There is an enormous disparity between public schools in America. While some schools receive new equipment, knowledgeable teachers, and frequent facility maintenance, others struggle to fund projects and lack the resources to hire qualified employees.
On March 21, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the inequality in funding between two school systems in San Antonio did not violate the Constitution. Members of a low-income district were concerned that the state was disproportionately funding higher-income school districts and claimed that the inequality was unconstitutional as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment and deprived students of a fundamental right to education. However, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that it was too difficult to discern a clear class of people being discriminated against, and further, that they weren’t necessarily being deprived of a right, asserting that education was not a fundamental right enumerated by the Constitution.
After the Court’s ruling, most school funding claims fell through and the school system continued to uphold an income inequity that remains to this day. Public schools are largely funded by property taxes, which vary depending on the general income of the surrounding residents. In addition, school districts face their own version of gerrymandering where district lines often form around small groups of affluent, white students within a larger, poorer area. According to the Education Trust’s “Funding Gaps 2018,” “school districts serving the largest populations of Black, Latino, or American Indian students receive roughly $1,800, or 13 percent, less per student in state and local funding than those serving the fewest students of color…For a school district with 5,000 students, a gap of $1,800 per student means a shortage of $9 million per year.”
The lack of funding not only prevents low-income schools from funding projects and purchasing equipment but also reduces teachers’ salaries, further encouraging a negative cycle within the school system. Essentially, teachers would rather be paid more so they migrate to more well-funded districts, leaving low-income districts with both a lack of funding and a lack of qualified staff. For example, according to EdSource, “In Oakland Unified schools with the highest income children, 67% of educators are credentialed to teach the classes they are teaching, while 49% of teachers are qualified in schools with the most low-income students. Schools with the most low-income students also have double the number of intern teachers (4.4%) than schools with fewer low-income children (2%).” Luckily, California has been making progress toward decreasing the qualification gap within school districts.
Some defenders of the current public school funding system argue that spending more money doesn’t equate to higher-performance students. However, the data simply proves otherwise. According to Northwestern University economist Kirabo Jackson’s research, “When school spending rose a total of 10 percent across all 12 years of public school, graduation rates increased 7 percent. Students exposed to this spending increase had 7 percent higher wages as adults and a 3 percentage-point lower risk of adult poverty.” The current public school funding systemically discriminates against low-income, predominantly non-white communities, and prevents them from receiving the same resources as affluent public schools. While the Supreme Court’s decision holds fast to the constitutionality of the system, it is important to note research has shown that spending more on schools brings returns on investment, and provides opportunities for children to rise beyond their means.