Toward Equality in Education

By Emily Huang / Winter 2021

Before I applied to college, I did a lot of preparation during high school. I even attended an SAT prep course to prepare myself before taking the SATs. I wanted to increase my chances of getting a higher score and getting into a higher-ranking university. At those SAT prep classes, the students came from all different types of high schools, public or charter. Everyone had very different high school experiences even though our high schools were not even that far apart in terms of distance. One of my classmate’s high schools had sports such as water polo, archery, and even golf. I was quite surprised to hear that because our high school did not even have these facilities to support these sports. That was when I realized that even though we all went to public high schools, our experiences were so different. I was even kind of jealous to hear that because I always wanted to learn archery. I thought it was kind of unfair too. At that time, I just blamed it on my high school. I just thought the faculty at my high school didn’t want to introduce that many sports to us to choose from. I also blamed the city for being too poor to give more funding to our high school. However, as I look at this issue of disparity in public education deeper, I realized my perception was wrong. The faculty or city was not the one to blame for. It is the wealth inequality in America to blame for. This wealth gap in America indirectly led to an inequitable distribution of educational resources in schools, and it affects the community after. It is an alarming systemic problem that requires examination at the local, state, and federal levels.

The education system in America is not equally distributed among different regions. Public schools in wealthier cities get better funding compared to public schools in poorer cities. Funding for public schools is dependent on federal, state, and local funding. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 58% of the funding comes from the state and 22% comes from local property taxes. Other local funding makes up 10% and 1% is based on the state lottery. Another 9% comes from federal funding (Murphy 2018.) So, state funding makes up a huge percentage. Because wealthier cities such as Beverly Hills have better housing, homeowners pay higher property taxes. Those property taxes then benefit the public schools in that city. Therefore, students in poor cities such as Fresno are more likely to lack funding and resources. They may have less experienced teachers, poorer buildings and facilities, or less rigorous classes. The technology used may also not be up to par compared to other high schools. This can severely impact the learning experience of a student. This distribution of funding is very unfair because it can indirectly affect the success of a student learning or applying for college. Students in a better-funded school may have a higher graduation rate and a higher chance of attending college. The environment is so important for a student to succeed.

It is no wonder that some students have a better chance of succeeding in school. They have tons of quality resources waiting for them. This causes a stigma that students that go to a lower-ranking college or university as being less successful or intelligent. However, that is not always the case. The students that went to a lower-ranking college may not have had so many resources or help in their high school compared to a student with so many resources in hand in high school. So, sometimes, a student struggling in school has to be traced back to the structure of the US educational system. It is not because they are less “intelligent” than other students. It means that not every student in the US has an equal chance to succeed. There is a disparity in opportunities, which contradicts one of the ideals of the American Dream.

Because of this unfairness, there have been multiple lawsuits regarding unequal school funding across the nation. The first lawsuit was the 1971 Serrano v. The Priest Supreme Court Case declared the use of local property tax as funding unconstitutional because it discriminates against low-income students. It violated the equal protection clause under the 14th Amendment. Even though this case received a lot of attention, this court case was not the last one to bring up this disturbing problem. Up to today, this has still been an issue without a good enough solution being brought up. There needs to be action taken by the federal level to revise the policies once for all.

Moreover, when you break down the data based on race, school districts with greater amounts of minorities also receive less funding. School districts with a huge majority of African Americans, Native Americans, or Latinos receive $1800 less than school districts that are not filled with minorities or predominantly white school districts (School, 2020)This is an example indicating the perceived “equal public education” that is divided by color lines in America. Wealth inequality once again reappears in the issue of racial discrimination in unequal public education. Students of color receive less funding. We will examine the historical and racial aspects of the US education system next.

