Diversity and Equitable Funding in Public Education:

The Ultimate Salves

C|M|LAW
Howard L. Manuel
Cleveland-Marshall Law
 Table of Contents

I. Introduction 2

A. Personal Experience 2

B. Fixed Mindsets in Education 3

II. A Brief History in Education Reform 5

A. Education Finance Reform Litigation 7

III. The Case for Diversity 9

A. Research Supports Diversity 9

B. Why Diversity Benefits Schools 10

C. Merging reform and school finance 11

IV. Conclusions and Recommendations 13

A. Equalizing Classrooms 14
 Diversity and Equitable Funding in Public Education: The Ultimate Salves

di·vers· ity - \də-ˈvər-sə-tē, dī - Generally stated, diversity refers to differences among people. The concept of

diversity goes beyond accepting differences among individuals or displaying respecting for one another; rather

diversity involves the recognition and acknowledgment of these differences. One must put forth genuine efforts

to understand the vast differences that are within each individual, irrespective of race, religion, or national origin.

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary (2009)

I. Introduction

Personal Experience

Over the decades, racial and economic diversity have been long sought goals and, where they

exist, an essential element in the success of the American education system. On a personal level, my

elementary and secondary education presents a good case study of diversity at work in American

education inasmuch as I had the opportunity to experience primary and secondary education in

suburban, urban, and other varied contexts.

The majority of my primary education was completed in urban schools. In most of my classes, I

blended in quite easily, as most of the students were from minority groups and their families were

considered lower to middle class. While I attended three different schools within the Columbus City

School District, the demographics of these schools were primarily the same. As students from the same

demographic surrounded me on a daily basis, we were all clearly comfortable and content with each

other. Teachers in these schools were of the same background, too, mainly coming from minority

groups. As the teachers came from the same urban background as the students, they had a “mindset”

that was similar to that of the students.

 Around the time that I entered secondary school, better economic opportunities for my family

allowed me to attend school in the suburbs. The overall atmosphere and facilities offered at these

suburban institutions were by far beyond the caliber of any school in the urban system. However,

within a very short time I found that the comfortable atmosphere which I experienced with my peers in

the inner city schools was soon replaced with feelings of inferiority. This was not the usual transitory

nervousness that a child feels when moving to a new neighborhood, but rather a feeling of simply not

being accepted at all. The problem was many of the students in my classes had never had an African

American classmate before; indeed, some of my peers behaved as if they had never even seen African

Americans. Sadly, these students were mirror images of the mindsets of their parents: a mindset in

which the only visible world was that of the Caucasian-suburban dwelling family. Poverty and unmet

needs were an unknown and crime was something fought by Super-heros on television. I was perceived

by students and administrators as an alien who did not fit into their environment.

While it took substantial time to gain acceptance from my peers, once I did, I was able to show

that my experiences could positively affect the classroom. Through my classroom contributions, which

were greatly affected by my background and prior environments, I became a sort of living testimony to

what life was like for those outside the suburban boundaries. Over time, my peers and school

administrators positively affected my educational thought process and my desire to succeed. It was

apparent to me even at that young age that “breaking the mold” and adjusting the mindsets we have in

education must happen in order for educational equality to occur.

Fixed Mindsets in Education

In her book, Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Carol Dweck defined the growth

mindset as, “a commitment to learning – taking informed risks and learning from the results,

surrounding yourself with people who will challenge you to grow, looking frankly at your deficiencies
and seeking to remedy them.”1 Dweck’s “growth” mindset could enhance education reform, but sadly

legislation continues to fail in the area of promoting diversity in public schools. Rather, the majority of

the proposed reforms continues to focus, in a vacuum, on “quality” of education and, related to that, on

simplistic statistical measures.

The decision in Brown v. Board of Education2 was a watershed event heralding the value of

diversity in education. In Brown, the Supreme Court held that 'in the field of public education, the

doctrine of separate but equal has no place’. The Brown Court drove home the fact that African

American children, and other minorities, who were separated from the majority Caucasian students

were inherently stripped of the potential to benefit from a diverse exchange of ideas. The landmark

ruling in Brown led to mandated, far reaching changes in public schools, subsequently integrating

classrooms across the nation. For millions of Americans, this case has been fundamental to enhancing

the value of the American education system.

