l

ti Str r IR nse t
d ucational I11eaualiti

N '.

Introduction
Inequalities within our nation's public education system stubbornl
persist on multiple levels \\'ith respect to several student groups but par-
ticularl)' ,vith respect to race and povert)'· These inequalities are pre5ent
i r1 both access to educational resources and educational results. Research
nr1rms that students of color and lo\v-income students are more likel
to attend schools in deplorable physical conditions; 1 to have less acce
to higher-level courses, counselors, gifted and talented pro~rams, and
1nusic and art programs; 2 to be taught bv teachers ,vho are less cr.--
dentialed, less experienced, and lo\,,er paid;3 and, to attend racial]
~
gregated schools wl1ere there are Jo,ver levels of peer competition and
support ... t·or exan1plei in LivinE!ston Junior High School, a school in
labama where n1ost of the students are from lo\v-income families and
ll of then1 are African Americans, there are several broken 'A'indo~
the bathrooms have broken stalls, tiles fa ll from the ceiling, the roof
leaks, and there is mold, peeling paint, and cracked floors throughout
the school. 5 In Wi lliam Penn School District, a school district in Phi] . . -
delphia where most of the students are African Alnericans, students run
to arrive earlv to class duri11g the winter months in order to receive th
6
t blankets because tl1cy attend a school with uninsulate<l metal walls.
an,, disoarities in educational opportunit)' can be traced to fL1nd -
i11e inequalities. Per-p upil spending varies significantlv on manv level
therebv lirn i tine: the educational opportunities and achie,-ement for
ma11v children. For examole, a recent study reveals that in the ma.iorit
totes the difference between the highest and Jo,vest spend inQdistrict
 10 A ST RONGF.R PE J>I SPON !-, 1
SON P, SA

,,er si o,ooo per studc11t (ancl o,,er ~20,000 ir1 son1e state!>).' Furtl1 e, _ te11 , reduced cla~s sizesJ increased profe5sional developn1ent for teacher~,
15 0
tnore, fur1di 11g d1spar1tiec; too often do nol correspo11 nd specialized instruct1011 for higl1-needs students, but did not mak
tudent need!). In aln,ost l1alf tl1e states, scl1ool districts servi ng mor th,ese investments i.11 the low-po\erty schools. After nve to se\J
uent students on a, crage receive 111ore n1o ne)' per 5tudent tha11 d tudents a5sig11ed to lo\v-poverty 5Chools outperforrned their peers wh
8
<listrJcts <,er,,ing in1po, eric;hed students. I 11 those states that d attended moderate-poverty schools i11 both readi.ng and math. In addi
ro\~tde on avcroge 111ore tundinE! to higl1-po,,erty school districts, onl tion, by the time the low-1r1come children who attended the low-povert
a handful pro\ ide substantial!)' n1ore fu11di11g to higher-poverty school raduated from elementary school, the gap ex15t1ng bet't,'een the
disrricts.9 0 11c e111p1rical study foun d that on average the higl1es t p , ,..,_ low~income ch1ldre11 and the other children \Vas cut by or1e-third ror
r l)' school districts in tl,e 11at1on spend approximately $1,200 less per reaa in g arid one-haJf for math. These findings under~core that rne op-
10
tuden t tl1an do t11e lo\vest povert\' school districts. That same stud tunity to attend a predom inantly middle-clac;~ school mav be more
lso found that on a,,erage scl1ool districts serving the l1ighest concen- ritical to closing the achieven1e11t gap than providini? add1tiona1 re-
trations of students of color spet1d approxi111ately s2,ooo less per stud en urces to high-povertv school".
han school districts \Vith the highest con centrati ons of wl1ite stL1dent nsurprisi ngly, ,ve also find stark inequalities in educational out-
do. 11 These fu11ding i11equalities are particu larly co11cerning becau mes fo r minority and low-income students. Recent data show tha
umenr that iI1creases ir1 funding for lo,v-in con1e school rcent of fourth-grade, 42 percent of eighth-grade, and 48 percen
di5tricts lead to increases in studer1t ach ievement. 1 nvelfth-grade African A111erican students read below grade level, com-
·mportant as adequate fur1ding is for pro,riding a meaningful edu- parea to 2 1 percent, 15 percent, and 21 percent of ,vhite students, respr-• -
ional opportunity>student integration is just as important, il not mor tively.17 These ,vide achievement gaps ,vere also present ,vith respect
importa11t. Poor students attendi11g predomina11tlv m iddle~class schools Hispanic students, American Indian / Alaska Native students, and lo,"-
benefit from ( 1) attending schools where parents are more involved in income students generally.1 8 Sean Reardon recentlv analvzed rou£lhl
he school community and k.no,~ how to hold the school accountable tor forty m illion state achievement-test scores i 11 grades three throueh
19
hortcomins.!S) (2) havi11g more highly skjlled teachers who l1ave h igher eight duri11g 20 0 9-13 in every publ ic school district in the countrv.
expectations for their students, and (3) being surrounded by peers who He found that, 0n average, African American students score roui?h
1

more acadernicallv engaged and less 1ikel)' to misbehave. t 3 Indeed tvvo grade levels lo,ver than white students in the san1e district, and tt,. . _
20
veral empirical stud ies confirm that student integration alone soci••- panic students score rougl1l)' one and a half grade levels lower. u n
economic status (SES) lines (which is highlv correlative to inte2'.ration lso observes acaden1 ic achieven1en t disparities ,~,rith respect to student
long racial lines) is a critical component for student achievement. 1 1th, except t]1at, notably, these ach ievement gaps have widened over
be clear\ r1on e of these studies suggest that simply going to school \Vith the past few decades, not 11arro,ved.21 Alarmingly, Reardon's massive
poor children directl)' impacts a student,s ability to achi eve. Rather, th~ tudy revealed that differences Ln the average student achievement Ieve
level of student po,,erty in a school turns out to be a proxv for oth 11 school districts serving the most and least socioeconomicall
22
chool characteristics that do directly affect student achievement. 15 advantaged students nationall)' exceeded fo Ltr grade levels.
ther Sch,vartz studied seven }'ears of performance data from 850 Inequalities withu1 the public education system hurt our children ar1d
\v-inco1n e students in Mo11tgon1ery County, Marvland. These student ation in dramatic ways. Our children,s future en1ployment and income
~'ere randomlv assi2ned to public housing apartments that ,.vere zoned portttnities, as well as their overall levels of bappiness, are se,·erel
23
r either moderate-poverty schools or low-poverty scl1ools. The school limited ,vl1en thev do not reach their full pote11tial. There are also stag-
di5t rict made a series of educationaJ investments to support the student gering economic and social costs associated ,vith undereducating a sig-
,vho attended the moderate-poverty schools, such as full-dav kindere:ar- nificant proportion of ot1r children.14 Not onlv does our nation lose t he
3H I JASO ':S (~I JUSTJ I'J CAT TO I )
I

ppoi ttlt)ity to Jch1e\t' higher ecc,no1111c gro,vth, tt) 111c1 e~se tax ationales fo r tl1e federal government to 1ddress our nation,s stark
nuc.~, and to forttf) our den1orracy, bt1t 11oor eliucnt1on also 1c; <l~sociated ducational inequalities, including economic, criminal justice, health,
, ..rilll bad health and a l11gl1 1nortalit)' rate, increa5cd rclta11ce 011 publi democratic. and fa1r11ec;c; rationales.
JS\tstan(.e, and 1nc.reased 1n, ol,·~1nent 111 the cri111i11a l ju5t1ce ~ystetn 2
tr,kinglv, Cl.onon11sts e\t1111ate that 1ncrea ~i ng gra,luation rate~ even b
ne-rhird ,.. ould rt~c;ult 1n i.1n aggregate annual ~av1r1gs or ap11r()Xtm'1tel ·1on1ic Ratio11ale