Back in the 1800-1900s, the US education system was segregated into black and white schools because the country was divided by color lines. Segregation at the time was legal. African Americans could not attend White schools and vice versa. This was very unfair because the Blacks did not have so many good resources or facilities compared to the whites, leading to fewer opportunities. Therefore, a black attorney named Thurgood Marshall decided to challenge this segregation law that was made legal by the 1896 Plessy v Ferguson case. Marshall believed that decision violated the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, “granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including formerly enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws”” (History 2021.) The Segregation laws or Jim Crow laws did not guarantee citizens equal protection of the law. This Amendment only protected the Whites and not the Blacks. This Amendment neglected the rights Blacks should have had that were promised by the First Amendment. He argued that “this Court should make it clear that that is not what our Constitution stands for” (NCC, 2020.) Marshall is basically trying to point out how the segregation law violated the Constitution and it does not align with the goals of the Founding Fathers. Through endless efforts, Thurgood and his NAACP lawyers overturned legalized segregation in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. It overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that legalized segregation, calling it separate, but equal. Even though this court case seemed to be a significant step toward equity in public education, the education system today contradicts that belief. Public schools are still divided by the color line because of unequal funding. According to a report by EdBuild, non-white school districts receive about $23 billion less school funding compared to white schools (Keierleber, 2019.)That is a very huge unequal gap, and it is quite hard to believe. Even though the government increases funding each year for public schools, it does not increase enough to make up for the lack of funding for nonwhite schools. Students in those nonwhite schools continue to be disadvantaged, and it can be shown in their graduation rates, test scores, and higher wages in the future.

This point becomes clear when we turn to the following research study by the Learning Policy Institute. They found a direct relationship between the amount of school funding and student achievement by examining four case studies. All case studies suggest that more funding spent on educational resources can lead to higher test scores, increased graduation rates, decreased dropout rates, and sometimes even higher wages as adults (Barnum, 2019.) This evidence suggests how important funding is because it can impact a student’s success in life, college, or their career. Without high test scores, it makes a student less competitive in college admissions. Lower graduation rates mean that more students would either have to graduate without a high school diploma or they would have to attend community college after.

That cycle of being disadvantaged in public schools can also affect the community too. In particular, poor neighborhoods. When a school district continually receives fewer funding dollars, it becomes hard for the city or region to become in better conditions. Neighborhood poverty would continue because students from those school districts are less likely to succeed. It links to the possibility that they are less likely to find a decent or high-paying job. Without a decent-paying job, the people in that neighborhood fail to climb out of poverty. This cycle of concentrated poverty will repeat itself again until the government takes action. This cycle also inevitably contributes to the poverty lines that are getting higher each in America. The gap between the rich and the poor would only continue growing at a faster rate. Next, we will examine the challenges preventing equal public education in America.

There are many obstacles preventing us from solving “unequal” education over the last two decades. Even though there were many court cases and policy revisions, there was never a good solution to put this issue to rest. Some obstacles include a lack of funding and counselors and the problematic existence of the school-to-prison pipeline. I will further explain some solutions to these obstacles below.

There are few solutions I want to propose that may minimize and solve education inequality. The first one is solving the lack of funding in school districts. One solution I propose to solve this problem is to not use property tax as the basis of school district funding. 22% of school funding comes from local property taxes. Using this method, low-income students would not be marginalized. As Karen Naraski says “Every child deserves a quality education that does not depend on their ZIP code.” I totally agree with Naraski’s statement. A quality education should not be determined based on their geographical location. That is just unbelievably unfair. The government can completely eradicate that policy. By eradicating, I mean all local property taxes should be added up in the nation. Then, they should be divided equally to each school district equally based on the student population. I will also introduce an alternate solution for this problem below.

Another solution might be using the tax money of wealthy people or businesses for poor neighborhoods or schools. According to PolitiFact, wealthy people make up the top 1% of the nation, owning more wealth than the 90% combined below them in the social hierarchy (Warren, 2019.) That is just unbelievable, and yet the wealth inequality between the rich and poor continues to grow every day. So, the public burden should be directed to them instead. You might think, why would they give up their own money for the public? However, those businesses or corporations depend on us. Corporations need to demonstrate social responsibility by reinvesting back into our society. Without the public consuming their products or services, they would have gone bankrupt long ago. They need to give back to society to continue gaining support from the public to consume their goods.

To solve the lack of counselors, the government should also invest in money hiring more counselors or educational specialists to support low-income schools. Counselors are an important resource to students in terms of social and academic support. Compared to teachers, counselors may be also more well equipped in helping students that want to go to college after graduation.