Though Brown led to substantial progress towards educational equality, recent research reveals

that America's schools are steadily becoming re-segregated. The growing residential separation by race

and income levels in America, often via “suburban sprawl” or “white flight”, has caused significant

disparities in the racial composition of classrooms. These recent trends have negative effects on our

nation's classrooms, impacting both student achievement and social harmony. Years of erosion in what

were great achievements in integration have brought back memories of the fixed bias and mindsets in

our schools and more importantly in Congress which is responsible for key legislative initiatives

relating to education.

So, while we continue to celebrate the historical landmark effects of Brown, this issue of lack of

diversity has lately, yet again, continues to plague our educational system. Lack of diversity has altered

the culture in which America's school children learn, and this has had extremely negative effects insofar
1 Dweck, C.S. (2006) Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York: Random House
2 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
as children’s views of our society. Sadly, our fixed mindsets have created cynicism amongst those in

the lower tiers of American society. And, among those children residing in the wealthiest enclaves,

many have no conception of what life is like “on the other side” of their cities.

At present, the quest for diversity in the classroom continues to lack the necessary support from

the courts, leaving many school administrators wondering how to promote this issue. Petitioners have

used the courts to alter states’ education finance systems on the grounds of de-facto segregation and

illegality. Courts have held in many of these cases that the petitioners have failed to show a compelling

interest strong enough to allow race to be a factor in re-districting systems.3 For the majority of cases

brought to the Supreme Court, the court has failed to become a proponent of fully and finally enforcing

diversity in America's classrooms.

The analysis below aims to prove that our fixed mindset towards diversity in educational reform

has had detrimental effects on the educational system. Part II examines recent federal education

legislation and financial reforms. Part III establishes how and why diversity can positively alter the

value of public education. Lastly, Part IV will propose why legislators and school administrators alike

should adopt Dweck's growth mindset when proposing future legislation.

II. A Brief History of Modern Educational Reform

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 19654, was the government's

preliminary effort in modernizing education policy. Congress enacted ESEA in order to allow

substantial federal funds to flow into schools districts which had high concentrations of low-income

families.5 The law was sub-divided into five Titles. Of these Titles, three would substantially reform

3 Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, 934 (5th Cir. 1996). See Also Brewer v. Irondequoit Cent. Sch. Dist. 212 F.3d 738 (2d
Cir. 2000)
4 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. SS 6301-8962
5 See Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 SS 201; INDEP. REVIEW PANEL, IMPROVING THE ODDS: A REPORT
ON TITLE I FROM THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL 2 (2001), available at: http://www.cep-
dc.org/pubs/improvingoddsreporttitlei_irp/improvingoddsreportingtitleipanel.pdf
schools. Title I provided guidelines for educating disadvantaged students. Title II provided money for

the purchase of library and audio/visual equipment. Title III provided funding for programs to improve

efforts in meeting educational needs at America's most high risk schools. All of these efforts were

essential to the goal of equalizing opportunities in American education.6

Though ESEA offered extra support to those districts which had to educate disadvantaged

schoolchildren from low income families, it was soon amended with many new requirements. Congress

later passed the Improving America's Schools Act, which required the states, and more specifically the

districts receiving the funds, to hold disadvantaged students to the same standards as all other students.7

The Improving America’s Schools Act was analogous to other “quality-based” reforms which

began with the Reagan Administration. This era was marked by a belief that school reform could be

based on a market-inspired theory.8 In particular, lobbying efforts persuaded legislators to implement

reforms which have included higher standards, accountability, competition, choice, and privatization of

many educational services.9 By the end of 1984, the standards–based accountability reform movement

was born, as school reformers began an ambitious agenda to raise educations standards nationwide.10

Many saw this reform movement as a radical departure from past reforms and foresaw some dire

consequences which haunt education reform today.

The market inspired theory was exemplified in the No Child Left Behind Act11 (NCLB) which

was signed into law by former President George W. Bush. The legislation was one of the most

sweeping educational reform acts of the modern political era, containing over 750 pages of law and

1,500 pages of new regulations. The act covered funding for over ninety percent of America's school
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., How No Child Left Behind Benefits African Americans (2005) available at
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/nclb-aa.pdf.
9 See Report from National Comm’n on Excellence in Education to the United States Dep’t of Education, A Nation at
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (Apr. 1983)
10 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2001)
11 John Charles Boger, Education’s “Perfect Storm” Racial Segregation, High Stakes Testing, and School Resource
Inequities: The Case of North Carolina, 81 N.C. L.REV. 1375, 1392 (2002-2003)
districts and many other educational support agencies. Many of its provisions were focused on teachers

and their training, literacy, delinquency, and charter schools.