o billion for our nation.' \ver cducat1011al atta1n1nent 1111poses significant economic costs on
\\ hile there Jre c;trong rationales for the federal go\ernn1ent to re\,- Ltr nation. Education 1s fundatnental to our nation's econon1ic erowth
tit, current education 1nequalit1es, pa~t and current federal legislation ha~ because economic gro\vth depends in part on the ability of our \\'Ork.fore
h1.r£!cl, failed a11d, in fact, in some ,vays has created cond1tio11s for dispart- to el t1 ciently accomplt~h con1plex tasks, l1nderstan<l and solve oroblem
tie~ to ,,·1den. for e\.an1ple, tl1e No Ch1ld Left Behit1d Aces test-bac;ed a, _ 11 d adapt to change. 29
Employers are rapidly replacine unc;k1lled labor
u11tab1ht) approach did not ~uffic1erttl)' narro,v achievement gaps and, ,vitl1 Io,,ver levels of educat1on with machines or arc outsourcing
instead, l1ad ~everal unintended conseque11ces for all ch1ldren, particular! lo\ver-level \Vork to laborer5 in other countries \\'ho arc \\?illing to \\'Ork
n1arciI1al1zed children. T11e Ever} Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) also fail r 10,ver ,vages. 30 To accompli5h complex tasks and earn high ¥tag~,,
to adequately address these inequalities. FSSA provides tren1endous di,- workers must have strong l1tcraC)', numeracy, analytical, technic..al, and
retion to states to dev1c;c accountabtlit}' structures, rnany of \vhich have roblem-solv1ng skills. 31
ho\,11 no sign-; in tl1e past or present of rect1fying education inequali- · torically, the US education system has helped create a11 educat~d
ht~. run her111ore, Title I of the Elementary and Secondarv Education Act, kforce that sustained a high level of economic gro,vth. 3 .? tto\,ever,
\vh1ch ,,as enacted to create n1ore education opportun1t1es for impo,1er- education inequal1t1es threaten to stand 1n the \,'av of our continued
1shed children, does not prov1de nearly enough resources to address cur- non1ic gro\vtl1 and ability to compete internationall)'·33 Our Sl.hool ag
nt 1nequalit1es In addition, the rules governing disbur5ement of Title I population has and ,vill 1ncreasingl,· become more raciallv and ethnicall
unds severely hmit Title T's reach to adequate!} narro,v education 1nequal- diverse. 31 If \\Te fail to properly educate and prepare 5uc.h a sizeable por-
1t1es. It 1s tin1e for the federal 2overr1ment to e11act stron2er legislation t tio11 of our )'Outh to enter the \\ orkforce, our nation ,,ill lo5t! a valuable
narrow edueat1on inequalities and create equal education opportunitie non1ic growth opportunitv. 35 As Marta fienda and <;1i!al Alon observe,
r all children. Not only ¼'Ould tl1is benefit marg1nal1zed students and 'The opportunity costs of not closing achieveinent and graduation gap
a1n1hes, but it ,, ould benefit all stude11ts and our nation as a ,vho)_, \Vill continue to gro\v as global 111arket integration cont1nues apac:e R1\1ng
to this monumental cl1allenge requires a l11ghl} s1'.1lled labor tor'--e. rlh
\ \'hy the Federal ,vind0\\1 of opportur1ity to hari1es~ the <ien1ographic d1, 1dend 1s clostnF,,
ern n1ent Should Address Inequaliti
in Education but unlike de\·elop1ng countries,, 1th high )Outh depende11cy rates, tl1e
11tted States has tl1e eco11on11c re<;ources to n1ake the neces~arv ir1vc,t-
3
lthoue:h inequal il 1 in education deserve immediate atlen tio11, ments. \'\Tl1ether il has st1fficie11t political \\'ill 1s the real que5t1on ..,
the vast maiorit tat do not appear to be addressing the1n in nn' Levin a11d Cli, e Belfiel<l atten1pted to quantifv the cumulat1,e
27
meaningfu] \\'ay. In fac l, from 2008 to 2012, almost e\'erv state cu ts to our nation of inequalities,, 1thin our education 5, stem in tern1
pending to public education, and, as of 2015, Lhe rnaior1tv of stat l dollars. The)' ob~erve that \\'orkl!r~ ,, itl1 more education car11 sig-
till provided less f uncling to public education than tt1ey did pri nificant!} n1ore ,vages over tl1eir lt feti1nes tha11 do ,vorker~ ,, ith le':)s edu-
28
to the rece~sion. \\' hile that in and of itself n1igl1t just ifv a stro n- tion. \\Torkers ,vho graduated fro111 higl1 school earn over $300,000
ger response by the federal government, there are other compelling m r their lifet1me5 than higl1 school dropout!>, v. orkers \,Tho at-
 I ',\ ~ON ruST(JJICATJON~ lOk A STR R flF.D R I 41

tended some college ear11 O\'er s400,000 n1orc tl1a11 l1igl1 scl1ool drop-
ns. -- r..xa1nining several sources of data> f.a11ce Lochner and Enri
; and, ,vorkers vt1l10 att ained a college degree earn over s1. 2 million
rerri found t]1al higher education levels ,vere strong!)' as"ociated with
more than high school dropouts. '[hus, increasing tl1e edL1cat1on level of
uced crimiJ1al activit}' and that "the e~ti rnated effects ol education
pro,~de significant additional sot1rces of tax re\'enti
3"' _i1ne cannot easily be explained a\vay by unobser, ed cl1aracteristic
1

deral, state, and local government5.

iminals [or] unobserved state policies that affect both crime and
vin and Belfield dernonstrate that r1igl1er levels of edu-
hoohng." ·-
ri are assoc1alc:d ,vith l1igher earnings and n1ore tax reve 11 ue, Dut
Just as ,ve ob e racial dispariti relating to educatio11, racial dis-
they also sho,"' that higher Ie,els of education are associated ,vitli l
parities relati incarceration rate e also well documented." 6
involvement in the crin1ina1 justice S)rsten1, less depende11ce 0 11 pubr •
111er1cans are •
1n erated at a rate over five time
ionally, Africa11
\Velfare programs, and better l1ealth. TI1us, reducing education inequali-
r1igher than \vhit , and I-Iispanic . re incarcerated at a rate 1.4 ttmc
' ies also can lead to tremendous savings in governme11t expend itures in
tl1at of whit"'"·
these areas. Strik.ingl} t}1ese econornists estimate that providing school
1
,
It is also itnporta11t to recognize the co11nection bet\\·een inadequate
,vith the resources to help close the current high school dropout rate ducational resources, student misbehavior, and increased stt1dent
by one-third \\'Ould result in an annual savings of approximately s 250 involvement in the criminal justice system. 48 Educators working 1n
billion for our nation. 38 For the sake of comparison, tl1e total publi chools wjth l1igh concentrations of lo,v-income and minority stt1dent
len1entarv-secondarv school svster11 expend iture for the fi scal vear n teacl1 large groups of students \~tith acute needs bt1t man) tim
OIS \\la -.'5 b1•1
'110n.
• 39
k the experience and resources to meet those needs. As a result, too
n1any schools turn to extreme forms of exclusionary di::.cip11ne-sulh
.r-Slice Rational as suspensions, expulsions, and referring students to la\V enforcement
fficers-to handle routine student behavior problems, man)' of \vhich
he federal szovernment also should address our nation's educational uld be handled or prevented ttsinl! more effective methods. 1" Emp1ri-
·neaual1ties because of the strong association benveen a \\'eak edu, ,. _ al evide11ce l1as repeated!)' confirmed that excluding a student trom
t1on and increased Je, els of involvement in the criminal justice systen1
1
school substantially increases the likelihood that this student ,..-ill not
na the costs that crime imposes on the federal government and societv. graduate fro1n high school. ,vill becon1e irnmediatel,r ir1,rolved in the iu-
holars explain this connection by pointing out that education levels nile jt1stice svstem. and ,vill e,,e11h1allv become involved in t}1e 1ustic
jated with higher earnings, and higher earnings increase th tern as a11 ad ult. 50
pportunity cost of serving time in prison and sper1ding tune e11gag- intirnated earlier, public expe11ditures associated v,rith the criminal
ine: in criminaJ acts.'° Furthermore, education mav help individL1aJ justice systen1 are enor111ous. Direct a1.1nt1al exoendtture" 011 the criminal
to becon1e more risk-averse and Jess impatient, causing individuals t justice system as a \.vho]e amou11t to over s270 billion.5 l Lo\\?eri112 crime
more deeply consider the possibi]ity of future punjshment for breakin would reduce pressure to spe11d tax dollars on police, prison
1
la,vs.• Education may also help individuals develop a ereater distaste nd the crir11inal justice S}'Stem generall)1, 52 In addition, invol\·en1ent in
r crjminal behavior, improve social habits, a11d better understand th the cri111i11al iustice system affects one's ability to find em.plovn1ent, ente
3
ocietal benefits of obe}ring the law. 42 the militarv1 find housing, and pL1rsue postsecondary education,s all .~
ral empirical studies sho-v,r a strong connection bet,veen drop- \,vhich lead to decreases in tax revenL1e and increases in exuenditures ror
ping out of school and eventually becoming incarcerated. 43 For exan1pl..,, ~,.... ·ern1nent ,velfare progran1s.'
0 iated \vith reduced crime \\'oul<l
percent of all institutionalized persons in 2009 had failed to gradual' • urthermore, the social benefit
from high school, compared to 8 percent of nonlnstitutionalized per- be tremendous. Not onlv do 111emb four societ\' pa)r high cost
 1 I A,o, r r,;AN'"'

