When I was reviewing the Supreme court cases for last week’s test, I came across the San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez case, in which Rodriguez(on behalf of the poorer districts) argued that poorer areas with minority groups were getting disproportionate funding for education because wealthier areas relied on property taxes for additional money (
Source 1). The Supreme court ruled that this action by the wealthier areas was constitutional because education is not a specified right in the Constitution and there was no systematic discrimination against the schools in the poorer areas that was “so irrational as to be invidiously discriminatory.” But, this got me wondering what California’s policy for school funding is like, especially since our school is located in a wealthy area. I found that California schools used to follow a similar system to the one in the San Antonio ISD v Rodriguez case until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 1971 – claiming the system created “gross inequities in funding per student” – and ordered equalization of school funding (
Source 2). Now, schools receive funding proportional to the number of students that attend, with the idea that this will ensure a greater equality in education and resources. However, individuals can donate money to schools of their choosing to fund certain activities – the limits to what can be funded varying based on district. The idea behind this policy is that all schools will receive an equal baseline fund for educating students – therefore making the education relatively equal despite wealth disparities – and people will also be free to contribute to their community’s education. However, the ability for individuals to contribute additional funds to specific schools seems like it would create a disadvantage for those in less wealthy areas. Since parents in wealthier areas have more opportunities and means with which to fund their schools, this would give them disproportionate educational facilities or activities. Yet, one could also argue that people should have the freedom to spend their wealth on things that they care about – like their child’s education – so why would parents who happen to have more money be restricted from contributing to schools. Do you think that the system for funding education should change? Is there a way to change school funding such that the system both prevents educational disparities and allows people the freedom to fund their child’s education?
Here are some additional sources for people who want to look more into the issue:
https://ed100.org/lessons/prop13
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/spending/T065-C013-S002-should-donations-to-public-schools-be-limited.html
https://laefonline.net/District/1116-Untitled.html
Very Interesting Article. It seems that even if certain policies are enacted to try and make educational discrimination diminish, wealthier areas still stand to benefit more. It seems that this indiscriminate payment is similar to gerrymandering in many ways.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post, as I found the topic very interesting. I believe that giving schools the option to choose between property tax funding (like LAHS) and baseline government funding is a fair option. The current system is relatively good at addressing the free-rider problem: a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods, or services of a communal nature do not pay for them.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-rider_problem
I found your post really interesting, and found it interesting that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the wealthier districts. I feel like this is just another example of the wealthier and the upper class getting more advantages and more resources, and the U.S supporting them. Education may not be in the Constitution, but there are also rights that citizens should get that may not be specifically listed. This keeps school districts and communities unequal, and gives school districts a legal basis to do so.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this blog post. I can't believe that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the wealthier districts. This really shows how money is power in America. Unfortunately, our district is a representation of that. We are lucky to live in an area with astronomical property taxes that give us such a better education than areas with less money. I think that education is a right, and it shouldn't matter how rich you are to determine what quality of education you get. Equality is written in the constitution, and education can be implied under that.
ReplyDelete