This legislation adopted a specific approach to standardized testing and accountability for the

performance of the pupils. These state test results would hold educators, schools, districts, and students

accountable for their achievement. Moreover, failure to reach state objectives would subsequently lead

to federally mandated sanctions. For example, after two years of failure, the school could apply for

technical assistance and an option would come into play for students to transfer to another school.12

Three years of failure would allow a student to use his share of funding for tutoring or supplemental

schooling from an outside group.13 Four years of failure would lead to a change in staffing at the

school.14 Lastly, a fifth year of failure would lead to governmental take-over of the school.15

Much of the bipartisan support for the Act, naturally due to the great interest in improving

education for America's children, quickly diminished after the bill's passage. Representative Dick

Gephardt, who voted for the bill, explained, “[w]e were all suckered into it. It's a fraud.”16

Subsequently, many studies showed that the states’ costs of meeting the federal mandated

requirements were far exceeding the money the federal government was providing to them.17 For some

districts these extra costs to accommodate this federal legislation overwhelmed already tight budgets.

Most notably affected were those districts which were unable to quickly adapt their pupils and teachers

to new state mandated curriculum. Evidently, many of these districts were located in urban areas and

were also most likely to be penalized monetarily and socially by the effects of NCLB. The mandated

compliance with market inspired reform quickly created a new wave of school segregation, as those

12 No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 6311(a)

13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 See Peter Schrag, Bush’s Educational Fraud, Am. Prospect, Feb. 2004, available at:
http://www.prospect.org/print/v15/2/schrag-p.html
17 Id.
with the means quickly moved their children to better performing schools that were usually not in

minority areas.

Education Finance Reform and Subsequent Litigation

Reform of education finance in the mid 1900's resulted in most public education being funded

through local property taxes.18 To date, inner city school districts continually receive substantially less

money per pupil, as urban districts continue to become poorer, receiving less funding from property

values and local businesses.19 A boom in housing and integrated schools quickly led to mass 'white

flight' from urban schools.20 With this mass exodus to the suburbs, the tax base that urban schools had

relied upon quickly dissipated.

Educational reformers swiftly moved to challenge the validity of these finance systems on

equity and adequacy grounds. The first major funding case was Serrano v. Priest21 in which the

California Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners on their argument that the State's property

tax system discriminated against poor children insofar as educational opportunity. Later though, a

setback occurred in San Antonio v. Rodriguez22 when the U.S. Supreme Court held that education was

not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution and that the suspect class had not been

disadvantaged. Thus, the Court upheld the Texas school district funding scheme. During the subsequent

years there was a wave of litigation in state courts in which plaintiff's advocated various claims in

hopes of a contrary result. The first wave of litigation was based on equity issues, arguing that per-pupil

spending data showed such massive disparities and that such was prima facie inequitable and

discriminatory. The New Jersey case, Robinson v. Cahill23, marked the emergence of this wave of
18 James E. Ryan & Michael Heise, The Political Economy of School Choice, 111 Yale L.J. 2043, 2058 (2002) (stating that
all states except Hawaii rely upon local property taxes for their school budgets)
19 See Michael E. Lewyn, The Urban Crisis: Made in Washington, 41 J.L. &Pol’Y 513, 520 (1996) (stating how
suburbanization erodes city tax bases and leave low-income families in the inner city)
20 The Judicial Betrayal of Blacks – Again the Supreme Court’s Destruction of Hopes Raised by Brown v. Board of
Education, 32 Fordham Urb. L.J. 109, 128 (2004).
21 Serrano v. Priest, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971)
22 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. (1973)
23 Robinson v. Cahill, 63 N.J. 196, 198 (1973)
litigation. More recent lawsuits have put forth the claim that school district funding in some cases fails

to meet constitutionally mandated education thresholds. In most of these cases, the courts have failed to

order judicial remedies or relief to petitioners regarding state education finance systems.

It is evident that one of the major roadblocks to adequate and equitable funding for education is

due to the fact that the courts have been asked to take on the task of solving the funding problem, when

in essence they are ill-suited to “solve” that problem. Therefore, future education reform must address

finance issues as well as the related issue of re-integrating America’s schools.