J us 1' IJlJ I Ol!HA

3
ing to a\roid becon1inJ? victin1~ of cri111c, but actL1a) , icr 1n 15
cr1n1c ~u. ~
er 00111 ec.onon11callv and D'ircholoQicaJI,,. \ '1cti111s ol crirne net present value of eac.h cohort of high school dropouts arnounts t
Well a
tl1e, 1c t1n1,' friends and fa111ilv me1nbe1 s) oftr11 in iss ti111e at" pproximately s110 btlhon ir1 forfeited health and s23 bHlion in eovern-
ph) ~1cal and en10Lional 1njurie!), expe1 ie11ce I k, surrer 1
rnenr expenditurcs.b· Clive Belfield and .1-Ienry Lcvi.n estin1ated that ea(h
55 perty, and hav
lo\,'er qualitv of life. Clive Belfield ana ne11r high school graduate sa,'es our nation on average approximately s50,300
in estimate that
h h1uh school C?raduate save~ our na tior1 on in public healtl1 expe115e5 over that individual's hfctnne, and each college
rrage approxin1atel
~o,ooo 1n cr1m1nal 1usr1 .x.pense th uate saves our 11ation S86,560 1n publtc hea]th expen., .......
and each co1leee gradua '
es our nation an
ind i\. 1d ua] ,s li ret 1n1",
e
56 175,000 on
r1n11nal iust1ce expenses. Lance Locl1ner and Enri nocracic Rational
etti estin1ate
that even a 1 oercent increac;e 1n the graduation ra
all men bet\\'een
\rent, ana sixtv Years old \\Ould amount t n annual sa,,1n he federal government also ~hould address our nation's educational
1. inequalities becauc;e a strong educational system for all our nation's cit-
billion in costs from victims of crimes and iet}' at large, or a -26
I

percen turn on 1n tn1ent 1n our education S)'Ste1n. 5 izens is essential for the effecti,,eness of our dtmocrar1c go,,ernment.
ucation fosters a commitment to and capacity for del1beratinl! is5u
rving on a jury, exercising the right to vote, serving in a pubhc.
lt/1 Rar101 no serving in the armed forces. 66 In Bro¾'J-t v. Board of· £ducat 1011, the
1he federal eovernrnent should al upre1ne Lourt observed, uCompulsor\ atte11dance la,\TS and th
daress our nat1on~s educational great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition
1nequaltt1es because of the hieh h
Ith costs that lo,ver educational the importance of education to our democratic soc.1etv. It is required
ttainment imposes on the federal government and society. Individua l
in the performance of our most basic public responsi bilities, e, en ser•
\\1th hiE!her education levels on a,rerage have better health and live lon-
·n the armed forces. It 1s the very foundation of good c1t1zensh1..,.
ieh school dropouts are more like!)' than those \vho graduated
Justice B)rron v\7hite, in h,s dissent 1n San A11to1uo Independent School
m h12h 5chool to die prernaturely from cardiovascular disease, can-
istrict v. Rodri~uez, cogently explained that education 1s cr1l1cal for
er, 1ntec.tion. iniury, lung disease, and diabetes. 59 'l '11ey are more 1ikel
ist1ne vouth to understand and appreciate "the princ1pJes and
to suffer from disabilities or illness. 60 Because education is positivel
tio11 of our governn1ental processes; to 1n5till "polttical consc1ousnes
related to income levels, those \.vho l1a\'e more education tend to live 1n and participation,,, and to generate "the interest and provide the tool
as that offer rnore opportunities for exercise and are Jess exposed t necessat v tor politicc1l discourse and debate." 6 d In ca111pa,gn torr,, _
61
en, 1ronmental hazards. They are also more likely to obtain jobs that quity v. Ne'ri York, the Ne\, York Cottrt of Appeals rtac;oned that a
1

provide better health insurance.62 I11dividuais who are educated are " -· und basic education~' consisted of "the basic ]1teraC}1 c.alculating, J11d
more likelv lo avnid risky behavior, eat more healthily, exercise mv•~, rbal skills necessary to e11able children to e\entuall,, function or
n2agc m health-promoting social activities, better comprehend medi- iuctivclv as civic participants capable of voting and servine on a iu
cal information and doctors' instructions, better deal with stressors, and Indeed, to effecti,,el\' serve on a jury, vote, or ser, e 1n a publi
better navigate the complex health care system.6
individuals must have the capacity to ,veigl1 ev1de11ce, listen \\tell, com-
Re~earch confirms the significant hea ltl1 70
ili ng t ,,du - n1unicate cffectivel}', and rethink one's o,v11 belief~ and pos1tions.
rom high school and college. Peter N1uen n1 riticallv, ernpir ical studies ha\e repeatedly confirmed the po5itive
chool graduate gains 1•1 yea r
that h hieh
pertect health t aoproxi • ..lat1onship between better-educated c1tizen5 and political part1c1pA ~
matelv Si83,ooo, and each graduat
the govern men proximate( including the increased likelil1ood of voting, donating to a pol1tital
s39,000 in costs related to heaJth
e. Accordinelv, h und that th mpaign, belonging to a civic o,rganization, and partic1pat1ng in pol1tt-
 I JASON P. NAN

