Brown V. Board: Discussion Of Equality In Education

Education

Brown v. Board set the foundation for the discussion of equality in education in the United States in the 1950s. Brown v. Board essentially ended de jure segregation in public educational institutions, but made no contributions to the end of de facto segregation still found today in public schools all over the country. It can be implied that the underlying values in Brown v. Board weren’t solely desegregation in education, but equality in education, equality in educational opportunities, and equality in funding, so that all people, regardless of socio-economic status, can receive a sufficient education. We struggle with equality in education in racial context because of the relationship between wealth and race, de facto segregation,

This could be a result of many factors. First, the economic context in which the education system lies, where public schools are funded through property taxes and state grants. Second, is the favorability of districts in which vote for a congressman in higher frequency. In other words, politicians tend to support adhere to the opinions of their constituents who vote for them in higher frequency. Therefore, a district that votes for a specific congressman frequently could gain benefits and increased funding because of the congressman’s need to please their constituents for re-election (Ansolabehere,). Third, is the system in which schools are funded. Many states have “flat” or “regressive” funding systems where some states provide a “flat” system in which they fail to increase funding to address needs in poverty stricken districts or where states like Pennsylvania provide less funding to school districts with high concentrations of poor students. (Baker) Public education expenditures in poor school districts tend to focus on core instruction rather than other areas, so many of these schools tend to differ needed school renovation, construction, and equipment (Parrish). Redefining education as a fundamental right would provide that all states and local governments create fair funding systems that provide higher amounts of funding to high poverty school

Rodriquez case. Plaintiffs argued that the San Antonio school district raised “dramatically less per student than the nearby wealthy district” and students were left with “inadequate and unqualified teachers” (Bollinger). The Supreme Court judges supported the the state of Texas and its education financing system; rejecting the notion that the discrepancies found in the funding of the school district violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court stated that education was not a fundamental right and were concerned with a slippery slope that could result from the assertion of other fundamental rights like the right to retain possession of one’s home. They were also concerned with the values of federalism that could “abrogate systems of public financing public education presently in existence in every state” (San Antonio). This case set up the precedent that education is not a fundamental right, so I can’t help but think that those with underlying concerns in the majority decision were unreceptive to potential solutions. Striking down funding systems like those in the San Antonio District could be shot down on adequacy grounds, supplying at minimum an adequate education and not an absolute equal education, which creates no slippery slope. Although, education and its managing are a power reserved to states in the constitution it would not harm the