Both the federal and local levels have sought to reduce the achievement gaps that dominate the U.S. education system through various reforms. Achievement gaps, formed by segregation of public accommodations due to federal and state government policies, are widening socially and economically decade after decade causing socioeconomic segregation of schools (Rothstein, 6). Children raised in low-income, racially isolated neighborhoods come from disadvantaged learning environments that negatively impact their learning. The local approach to reducing achievement gaps focuses on improving the student learning environment through local funding and curriculum. The centralized approach aims to correct financial inequality and lack of uniformity that local reforms cannot account for. Centralization, through inequality reforms and financial uniformity, will more efficiently narrow the socioeconomic achievement gap and correct the pervasive divisions that the U.S. education system enables today. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Local-level reforms 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 with severe economic depravity and racial isolation, typical of urban areas, are failing local school students because they cannot provide a quality education with school funding problems. “Poverty and race can hinder academic opportunities in myriad ways. And the cognitive, emotional, and nutritional disadvantages of growing up poor – 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 little funding consolidated primarily through property taxes, children in disadvantaged areas have an unstable foundation that is crucial to their academic achievement. Even if money raised from property taxes were redistributed more heavily into areas more critical to student success, that still wouldn't bring students in poor schools up to the level of those in rich schools—the money raised is already so limited. So localism tries to close the achievement gap through local financing of property taxes, but fails. Localism also attempts to narrow the achievement gap through 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 academic pursuits. However, even with a curriculum taught by teachers who meet the needs of students and push them towards a higher standard of learning, “disadvantages accumulate, children from lower social classes inevitably have lower average results than children from the middle class, even with the highest quality of education. ”, (Rothstein, 2)”. Localism cannot close the achievement gap through local curricula and standard reforms because it cannot yet solve the problems that hinder student learning in the first place. Higher standards and improved curriculum cannot reduce the achievement gap if they do not come,.