JUS'l'IF I CA'r IO NS 110 NC~I 1>

•
•· I protest ,1ct1v1t1es.
""I . •
mu,, t•aucat1011 mequalitres can and d I
different le, els of poht1caJ 1,art1cipat1on Jlong the line\ of O lead ro
Furtherrnore, one should deeply consider the harn,ful p
ml cla,; ~'- Accord1111! to the \ mencan
lCill
. race and so
Poht1e.il .)cience fask me~sages that inequalities in eduait1on send to our children.
Inequa Ii ty and \ mcri can Democracy, such inequalr tie reinio eon han1on, fot mer 1\ \s1stant Secretary for Civil Rights at th
5
1al inequal1t1e\. It co11clt1dc1oi, ,. The pr1\
. 1leged participate rce
rn current
h ment or r.ducation, observed that rnany n1inority and 10\,·-1nco1n
hu, and arc incre.i;ine:ly well organi7ed to pre.~5 thcu demand ore _ t an tudents' self perceptions today arc strikingl}' similar to those held b
nn1t'nt. Public ofuc1aJ5, 1n turn, are n1uch tnore rcspon<; , e to th~ on gov.. n1dcnts involved in the udolJ test" more than sevent)· years ago. She il -
1
legtd than to J\'erage c1t11.en, and the least affluent. Citizens withe lower
_ . pn\1- lustrated this point by descr1b1ng an ex-perience she had ,vhcn she wa
or moderate mcomes speaJ... with a whisper that 1s lost on the ears or inat- lit1gat1ng a case about resource equity in schools. Her tcan1 hired several
tentive government offic1ab, while the ad, antaged roar with a clarity and xperts to conduct focus-group d1scuc;~ions an1ong minor.it)' students 111
ns15tenc\ that 1101icr-mak.ers 1 eadily hear and routinely follo,v. h1gh-po,erty school<, to better understand these students' exper1enc .....
1

The experts d1~played photos of ,vell-resourced schools and tla~~room

he current gro\\ mg wealth divide also determines who does and
to these students and asked them to share their thoughts about \\'hat
does not wield political influence. A5 Michele Moses and John Rog-
they sa,v. The stude11t<; consistently responded ,vith comments such u 1,
ers observt. ~mce the 1970s, growth m real mcorne has favored the
urr1_ ose must be schools for ,vh1te kids. They ,vouldn t g1\'e those matr-
WL-althiest Americans, amounting to the largest mcome mequalities in
rials to us »llt Students \.vho participated in focus group.s conducted b
the L'nited States since the Great Depres~1on." \Vealth increases th
'l art ha Fine 1n the Willia,ns v Cali{ornza educatton-fund1ng litigation
abilit, of Americans to voice their opmions and be heard." Research also doubted their self-,..,orth because of the 1nequalit1es thev ,vitne,sed.
ho\,s that Ja\\'rnalers respond to the \'oices of \\eaJthy Americans b ne student, Alondra Jones, shared the follov. 1ng:
pa~~1ng la\\s that fa, or \\ ea1th) Americans. 7 6 Larry Bartels,s en1pincal
tu<ly sho\\'S that, from 1989 to 1995, LS senators' , otes \\·ere n1ost closel" It make you feel less about yourc;elf you kno\,, hkc you s1ttin~ here in
aliened \,1th the u1terests of the affluent and not at aJJ aligned ,vith th where vou have to stand up because lhcrc•~ not enough chairs and
interests of the constituents 1n tl1e bottom third of income Ie,·els 77 Bar- ou see rats in the bui.Jd1ngs, the bathrooms is nasty, you got to pav. 1\nd
tels further reports regarding lo\v-income constituents that trom 2011 ro then vou, like I said, I \.isited 11ann Academ~, and these students. if th
2013 «1 t is highl} i1np1ausible to suppose that their vie\vs had even hau a \\'ant to s1l on the t1oor, that'5 bccaus<. thev choose to. And that just mak
nuch effec.t on senators• \ot1ng beJ1a\.ior as those of high-income con- me reel real les5 about mr~elf becausc it's 11kt State don't cMe Jbout puou
tituents. The stat1st1cal results strongly suggest that their op1n1ons " ·ere hools. If I have to ... stand in the clasc;, thcv can't c-are about me
httle- or n ·· - - nsequencc.---··
han,on concludes that many of our minor1t\ students 1n high povcr
trness R hools nre heari ng the nation's me5sage "loud and clear .. -that \.\'e do
in them, that \\'e <lo not value their c1, ic engJgement- and
inall>, the federal go, ernment should address educational 1neoualttJ that there is no point in participating productt\'elv 1n their !)c.hools and
because doiI1g so is fair and just. That a chi ld's access to a qua lJt}' ectu• n1n1u11ities. She concludes that this 1" exac.tlv the '"rong m,...._._:-i
tion is determined by factors cornpleteJy outside that child's control, be sendine: to our cl11ldren; 1n fac t, 1t 1s exactly contrarr to our v1s1on
,vhat oublic educatio11 c;houJd stand for and the opportun1tie\ it should
uch as ,.,,here a child happens to live or the i11con1e levels of that chdd
attord all children.
arents, 1s str1kingl)' inequitable and nonc;ensical. 79 Th jc; is espec.iaH
qually d1 sturb1ng, edu cion 1nequalit 1es also sen<l pO\\'ertuL
true because of the lifelong 11npact tl1at access to a qualitv education ha~
,vroneful message to ""hit udents· that they are more pr1 ·teeed and
n that chtld,s development and fut ure ooportt1n1ties.
 I I -\ '0 ~ P. ~ AN
JUST'IFICATIONS PO J>t:RA N

, ea greater share of our 11at1011s resources. '!hat harn1ful n1t:~sa e

ntnbute\ to the racial di, idc and fuels raciJI tensions, treating a ,/ umcien t to induce all state<; to accept the n1oney in exchange for their
84
de 51 rah]c natro11 for all of us. As Sharon Rusl1 explair1~, "Our children reerncnt re> comply ,vith various federal mandat .......
Jre \\ atch1ng us. 'They lear11 about race and rac.:e relations from u.,, urthermore, as Derek Blac.k and C1ood\vin !Ju point out, the rttlc
dult,. '"e n1ust be careful not to pron1ote a v1~io11 of social reality tha ning disbursement of 'l'itle I ft1nds severely lin1its Title I's ability t
teache5 non,,,h1te cl1ildren that the, arc racially inferior or th at teaches iently narro\Vcurrent inequahtie5 in our education svstcm. 91 1·her
,,·h1tc children that the,, are raciallv suoer1or, .. "- c1re several examples of th1~. First, \\hen Cc>n_grer,s originallv enacteJ
I itle I, the federal governn1ent dispersed fitle I funds to a limited num-
ber of 5chools serving high c.011centration\ of poor studcnts. 9 "' Present I,,
jeral Responses t dr ducatio11al Ineaualiti ho\•vever, the eligibility requiretnenl c; for recei\ring Title I funds are not
Been Inadequ t all difficult to meet. For instance, through the Basic Grant formula,
hool districts are entitled to receive ~fitle I funds b}' den1onstratin2 that
the fore~oine: ev1de11ce and rationales demonstrate, ther r
ral rnere 2 perce11t ot their students are poor. 93 Because of this lo\\' thresh
ornoell1nlr reasons for the federal government to rectiry educational
ld, almost all school districts, even verv affluent ones, receive Title J
1nequalrties in our nation. The federal go,'er11ment l1as responded t
fttndi ng. 9 1 During the 2016 fiscal year, the federal go, ernment a,,,arde<l
these inequalities to some degree by passing several leg1slati\ e act 1
about 43 percent of the total Title I funding through ,the Ba~ic uran
nder tts spending po,,'er, including Title I of the Elementary and ~e, -
formula. 95 \ \7hile allocatir1g 1nore federal fund~ to etiucating student
ondarv Education of 1965, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the .tver
generally is praiseworthy, the practical effect of such a lo\\' threshol
udent Succeeds Act. However, all of these acts have largely failed and, the dilution of Title I fund<; to the poore5t schools and school distri
1n tact, in some \\clVS have created conditions for dispariti \.viden. s6 ,vhich is ,vhere the funds are most needed. 96 ~lanv people estimate that
poor students require at least 40 percent n1ore rc.\ource!) (or rnuch n1ort!
1tle I of t/1 than other studer1ts to obtail1 an equal educat1011 opportunity, 97 vet fe<l-
11 n ation 5
h ral resources account for onlv around 10 percent of the neediest school
ngress passed Title I of the Ele1n entary and Seconda du- districts' bud 6 ~ . .... ·
at1on Act of 1965 to expand educational opportunities for imp r1shed econd, Title I fur1ding forrnulas do not adequately account for th
nd marginalized students by providing additional fu nds t ls ror us e1rects of co11centrated povert).99 1h15 can be seen in at least
7
these ch11dren.;. Although this is a laudable goal, there ar t\vo \vavs. The first is tl1at Title I f undi11g forn1ulas do not adequate!
\\'h~ T1tJe I and its subsequ ent reauthorizations have not n \ved ddress tl1e fact that as the percentage of poor children in a school in-
the educatJon equality gap in a more meaningful\.~,. reases, tl1e student's chances for st1ccess-re2ard]es\ of that stude11t'
initial matter, the overall amount that the federal governmen \\l'O socioeco non1ic status- decreases.
100
The second 1s that l itle l
rovides to cash-strapped schools to help impoverisJ1ed children is in- undin2 formttlas do not adequatel\ account for tl1e deleter1ou
1

