropout rate as students recognize the benefits of staying with trade-oriented schools. The longer lawmakers withhold trade schools as a public option from students, the further they will see them sink into the rabbit hole.