Taking You to School: A System of Unequal Opportunity
In the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, a unanimous Supreme Court wrote: “In the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” After the monumental decision, schools slowly, and often with a firm push, began to integrate. But while Brown was an incredible victory during the Civil Rights era, it provided no guidance to schools as to how to remedy the issues of segregation.
The following year, in a case commonly called Brown II, the Court instructed schools to begin desegregation efforts with “all deliberate speed.” While desegregation efforts needed to be rushed because many school systems were resistant, the rush caused many schools to lose focus on equality. To abide by the Court’s order, schools were able to operate under the guise of giving students an equal opportunity by integrating, without ensuring students were treated equally. Integration was the most clear way to address the Court’s concerns about being separate, but with no goals in mind, how does one know if schools are equal? Has the American school system ever reached equality? The short answer is no.
When walking into schools in lower socioeconomic areas one will often be met with metal detectors, uniformed police officers, and even sometimes bars on doors. Students spend all day in something that looks more like a prison than it does a school building. We are placing children in an unwelcoming environment, expecting them to put their feelings aside and just learn. Students are filled with fear and worry about what may happen in school as officers patrol the halls. They have to be hyperaware of where they are, how they act, and the words they say. If a student is stopped by the wrong person in the hall, a trip to the bathroom without a hall pass can easily turn into a trip to in school suspension.
Minority students know the reality of unequal punishment all too well, as their rates of contact with the juvenile justice system are much higher than the rates of white students. In 2018, minority students made up approximately one-third of the youth population in the United States, but the same group of students made up two-thirds of incarcerated youth. The above example of a stop in the hall on the way to the bathroom may be a verbal reprimand for a white student, but for a minority student it may very well be labeled as an act of defiance and punished as so.
This brings to mind another idea encapsulated in the Brown opinion: The focus on social science. The Court wrote, “A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.” Sixty-six years ago, the court was concerned about the psyche of a student. What happened to that focus? Some schools are equipped with psychologists, social workers, nurses, and counselors, while others are lacking certified teachers in the classroom. We should not expect teachers, who have enough responsibility as is, to fill in these gaps. Teachers offer students support, mentorship, and guidance, but they cannot fill the space of an individual trained to provide support services. The schools without proper student support services often will still have the uniformed police officers patrolling the halls. During a time when students are bringing to school more mental weight than ever before, scare systems should not ever trump support systems.
Furthermore, we can look at how school funding prioritizes students’ needs. There are many sources of school funding and school funding schemas, and they can be quite complex. On average, nationwide, about eight percent of school funding comes from federal funds, around 50 percent comes from state funds and the remaining 42 percent comes from local taxes. Because of this funding structure, affluent communities can raise more money through taxing for their schools, while those in low-income communities cannot. There can be schools in low-income communities that have higher per pupil spending averages, but often these schools are educating some of the most at-risk students who need extra support services, which requires the extra funding. Furthermore, low-income neighborhood schools often lack the funds that come flooding in from affluent parent organizations or donors. In 2015, National Parent Teacher Association President, Shirley Igo, said, “When some schools are able to raise additional funds from outside sources, while other schools are not, we develop a multi-tiered education system that places many of our children at a great disadvantage.” This comes from looking at Parent Teacher Organizations across the country. Some, like one in Acton, Massachusetts, are able to fund instructors for years at a time, and others, like one outside of Houston, can build an outdoor pavilion for physical education classes. These are examples of communities that have the means to support their students financially. There are other communities where parents are more concerned about providing the next meal and helping their student through their math homework. Are the schools equal when one facility has a lab built through donations and another doesn’t have enough textbooks for students to take home?
Another inequality apparent in many metropolitan areas across the nation is school choice. School choice generally refers to “any arrangement that allows parents to decide which of two or more publicly funded schools their child will attend.” While choice on its face seems to promote equality, if it is not well understood it can further perpetuate inequalities. Choice systems can be very complex with transfer systems, charter schools, magnet schools, voucher programs, scholarship credits, and private schools. Without the proper understanding it can be hard to wade through the myriad of choices.
Unfortunately, across low-income communities and communities of color, there is a school-choice information desert, while in affluent areas, the understanding of choice spreads like wildfire across social and political circles. For example, charter schools are often viewed as an attractive option in low-income communities, but there is a mystique surrounding charters. Are these schools that require an application? Is there an admission fee or tuition due? Do these schools have programming for students with special needs? The list goes on and on. The confusion around choice is even further exacerbated when the needs of English Language Learners is intertwined. We cannot ensure that students are being treated equal, or even given the equal opportunities they are required to have, when there is a lack of understanding.
Overall, we need to look at what it is we value and the future that we want to support. We need to prioritize education and realize that at the end of the day, regardless of what courts may say (see San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez), it is a fundamental right. It is a fundamental right that should be guaranteed to all students regardless of race, socioeconomic status or zip code. Right now, this is a question about equality, students simply being treated the same across all fields. We, in America, are not even close to having the conversation that is really needed, and that is one of equity. Before an equitable system can be established, we need to focus on at least having an equal one. We must at minimum have all students on a level playing field (equality), but the real goal would be to give students the tools and resources they need to succeed (equity).
I am not a parent. I am not a teacher, nor have I ever been. I am simply someone who believes the future of our country rest in the hands of children. But we are doing those children a disservice; our schools in America are nowhere close to being equal.