umc1ent. 1he federal government provided approximately s15.4 billion multie:enerational povert,. 1vtultiger1erational poverty often multiplie
r schools for the fiscaJ year 2018 under Title I of the ESEA. 88 \iVhile thi the negative effects of poverty on children, meaning that th<)se children
· not an insignificant amount of money, it amounted to only around 2 •4 en require e,,en n1ore sustained attention and resourc~s to attain 1.-v-
percent of the total expenditures for public elementary and secondar els of academic achievement reached by other students. 101 for exampl"',
hools in the19 United Stales (approximately s639.5 billion in the fiscal rles Sharkev fou nd that chi1dren fron1 families \vho lived in po\
201
rear of 5), which already was woefully inad equate to properly edu- t\,'O generations scored significantl}' lo,ver on reading and langua
te all children in the United States. Nevl'rtheless, this amount has been mprehension te~ts than did children li\1i11g 1n po\'erty for one genera-
 Jr\ 1i O, P. \ \ '\ <
JUSTJPI TRC,N(~F.R l•CU

.
non, c \ t:
>, ' n aner con trolling for other fa..,to1~ that ,
lain •
aria ns a
10 la, gcr of t\VO ,ve1ght-.. dctern11ned under two Jiffcrent rubr1cs. 110 Under
iated \Vith ch1ldrcn·s c.ogni t1, e J evelopn1cnt.
the fir~t rubric, as ex.plained earlier, ~c.hool districts receive a weighted
t,,
1ttlc r con tains 0 1orn1ulas, the "Conccnlratio11 Gran ts" and the
child cou11t for the total percentage of students they serve \,rho are
,...,.~-rgeted Grants," hoth of ,v hich Congrcs~ designed to addresc; the e, ~ 11
• But under the second rt1br1c, school districts receive a \\ cighted
1

ncentrated povrrty, but neither of ,,,h1c}1 adequately doe

hi ld count for the total .nun1ber of poor students the) 5erve. 111 1hu",
Jistrict is ehgtble for a Concent rlltion Grant if it ser\ es at least sixty-five
large, \Vealthy schooJ districts that 5erve a sufficient number o1 poor stu-
hundred poor children or if at least 15 percent of tl1e district's children
den ls but still have an o,,erall lo\v percentage of poor students benetit
Jl've in po\ erty. 101 Yet, despite clear evidence that schools serving high
rorn the \Ve1gl1ted child count, d1lut1ng the o,·erall nun1ber of fund
ncentration~ of impo\erished chtld ren need more resources to edu-
ilable fo r poor children, even though the empirical e, idence 5ug-
1

udenl~ all school districts recei\'e the same a1noun t or 111oney per
gests that 1t is the percentage of poor students 1.n the school that affects
nr under this forn1ula once the dis trict meets the eligibility 1equirr- tudent achievement, not the total number of students. 1
menl, irrespective of ,,,hether a district has 15 percen t of its student ird, all of the Title I formulas take into consideration a state's ave, -
h, in £! in pO\"t!rt)' or 99 percen t. 10 • Further, the Concentration Grant (0 ge per-pupil exper1diture to determine the an1ounts of the award'> tha
•~n\' or tne other form ulas) does not take into accour1t the fact that stu- tates and school districts receive!'" Con~ress n1ay have dec.1dcd to take
den t5 fron1 famihes that ha, e lived in poverty for h \' O or more ge11era- into accou nt the states' expenditures for at least two possible reason ....
ions require even more resources than do students ,vhose fan1ilies have irst, Congress may have \\'anted to 1dentify a figure that ,-.·ould accu-
lived 111 poverty for one generation. telv reflec t the cost of edt1cating student\ in that geographic area. 1 · '
he ·rargeted Grant forn1ula, on the other hand, do es account for rtheless, as the United States General Accounting Office and schol-
ncen trated vovertv to a ~reater extent than the Concentration vrant have noted, actt1al state educ~tion expenditures are not strongl
docs. but 1t stiJl falls short. A sc}1ool distri ct is eligible to receive a Tar- iated \\'ith geographic costs. 116 Second, Con~ress mav have sou~ht
ted Grant 1f it serves at least ten poor students or if at least 5 percent to provide an incentive for states to spend more on public edu
its students are hv1ng in poverty. 105 Once a d1str1 ct meets this eligibilit Realistically, ho,, ever, Title I probabl}' doe<; ver}' little to motivate c;tat
1

requirement, the federal govern ment distri butes funds using \Veighted to spend more on education because federal fl1nds account for onlv a
106
hild counts. For exampl e, a d1str1ct in ,vhich .01 percent to approxi- mall portion of a state,s total education budget, and statec; ,vould ha\'e
mately 16 oercent of its students live 1n poverty receives a \Veighted child to spend a great deal more to rece1\re mean1ngfu] 1ncrea~es 1n f1tle
1.0. ,vhereas a district in ,vhich approxim atel,, 18 percen t or u11ds. L1s 1hus) because poorer states tend to spe11d Je~s on public cdu, .,-
nore ot its students hve in po,rerty receives a \veighted child count tion, scholars conclude that the end result of a,, ard 1ng 'f 1tle I funds in
101
4.0. Stated another \vay, districts 1n \V}1ich 40 percent of the student proportion to a state)s average per-pupil expenditure 1c; to penalize poor
Jive in poverty recei, e four tin1es as much fund ing per student as a di,- nd re\vard \Vealth,, states, fu rther exacerbating per-pupil spen, •-
1ct tn which 15 percent of the students live in poverty. While this i i112 ineaualities across states.
119

better than the Concentration Grant, the fed eral government only ap· Fourth, Title I does not do enough to ensure that ~tates avoid th
propriatcd 24 percent of alJ of tl1e Title I funds through th e TarQ'eted practice of using fed eral fttn<ls to supplant instead of supplement thei
Jlt formula during the 2016 fi scal year. 108 T11is amount simplv is not urrent expenditures on education. 120 ,\'h1le "st1pplen1cnt, not supplant"
nough to address the severe inequalities that plague our nation. pro\,,isions ,vere included for th e firs t t1m~ 1n tl1e 1970 ESEA amend -
. 'Urther, the Targeted Grant also inexplicably a\vards higher funding ments, 121 O\'er the }'ears Congres..c; has chan~ed the standards or refused
\Vetl!ht~ for the total nu111ber of poor students a district serves. 109 That i to enforce them, making it eas}r for states to si111ply replace their edu,~,.,_
th tion expenditu res \Vith federal fundc;, thereby reduc1ng their o,vn e• -
e fi nal weighted child count under the Targeted Grant resuJts from th
 - ~Jfl't/Lfl'lJJ ~J>'1lf/l 1>AP7.17)J), 117h i i ,,TTTl71r1,h l":7~ILTH.I.VJ!Y.JJUJa:r1.:1:10.,nrm11» --11• •~11