Counselors are an important aspect of an enriching educational experience. According to a study by The Education Trust, there is a lack of school counselors in low-income and students with color school districts. There are “...38 states are shortchanging either their students of color, students from low-income families, or both.” There is not an equal proportion of counselors for students. That is very unfair because students from those districts need more counselors than other students. This represents an unequal access to resources in public education. When I was a high school student, I relied a lot on my school counselor. She made my college application process a lot smoother as a first-generation student. She set me up for success by being the person that guides me on how to prepare for college and even introduces different summer programs for me to join. If my high school did not have enough counselors, I might not have been where I am today at UCSD. So, the government should really invest more money to hire more counselors to serve these underfunded school districts.

Last but not least, the government should also eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline (SPP) to end policing over minority students or students with disabilities. Expectably, this pipeline impacts students of color or people with disabilities the most which are the most vulnerable groups of the nation. For example, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU,) black students are three times more likely to be expelled or criminalized than their White peers. The school-to-prison pipeline criminalizes students who break the rules with zero tolerance by sending them directly to juvenile prisons. This system is very harsh, without any leniency. This pipeline has been met with much criticism, and people want to eliminate it. I will tell you why I also believe it should be eliminated.

This system should be eliminated to decrease the chance of a youth coming into contact with the incarceration system at a young age. Once they get in contact with the incarceration system, it is hard for them to let go of that negative stigma surrounding them. People might look down on them and they will slowly lose their confidence. That can negatively affect their mental health, and it makes it hard for them to stand back up. Therefore, the government should get rid of this system because there are benefits of eliminating this system. If the pipeline is eliminated, the funding for policies in those schools can be used somewhere else. For example, that funding can be used to hire more teachers, counselors, or invest in better quality materials to help these disadvantaged students succeed. This pipeline should be eliminated as soon as possible to stop putting disadvantaged students in the margins.

We should all be critical on this issue of wealth inequality that is demonstrated in public education and be an advocate. We need to come together to create change so the government would hear us. The greater the number of people coming together, the greater chance we can combat education inequality. Unity is power. We can come together and create hope for the future. If you think about the future generation that may be your kids that are attending schools in the future, you would want them to have all the resources to succeed and not struggle as much as us. You want them to have an amazing school experience. School is not supposed to be a place where students struggle, but a place to help them succeed with all the resources available to them. Even though it will take some time for everyone to have an “equal” education, I believe consistent efforts would make it possible for future generations.

Works Cited

“Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Making Segregation Illegal.” Dummies.

Cratty, Dorothjean. School Counselors Matter. The Education Trust.

History.com Editors. “14th Amendment.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009.

“Inequality in Public School Funding: Key Issues & Solutions for Closing the Gap.” Inequality in Public School Funding | American University, soeonline.american.edu/blog/inequality-in-public-school-funding

Jermeelah, Martin. “Solutions for Education Inequality.” United for a Fair Economy.

“Landmark US Cases Related to Equality of Opportunity in K-12 Education.” Landmark US Cases Related to Equality of Opportunity in K-12 Education | Equality of Opportunity and Education.

“LA School Report.” School Districts Serving Mostly Nonwhite Students Get $23 Billion Less Each Year than Those Serving Predominantly White Populations - California Is among Most Inequitable.

Murphy, Patrick, and Jennifer Paluch. Financing California's School. Nov. 2018.

PolitiFact, and Elizabeth Warren Democratic Senator from Massachusetts twitter.com/ewarren/status/1090252713156403200. “PolitiFact - Warren: Top 0.1% Own about as Much as the Bottom 90%.” @Politifact, 31 Jan. 2019.

“Research Shows That When It Comes to Student Achievement, Money Matters.” Learning Policy Institute, learningpolicyinstitute.org/press-release/research-shows-student-achievement-money-matters.

“Thurgood Marshall's Unique Supreme Court Legacy.” The National Constitution Center.

“White Students Get More K-12 Funding Than Students of Color: Report.” U.S. News & World Report, U.S. News & World Report.