III. The Case for Diversity

The implementation of policies based on various market inspired theories and the failure to

solve the funding issues in Legislatures has led to severe divisions in America's public education

system. Federal legislation has not only failed at substantially improving educational outcomes, but has

also deprived children of an adequate education by perpetuating social and racial divisions in America's

classrooms.

Research Supports Classroom Diversity

A recent study conducted by Dr. Patricia Gurin, Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies

at the University of Michigan, concluded that the academic success of a student could be promoted by

surrounding the student with classmates of different backgrounds and races.24 The benefits to students

identified in her study included enhanced intellectual and academic skills, and a heightened potential

for critical thinking and understanding. Students who learn in these diverse environments also were

able to demonstrate an improved ability to offer creative solutions to problems.25 Most notably, Gurin

24 See Janet Ward Schofield, Review of Research on School Desegregation’s Impacts on Elementary and Secondary
School Students, in HANDBOOK OF RESEARCH ON MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION 597 (James A. Banks &
Cherry A McGee Banks eds., 1995) (noting that interracial interaction at a young age helps children to form positive
impressions of those of a different race)
25 Id.
observed that White students, who participated in the study, showed better performance after

interacting with students of other races. White Students demonstrated “increased scores on the

measures of complex thinking and social/historical thinking,” increased, “drive to achieve, intellectual

self-confidence, and goals for creating original works.” Gurin attributed these results to the challenges

presented to students by interaction with those of different races.26 Specifically, she contends that by

encountering, “novel situations,” such as interracial interaction, students are forced to abandon their

conscious thoughts and adapt to their new environment.27 Gurin's study went on to conclude that

diversity is an essential component of education.28 Further studies have demonstrated similar results to

that of Gurin's. Most recently, a Virginia Literacy Testing Program found that students in integrated

schools outperformed students in segregated schools in all subject areas and in every grade.29

While these studies have established that racial and socioeconomic diversity is key to the

success of schoolchildren, our present mindset has stripped schoolchildren of their potential. Prior

legislation has attempted to reduce these differences in student performance, but such legislation fails

to pay particular attention to the causal factors: race and class.30 In truth, legislators have done little to

eliminate the inequalities and the widening gap due to centuries of academic and social inequalities in

our nation.

Without reasonable recognition of the fundamental causes in designing future reforms, there

will continue to be mass disparity in America's schools and, consequently, children will continue to

lack the necessary cultural views and diverse ideas needed to improve our nation.

Why Diversity Benefits America's Schoolchildren

The diverse classroom has been shown to expand the minds of American students and further

26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. Regents of Cal., 190 F.3d 1061, 1064 N.6 (9th Cir. 1999) cert. denied, 121 S.Ct. 186 (2000)
30 Linda Darling – Hammond, Evaluating No Child Left Behind, THE NATION, May 21, 2007, at 11, 13, available at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2007/20070521/darling-hammond.
prepare them to participate in a diverse society.31 In a recent study conducted in Cambridge,

Massachusetts public schools, results showed that exposure to cultures and experiences of other racial

and ethnic groups helped the students better understand different vantage points.32 Further, the students

showed an increased willingness to interact with other members of different backgrounds.33 Ninety

percent of the students who were part of this research reported that their school experience better

prepared them to work with individuals of other cultures.34

An integrated classroom also affects children after they have left primary and secondary

education. Research has shown that students who attend diversified schools can help reduce

segregation among higher education institutions.35 A 1980 study conducted by Dr. Henry Braddock

showed that African Americans who attended desegregated high schools were more likely to attend

colleges which were predominately white, showing that an integrated classroom breaks down self

perpetuating mindsets in America's classrooms.36

One of the most profound and important benefits of an integrated classroom is that it promotes

acceptance of other races by eroding and discouraging long-standing stereotypes. Recent studies have

shown that diverse classrooms break down harmful racial stereotypes and can consequently decrease

white prejudice towards black students.37 In this latter study, researchers stated that interracial contact is