o I JASON r , \'\' C r

JUS1' 1Jll CATI O A I I s1

pend1tur~s on eduL,llion and ddeating the purpose of Titler tunding."
Recognmng this prohlern, E~SA, for the first lune, requires distric
11ante., wit. h t he "supp 1ement, not supplant" proi;. ts to 'hi/, ,J,incl
"<l<'monstrate
123
Lomp
,on. However, both prior to and after the passage of FSSA, Title I has In 2001, C~ongress reauthor11c<l tl1c I~len1entarv and Secondary Edu-
not ,oentthed a specific methodology or standard to detcnnine whether tion Act by pass1niz the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). 13 ' --rhe
hoot dist rte ts art , 10I .it tn g the 'supp le men t, not supplant" pr , or tral feature of NC.LB ,vas that all schools receiving federal funds
01 15100
how d15tncts should "demons t ra le compliance." In add i1100, Title J1 .
1 21 \Vere required to lest all K-12 students at various stages in math, sci -
ludes a matnlenancc of effort (1IOE) requirement ~o that states and/or 0 nce, reading, and language arts. 13 ' lo avoid certain sanctions sue
hool distncts 111 ust pro, ide a level of fun drn g that is at least 90 percent negative label or being taken over by the state, schools had to clemon-
he funding in the second preceding \ear. 12' However, because federal tratc improvement in student test scores acros~ all student subgroup
unds account for less than 10 percent of total education expenditures, it nd, by 2014, demo11!>trate that all students \Vere "proficient 1n these
is not difficult for most states and districts to replace their expendtture ubiect areas. 137 The federal government hoped that NC1.B \vould rai
vith federal funds over time and std! meet the MOE requirement."' ducators' expectations of stt1dents hold schools accountable for failin
na while T11le I e>.pressly prohibits states and school districts rrom to help thejr students n1eet curricular standards, narro\v the acadernic
upplantmg their own funds with federal funds, 12 ' the US Department achievement gap bet\-veen student groups, and bring all students up to a
predetermined academic standard. 13
ducatton has done very little to enforce this prohibition."
"''ever, this test-based, high-stakes accountab1hty approach Jar1?el
ifth, Title I does not do enough to motivate states and school d,,.
did not achieve its desired effect and, 1n tact, had several perverse
1cts to equalize per-pupd spending. It contains 110 pro\'isions aimed at
n all children but oarticularl)' on marginalized children. 139 Fir.c;t, N
mol1\'at1ng states lo address unequal 5pend1 ng bet\veen districts, \vher,
12 did not do enot1gh to provide children ,vith the resources that emp1r1-
huge disparities exist. • Furthermore, Title I falls short m addressing
l research confirms most influence academic ach1cveme.nt, \-Vh1ch
ndmg disparities" ith1n school districts. Under the current "compa-
includes having effective teachers, adequate it1structional resource'>,
rabihtv" requirements, before qualifymg for Title I funds, recipients mus
propriate class sizes, a culturally rele\'ant and cha1lcnging curr1culum,
provide •·sub'>tantially comparable services'' to Title I schools and non-
ient support, adequate facilities, 5uffic..ient tools and tra1nin2 to en-
itle I schools. uo Yet Title I also contains a pro~ ision expressly stating hance the school cltn1ate, ar1d an opportunit,· to attend a m1ddle-c1a~"
"" thmg in th,s title shall be construed to mandate equalized speo d· hool. 140 Rather. NCLB largely only increased levels of ac.countabilit T•

in!!' per puptl for a State, local educational agency, or school,"m makm nd, NCLB caused many of our nation's scnoo1s to <;urter rrom
it difficult for the US Department of Education to craft regulations t d goal displacen1ent. 14 1 That 1s, 1nsteaa or rocus1ng on a
promote more equitable spending among schools within a d1stnc . . t· 1)2 In 1ate lear11ing outcomes such as developing critical th1nk111g sk11l..,,
ddttion, Title I does not require a school district to include "S talf sal- preparing for higher-education opportunities and the \\'Ork.force 111 a
11 dilferentials for years of employment" in its comparability analys, lobal economv, and creating lifelong learners, educators ,vere com
It files• ''-"' .. ~~ --:urance that it has implemented a district-wide sal· elled to narrov. their focus to helping students achieve a .. profic.tent''
arv <chedule. "' 1h15 exemption permits school districts receivimr Title n a standardized exam. 1 ~ 1 Thus, NCl.B led to sever'1l unintended
I funds to exclude teacher salaries, which mak, utts. particularly in poor di~trictc:, serving underachieving <itudent..,,
each schools p l . uo a high percenta _
er pup1 expend1tures, from the mparabihtv anaJvsi- ,.u uch as a narro,,ring of the ct1rriculu1n; an intense focus on mult1pl
choice test-taking skills; less creative and engaging classes, fe\,·er pro1ect-
based learning activities; less time on or the eltm1nation ot art~, mu51"',
dr3n1a, social studies, and other important subjects that are not te!>ted;
 I , 'I>
' .

nd , )e55 t1111
JUS'flJ:ICATro ~'lS PO J' R ( n RT N I
11 r 10111 ng i111porta11t
~

lu dt1
i,,e lear11in blern-sol\ in il Is. ~Uch a
• n m tin g schedt1le, developn1ent, student demographic dic;ae:ereea-
I 111ar1 hol l1Jt school itizenship. 143
iaJ gnn llShing- lo\v. ubject matter to be tested as NC,I.B., I.,;, but it is distincti
11.ns:r studer1ts ot1t of t l1ei r scl1 ls, in an 1 Nl.;LB 1n irnportant ways. As with N(.,LB, states are permitted
tt id nav1n
l1e1r Jo,\· scores count again5t the111, b develop their o,vn "challenging" acaden1ic standards. 1 .HO~'ever,
usoendi11g, expellin • •Y

jne: tl1em to la\v enror refer- ates are 110\v al5o permitted to devise their owr1 goals a11d ac(.ount
ment for certain infrac tions thc:y commii on
hool grou11ds. i.,,~ Da,,i il1tv structures that 1nust include the fo1lo\ving indicators. "academi
iillio found evidence of this worrisome trend
b,, examining data rron hievement, as n1easured b} proficiency on the annual a<;sessments ;
lorida school districts on student suspension
11a sta1 1dard1zea test nother measure of student growth "that allows for meaningful dirrerer1-
.• iglio fo und that schools tended tu g,
harsher oumshments for the same offense to low-performing studen iatio11 in school perforn1ance,,, such as graduation rates for hie-h school'"··
than to high-performing students. Figlio also found that the dirrerence ''progress in achieving English language proficiency''; and. ''n
1cator of school quality and student success," such as student
in ounishment fo r similar offenses grew wider during testing windo11
ngagement;· ·'educator engagement;' dstudent access to and compJet1or1
r students enrolled in grades that administered high-stakes tests. 145
advanced course,vork/' "postsecondary readiness," or "school clin1at
urth. even assuming that focusing so m uch attention on a state-
n lv.» 157 Thus, "'11ereas under NCLB the annual as<;essments \Vere
wide achievement test is beneficial for our students, it appears that th
th means to evaluate schools, unaer .t.~~A annual assessn1en
high-stakes accountability approach did little to improve student test
now represent one ot tour factors to \\'hich state~ can a~si2n anv evalu
res or reduce achievement gaps. 146 Empirical research shows at best tive 1tveight, as long a~ that weight is "substantial'' (although "substantial',
mall l!ains and at worst no gains or even declin es in student achi is undefined) , and, in the aggregate, states give greater e\-aluat1vc \veieht
147
nient scnres. But even if there were some small gains, one question to the first three factors than the fourth factor. 15
whether the significant costs merit these small benefits. 1 nother primary difference bet,".reen NCLB and ESSA is the a, -
inallv. Nr.r.R did almost nothing at all to promote student inte- untability str t1c ture. Under NCLB, all sch ools had to make annual
rat1on.1•9 Nrr B did compel school dist ricts t rlv progress to\vard proficiency in student assessments in
1 intradistrict
n5ter policies for Title I students in failing sch ls. 1so r, th ~'""'"' ti\·e labels and sanctions set forth 1n the statute. 1 re-
~

