The Fight for Equal Education in the U.S. Has a Long History of Ups And Downs—Unfortunately, It Will Likely Stay That Way

In Gary B. v. Snyder (2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit found a constitutional right to a basic minimum education but later vacated its decision. Photo by Carol M. Highsmith.

In early April 2020, students across the United States received a generational win. In Gary B. v. Snyder (2020), seven students in underprivileged schools throughout Detroit claimed that the state government’s contribution to their inadequate education violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed this claim, the court nonetheless recognized the right to a basic minimum education. “Without the literacy provided by a basic minimum education,” Justice Eric Clay delivered in his opinion, “it is impossible to participate in our democracy.” 

But those who celebrated the decision could only do so for a short time. Just a few weeks later in May, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced that the state had reached an agreement with the plaintiffs. The agreement included provisions to bolster Detroit school systems and increase funding for literacy programs. Shortly after the announcement, the Sixth Circuit vacated its decision. 

We often rightly look back upon Brown v. Board of Education (1954) as emblematic of the power of reform not only in education but in society broadly. But the success represented by Brown, when situated within the broader fight for equal education, should not overshadow the barriers put up against reform. In Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus (1925), for instance, the Supreme Court unanimously enjoined an Oregon law that mandated compulsory public school attendance on the grounds that it violated the right of private schools to property. 

One of the most disappointing moments in the history of the fight for equal education came nearly two decades after the decision in Brown. Deciding in a paper-thin 5–4 split in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that education was a fundamental constitutional right. If the Supreme Court had decided otherwise, it would have subjected government action that infringes upon education to strict scrutiny. In other words, this would require the government to demonstrate that it “narrowly tailored” the law to achieve a “compelling government interest.” This is not meaningless legal jargon—one study on the application of strict scrutiny in federal courts between 1990–2003 found that only 24% of the cases dealing with fundamental rights passed strict scrutiny. 

While this decision is upsetting in and of itself, its relationship to the specific facts of the case carries even more weight. The plaintiffs in San Antonio ISD alleged that the state mechanism for financing public schools—relying equally on local funds in the form of property tax and state funds that attempted to subsidize districts that could not provide a basic minimum education—violated their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Put simply, children from poorer families would receive a worse education as a result of their communities’ disproportionately low tax base upon which to draw the majority of their funds. 

But the Supreme Court rebuffed the pleas of the parents who had filed on behalf of their children. Summarizing here in a gross simplification of legal nuance and unhelpful definitions (such as what constitutes “the poor”), their decision rested largely on the grounds that the government policy did not discriminate against the poor specifically. After all, the poor live across district lines. However, the majority’s interpretation goes beyond semantic or analytic arguments about the poor specifically. Nothing encapsulates this more than Justice Powell’s short affirmation: “the Equal Protection Clause [of the Fourteenth Amendment] does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.”

It can be hard at first to appreciate just how formative this decision could have been if even just one vote had defected. “Texas virtually concedes that its historically rooted dual system of financing education could not withstand the strict judicial scrutiny,” the majority opinion concedes, “...its counterpart in virtually every other State will not pass muster.” One vote stood in the way of a complete transformation of how we fund our public education systems. 

Yes, the percentage of total funding from local sources for public schools across the country has fallen dramatically from 80% in 1920 to about 55% in 1970. Since 2000, the share has hovered just above 40%. Nonetheless, the average public school in the United States relies almost half on municipal funds, completely severed from the needs and abilities of every other community.

The shift from local to state funding will by no means be the be-all and end-all of education inequities within states. Some, for instance, argue that state funding may actually decrease the quality of education for students compared to local funding. An extensive report by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy compares California and Michigan (states with high state contribution) to Massachusetts (with high local contribution). Michigan, specifically, severely restricted the use of property taxes for public education via a voter referendum in 1994, shifting the burden towards the state sales tax. While public education spending rose in the short term, it did not have sustained effects in the long run. Though Massachusetts’ growth in per-pupil spending from 1970–2018 ballooned by 253%, Michigan saw only 111% growth. 

Yet, these strains do not result from the issue of state versus local funding itself. After all, the report from the Land Institute concedes that Michigan’s proposition in 1994 not only restructured public education funding but restricted the options for school districts to supplement spending. Additionally, whereas Michigan’s state funding sought to equalize district funding across the board, Massachusetts focuses specifically on providing funds to districts that need it. In terms of the general gap in funding increases over time, this could simply be the result of different citizen preferences, a problem of interstate inequity in education as opposed to intrastate inequity due to local funding. 

The world could have been much different. History may soon have sweeping condemnations to make about the decision Gary B. v. Snyder (2020). Certainly, a constitutional right to a basic minimum education would have paved the way for an expansion in Supreme Court protections for the most fundamental function of our society. Hopefully reflecting on how much we have lost in the battle for bettering our education can provide guidance and strength to carry the fight forward.

Jack Holmgren (CC ‘24) is a Staff Writer for CPR studying Political Science and History.