most effective at reducing stereotypes and prejudice in minds during the "formative years.".38 Another
31 Grutter v. Bollnger, 39 U.S. 306, 330-31 (2003)
32 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Holding segregated schools as unconstitutional)
33 See e.g. Kim Cobb, After Desegregation: Public Schools Seek New Remedies Where Race-Based Orders Failed, Hous.
Chron., June 2, 2002, at A1 (showing Will Counts 1957 Photograph of Hazel Brown screaming at Eckford outside
Central High School)
34 See Erica Frankenburg et al., A Multiracial Society With Segregated Schools: Are we losing the Dream? 15 (2003)
available at: http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/reseg03/Arewelosingthedream.pdf
35 See Jomilis Henry Braddock II, The Perpetuation of Segregation Across Levels of Education: A Behavioral Assessment
of Contact-Hypothesis, 53 Soc. Educ. 178, (1980).
36 Marvin Dawkins * Jomilis Henry Bradock II, The Continuing Significance of Desegregation: School Racial
Composition and African American Inclusion in American Society, 63 Negro Educ. 394 (1994) (Finding that both blacks
and whites educated in desegregated elementary schools were more likely to attend a desegregated college and work in
an un-segregated environment)
37 Peter B. Wood & Nancy Sonleitner, The Effect of Childhood Interracial Contact on Adult Anti-Black prejudice, 20 Int’l
J. 14-15 (1996)
38 Id.
similar study came to the same conclusion, finding that "racially balanced classrooms maximize the

interracial friendliness of both blacks and whites."39 These studies show that intergratating America’s

classrooms can encourage students to embrace other races and beliefs while replacing the negative

beliefs and mindsets which they might have had about other ethnic groups with positive thoughts. All

these studies lend validity to the idea that to be most effective America's classrooms must be integrated.

Educational reform and education finance must be merged as issues to yield real equality in

educational opportunity

The idea that education finance reform and diversity are related has been almost totally

overlooked. Both of these issues share the identical goal, which is the improvement of opportunities for

minority children and the poor. In education finance “reform”, legislators continue to adopt the same

worn out ideas passed down through the generations. Legislators must adopt a different mindset and

recognize how education finance is rationally tied to solving the problem of diversity.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have substantially upheld finance systems in states and the

unfortunate consequence of these cases has been the re-emergence of de facto segregation. Variations in

district expenditures have led to large disparities in spending per pupil between the wealthiest and

poorest districts in most states. These disparities in funding levels are quite serious for poor schools. As

one scholar has stated, “one cannot reasonably believe that children in poor districts have the same

education opportunities as children in rich districts.40

Since minority students are disproportionately poor, there is clear class segregation which has

been created by prior Finance Reform. This concentration of poverty in inner city school districts has

severe consequences on the budgets of these schools. While many of these schools are in areas which

receive little funding from property taxes and other sources, they are also burdened with students from
39 Maureen T. Hallinan & Steven Smith, The Effects of Classroom Racial Composition on Student’s Interracial
Friendliness, 48 Soc. Psychol. Q. 3, 13-14 (1985)
40 See R. Craig Wood & David C. Thompson, Educational Finance Law: Constitutional Challenges to State Aid Plans –
An Analysis of Strategies 11 (2nd ed. 1996).
impoverished backgrounds and have greater needs, thus making it more costly to educate them.

Consequently, these schools which are filled with impoverished students are generally costlier to run

than schools with middle and upper class students.

Recent research has shown that roughly two-thirds of black students attend elementary and

secondary schools in inner-city districts. The remaining schools are populated with mostly minority

students.41 In particular, only 25% of the students enrolled in the largest forty-seven urban districts

were white.42

Students from a disadvantaged background often come to their schools with greater needs than

their peers from more prestigious backgrounds. As stated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in a recent

school finance reform case,

“With concentrated poverty in the inner-city comes drug abuse, crime, hunger, poor health,

illness, and unstable family situations. Violence also creates a significant barrier to quality of education

in city schools where often just getting children safely to and from schools is considered an

accomplishment.”43

The greater the need, the greater amount of resources needed. Consequently, schools with large

amounts of impoverished students will face the greatest costs, and in addition, they often need

additional services such as extra security and counselors. While minorities of states have recognized

this fact, the majority of states still fail to provide these extra resources to these schools.44

Inner city students, mostly the poor minority class, have received the short end of the bargain in

the wake of finance reform. With the increased burden on public districts to seek funding from local

41 See James E. Ryan, The Influence of Race in School Finance Reform, 98 Mich. L. Rev (arguing that minority school
districts, especially those in urban areas, do not fare well in school finance litigation, and that race seems to play an
influential role in court decisions and legislative reactions to those decisions)
42 See Council of Great City Sch., National Urban Education Goals: Baseline Indicators, 1990-91, at xi (1992)
43 Abbott IV, 683 A.2d 417, 433 (N.J. 1997) (In Abbott II, the Court concluded that the needs of students in high poverty
districts exceeded those of suburban students).
44 Abbott, Supra.
taxes, finance reform has disadvantaged urban schools with a budget far below what is needed.