licies did not promote meaningful student int tion fort r,..,.. _ quires state interve11tion onlv fo r "the Io,\'est-performine- c; percent
ns. f irst, most student poverty and racial ion exist between JI scl1001s,. and "hi2h schools in the State failing to graduate one thi
districts instead of within districts, making meaningful integration ver r 1nore ot their st udents.,, 160 Thus, for the vast majorit)' of schools in
ifficul t under that policy. 15 1 Second, the bu rd en oft ran sfer ri n!! school the United States. ESSA doe5 not imoose federal consequences fo r fai J-
ell on students and parents, and there were no incentives for nonfailin in2 to n1ake an nual p rogress tO\\'ard state-determined goals, requi r1n
hools to ar-rPpt or recruit these students. 152 Thus, it was far more Jikel nlv that states and schools devise their own improvemen t plans ,vhen
stu
r dents from more ad vantaged famil ies to find wa}.,S to transfer t hooJs fail to 1neet the state·s assigned criteria. 161 Thus, as Michael Hei
better schools than for students from disadvantaired families to do so. 15.l bserves, ,vhile us tan da rds-setti ng and acco untability mechanisn1~ . ..
under NCLB ,vas among NCLB's hall marks[,] ESSA, in contrast, affords
rv ~·tuden tates greater autonomy, both in ter1ns of control over substantive sta11-
s
dards settine and the consequences for states that fail to achieve their
n DPr-Pmb
10 , 2 01c;, then ment goals:' 16
ied in th reauthorization the ESEA, emb
I dent Succ nea into la,-v.•~.. At n its face contai ions that are ai t narrO\v-
r • •
ema1ns a test- 1n ducational ineaualiti...". example9 t t authori mal} incre~~
u11tabilit mJ reg uirinfl th
 I .JASON r. N

JUSTlflCATIO fRONGER A N I s
t .. "ngli!>h Jangua prog1 nr11s,1 - manda .
Jear11i11e
duL~1tional opportu111li 1
•
tLtdents .
111, o]\ ed i11 the Juveni}
les rnore
164
inallv, ESSA, c;in1ilar to its predecc\,or, still reauires states that re
tt.111, and 11rovi . . . eJUShc
lain protect1or1!>, 1ntlud1ng school pl· 1ve rcderal education funds to conduct student academic assessments
tabilit \l to students ,, h acernen
1
re ho1neless or involved 1n the t .l l
111 public c;choo]s for accountab1Itty purposes, even if it prohibits th
,~tt'Ol. f)' It also rcquir,, u~ er-care
h state to de\ elop a plan that describe dcral go\ ernrnent fron1 <leterr11ini n~ ho\v to wei2h those assess men
ho,,, lo,, 1ncon1e and n1in tcstc;. 112 Having a continued emphasis on high-stakes tcstin2 most Jikel
it I' children will not be disproporttonatcl
r,·ed h,· teachers ,vh ,viJI continue lo put students at risk of being ~ubiected lo the oe1 verse
are inexperienced, out of field, or inetfective.1
In add1t1on, 1t perrn1t ts of the high-stakes accountab1hty mo\-'erncnt <les1.:ribed earh ....
hool districts to enter into an experimental pro.
rain that consolidat cdcral, state, and local funds to create a single
undmg system using a weighted per-pupil allocation that accounts for nclusion
poverty and other d1sadvanta1?es for students. ' 67 It also provides grant
nsortiums of districts to expand interdistrict and regional magne Under our current public education system, 1nequalities in educational
p .
an1s to promote 1ntegra t 10n. 168 1 pportunities for stude11ts of colo r and students \,·ho live in povcr
\\
1
hile it 1s too ear]\' to fulJ}, understand the effect th ere and harm our childr~n and nation in seriou5 \-\'ays. The rat1• •-
,.,, 11 L -·.
H W Ucl\"
- - - - _ . . , .., 4 L
nales for the federal go, er11n1ent to address the<ie education inequaliti
n our public education system, there are serious concerns that hs cur-
e straightfor\vard, especially because n1ost ~tales de> not appear t
nt structure ,,·ill not adequatel}' address the educational inequahnes
addressing these inequalities in a meaningful \\'a}', as thjs volun1e
tare so deepl} embedded \Vithin our nation. First, and most unpor-
introduction persuasively explains. Education inequalities threaten the
kept Title I funds large!)' flat. In 2018, Title I funding ror ustainability of our den1ocracy and decrease the quality ot hte ror n11•-
1
disad, antaged students ,vas s15.4 bUl1011, ,, hich an1ounts to only a...
lion5 of 1nd1viduals. InequJl1tics also oose '-ievert economic harm to our
roximateI,, 2.4 percent of the total expenditures for public element~,.,. nation in t,vo ma1or fo1ms. First, go\ern1nents lose billions of dollars in
169
and secondary, education. As explained earlier, rnany people estimate lost tax revenue that ,, ould accompany incrcac;ed earnings by a n1ore
that poor students require at least 40 percent more resources (or much ducated ,vorkforce. Second, poor education 5V~tems lead to billion
rnore) than other students to achieve comparable academic levels.110 dollars in increased government expenditures by putting more 1ndividu-
1c;.4 b11l 1on simply 1s not enough to close the educational inequalit1 .ls on a path,,,ay that leads to tncarceration, poor health, and inLreased
gaps that plague our nation. Second, ESSA does not address the prob- dependency 011 govern1nent \velfare pr
lems associated \vith the rules governi11g the disbursements of Title I Furthermore, not onl) ,,·ould addressing the 1nequalit1e.s of our pub-
unds discussed earlier, ,vhich also severe!)' lin, it Title J's ability to nar- lic education svstem put our nation on a more secu re path democrat1-
\V 1nequaliti_.,,
llv, economically, and soc1all), but addressing these 1nequal1t1e~ 1
Third, ESSA transfers the power over education accounta bility back istent ,v1th the n1oral \·alucs to,, hich our nation ought to ad-
the state'i. \ \'hile it is still too early to tell, we should not be surpn~ed here. Lin1its to a child's future should not be determined bv factor!> that
at all if states accomplish very little to close education inequality gap n1oletel}' outside a child's control, ~uch as in ,vhat ne11?hborhood
iven the states' general refusal to promote equal educa tional oppor- u ~hild lives or the income levels of the child·s parents. Rather, as thr

tunity on their own in the past, 1 7 1 especialJy ,vhen th e}' have not been ,,rise philosopher and refor1ner John De,\ey astute!\ observed over one
given more resources to do so. Indeed, in exchange for federal full<l,, hundred vears ago, "\\'hat the best and ,,risest parent ,,·ants for his 0,,1

does not require state~ to create more equitable school fu nd in hild, that must the community ,vant for all of it" children Any other
terns across districts or to ensure that everv student will have an op- ideal for our schools is narro,v and unlo, ely; acted upon, 1t destroys our
nnnunin, to attend a middJe-cla~s schooJ. democracv:· 1
 I ~ P. ~ANCI

Ithou 11.h the kdern I go\ ein men t has }>J, scd seve ra] legi <.J. t .. 1'10 ( ) .L I
under its ,pendmg power, with the Intent to improve the qua)ih, . , a l\:efKac
. 'I O and ""ll Id.
education, th1\ lesnslatt~n thu~. far has farled
. to dose the opportuni,y
I 0. 'J AT AS 'f- HOi\fIRSKY & DAVI( J I A l\t ... I NDING GAPS 2015 : TOO
achil~\ ernent 2aps and, m some ways, has cre.itcd tondit1ons for the•• JANY PEN SS ON UD J U[)CNTS \VHC) N.r .BD 1'11
qualilles to expand. !he time has come for a much-stronger responseb1n. -l\,
~tOST l 2015). http://c<ltrust.or...
he federal go\ernment to ensure that all children ha\ e access lo a q11a1i l 1 J,
12 See Juli n Lafortune ct al., School t-u1a11 Re{or,n and the Distributto,r 1t
ducation. '" As Marta l'ienda and Sigal Alon remmd us, clearly we haf~
chiei• nenr J3 (Nat'l Hur(au of Econ . .R search, \Vorkin~ Paper No. 22011
the iust1fica tions Jnd resources to make the necessary torrections and 2.016),
ut our nation on a more secure path. \Vhethcr we have sufficient polifl. See Rtch.ird f). 1'.ahlenberg, Fro,n All \\'c1/ks of Life; 1\J rhool /11t,c,ra
al MIi to do so 1s an entireh d1fierent quc$tion altogether. i-- 1011 A~t. fl>LCATOR, \\'inter 2012-13, at 3.
1-.. Ro\lyn Arlin \t1ckelson & ~lartha Ilottia, Integrate ,n... llo n "Jth-
N'OTES
,atics Or1tco111ef: A Synthesis of Social Science Re.search, 88 N .c. r,. RH\' .
he author lh au b 5.i ra L S.1lcm for the a'-"~tan cc she pTO\ 1dcd for th I~ book 93, 1028-29 (2010); Sean F. Reardon, School s~gregatfon .a nd R11cial )\Lu·
hapter tnuc Achirve,nent Gtlps 1, 10, 19-20 ( \tan ford Ctr. for Educ. Polic.y Analyst.,,
\Vorking Paper "'-.o 15 12, 2016); Ru5\t:ll \\'. Rurnhcrger &
1. Ste , .•. , Meredith Phillip~ & Tilfan, Chin, School Ineq11n/ity: What Do Wt Mow.,
ur ,oc1AL •~rQLAL11·y 467, soo (Kathnn l\.1. Necken11an ed. 2004)
-grcgation Still J\Jatter? Thf. Impact of Studtnt Co,np 0'1 011
•
JVJL RIGH JS, l:~ DLP' ""' I\Chit·ve,ncnt j,i High School, 107 TCHns. c. RllC . 1999, 2002, 200n-
01· IiDt'c., 2013-2014 CJ\'Jl 005).
OLLEC1 IO~. IRST I
1' 6 ... (2016); OPF I CF Or CJVfL 15. Rear<lon, sup not(' 14, at 21 .
IGHTS, u~ l>F.P-T OF l!DUC ••, PROTI!C1 INC, <"' l \'Jt Rl~H rs ..ADVA'iCING
16. HLATlli' nv FOU~D .. HOUSIN POLICY I
QUITY 16-17 (2015); l/S GOV 'T ACCO l' 1' TAD I l ,ITY OH IC.I:, G ~0- 16- HS,
5C'HOOl POLICY: LY I RATIVE I I PkO l'r
K-12 EDUCATJO \ : DRTTI!R l:~l or JNFOR.\f.trrnM 1 (} ULD HEL ,- n u r.."1•
Dl!.i\1IC. S SS I!'\ i\iONTGO 0 D 5-1 (2010
lTIS IDENllfY Dl~PARfTJES AhD ADDR.C~5 RACI.
J!)C Rli\.fJI\AlIOh l 7. Set NA l' 'L C 1 R. l · 0 R E D U ,,, • . , O.IGE~'J' OP llDUCA'l'tO l'J I ,
21-22 (2016) fhere1nafterGAn rinucAT10 , Rl PORrI.
. llRA}.JI. ADAf.lSO~
table 221 .20. http~ lnces.cd.Qo (]ast visited i1ay 9, 2018 1 •
DA RI I NG-HA ,\1,\t O, ..,, 18. Jd One ob~Lrvc~ c;uniJar gaps r mathematic nchievcrnent among these udent
tss, SPEA "'I 0 I.A RJ
R. l OR A~f. PR
\\, HA "C JT \V'ILL TAKL ro GET QUALJflJ ..... , groups :,ee td. at tJ.blc 222.20.
TIVu Tl;;ACHlRS l""° All
0."1.fl\tU>t.JJ l'Irs 15-22 (2011); Linda Darling 9. Set Jon.ithan Rabinovitz_ Local Education Jne,Jt,ilfes across U.S. Revt'.cJ/ed ,n ,ve-"'
J.t1mmond, lnequalit;· a11
urces· t1'hat It ivi/1 lake to Close the Q ... tan/ord Data Stt, s1 A :,..1 o Rn N n,,,s, Apr. 29, 2016, https://ne\\'S.stanford.edu.
- l'JG TH
l I\' AP: \\· HA T A \1 ER I
20. Id
M
0 crvc I!\'URY CHfLD AN EVEN CHAN 1. S ean I- Rt.irdon, The Viidcn,n{! Ac,aae, t GllD b the Rich
rter . . .
Kc,,n C.,. \Velner c<ls. 1 2013) , "/ (Prud t.nc" -· ,, Ire Poor. 24 CO:\t~IL 'XIJ'Y I.NV. 19, 20 (2012).
. SttGAo rnucA1roN RUPonr.s11pranote2.at10; ... 2. Rab1no, 1tz. supra nntl! 1
t.· 'J/ .

BROW\1 A I r>o ' . R'\' ORFJfl D ., ,

I
RJ S\, A lO'JG Rfi 'fJ{HA'I,
... .,. Kl v1n G \\'elnt.r & Pruden rter. '
It'\.' Or-
1-U 1 t Rf 15 (2014) D 1\ C.L RI AlN
tun,,,. Gaps. ,n (.f.051:i-iG THI! OPPOR t t I, 3.
Set Cor) l urner tt al
teri(n's ,choo/s 2·t See ( hve Belfield & llenry .~1 Lc~1n, 1'h osts th ortunit
18, 2016,\\"\\,\.npr.org. :\ foni?l' Probte111 • .s PR, Apr.
ap,,11c10~1\oe, TH PPOR .l L, !l:JTY" 1 note 3, at 19_5; JOHN A1
. ,,r: Kt,·in \ fr.Lorrv, St
/i119 5choo/ v,sr r te/ U RIOC. A'N I \ ' l C E N' l I R H , 1 EPlf>TI~IJC: Pl R'>I
NP.,., /'\Pf. 27, 2011\ \\"\vwnpr.org . 1n Pc1111s_vli·anu., I \ h .\ 0 IIG H l. DROP (20
• \..,ory1·urncr l t al,, Is Thert, a Bl!tte • RY \ I...., tT A I., , TH D HN ll Pl T !-- 0 il A r-.· EX CE I I 1r s
20•6, \\"W\\ npr org. ~nu·r,ca~• ho ~. "'J r R, i\la}' 1,
l'(A llO 'i R -' t L O F A ~f fl R J,. HI LI> R :-- 9-.16 (2007); Jason P NJOCC,
•
ARU<.;F. IIA~hH 1 ·r Al 'Lo uc _ I A\\' CTR,, I
1 1(111t/llJ~ th -,a-Prison Pi 0 hClng - RIZ.. S"l'. I..J . 313,
'i( HOOi \fDI" AIR! •-' (2016)
i.. A110 ~,. 1. Ali Po R r c A Rn <-~ (sth ed. 20,n). 21-21
6 Bel fit:ld & l •· in. supr'l note 24, at 205 .