This finance reform legislation has worsened the effects of suburbanization. Urban schools

continue to lack funding and academic outcomes get progressively worse. Consequently, non-minority

families with the necessary resources routinely move their children to better performing schools. In

addition, non-minority families are deterred from moving into urban areas due to the failing state of the

schools.

Indeed, proponents raise the issue that merely increasing funding to all schools will not solve

the racial segregation issue in public education. The issue raised is correct, which is why many

education analysts continue to state that there cannot be only increased funding to those inadequate

schools.45 This is why school funding and all other education reforms, including diversity, must be

considered as a package.

In addition, the main problem with education finance is that the majority of racial integration

disputes are handled in the judiciary.46 The judiciary has been clearly incapable of answering questions

regarding education finance and racial integration in these post-Brown cases. However, if the Judiciary

is to continue to rule on education finance, the related element of diversity must be included in the

definition of an adequate education.

In order for courts to consider a school district “adequate”, it must be deemed that the district is

diverse. This strategy has been pursued by plaintiffs in Paynter v. State.47 In Paynter, Plaintiffs argued

that the State had engaged in practices which resulted in high concentrations of racial minorities and

poverty in certain schools districts, leading to below par student performance. Though the Plaintiffs’

argument failed to persuade the majority, Justice Smith's dissent in Paynter was sympathetic to the

argument, stating “the alleged cause of the problem, the high concentration of poor and minority
45 James E. Ryan, Race and Money, 109 Yale L.J. 249,256 (1999)
46 Michael D. Blanchard, The New Judicial Federalism: Deference Masquerading as Discourse and the Tyranny of the
Locality in State Judicial Review of Education Finance, 60 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 231, 249 (1998)
47 Paynter v. State, 797 N.E.2d 1225 (N.Y. 2003)
students, is not one that is beyond the powers of the State to remedy.”48 Smith's dissent urges that

reform to education must be a formula which fixes funding and integration issues together in order to

offer a basic, “adequate” education. Legislators must construct reform which does not see school

funding and diversity on two different plateaus. These two issues must be formulated to equalize

education for all students.

IV. Conclusion and Recommendations

Diversity in education has not been given adequate consideration in legislative initiatives,

though it is an essential component for a complete and adequate education. Members of various

economic classes and racial groups bring with them experiences and individual traits that contribute to

their personality. These different attributes contribute to the educational system as they promote

intellectual growth and development amongst all students enrolled in public schools.

Constructing school reform that equalizes America's classrooms

Future school reform must create a culture of success for minority and non-minority students. In

this effort, we must mobilize not only legislators, but also school administrators, parents, and students

alike. There must be a clear assessment of past reform legislation and appropriate critiques of the

negative effects which past legislation has had on integrating public schools.

The key to reform in the schools is legislative initiatives that fully and finally respond to the

obligation of desegregating school districts and equalizing funding. This will not only bring diversity to

school districts, but will also lessen the substantial burden insofar as court oversight.

Past reforms have often relied on the use of choice-based programs. More specifically, allowing

student to use choice-based vouchers to transfer from inner city or outer city schools. Many researchers

have noted, though, that these vouchers will compound the disparity between thriving and struggling

48 Id.
districts.49 The truth is that with the choice-based program there needs to be focus beyond the

application stage of the program. In particular, parents of low income students tend not to have the

necessary information or even transportation to get to out of city schools. Students of suburban schools

often do not have a way out of desegregated schools. Thus, there is need for further reform to include

enhanced information and funding available to students of all classes and race.

True school reform requires more than allowing parents to merely move children into better

performing or charter education. It is clear that if there were an emphasis on diversifying education and

allowing all schools to be put on the same footing, tax-dollars would not have to be spent in funding the

transfer of students into different venues.

Rather than moving students to other schools, legislation must recognize that we can fix

schools that are presently falling apart. We must use our tax dollars to alter the decrepit environment in

which our inner city students learn. In addition, money should be earmarked to hire better qualified

teachers to turn around these failing schools. An improved environment in inner city schools would

result in better attendance of students from more affluent backgrounds.

In order for us to fix the failing environment of these schools, legislators, federal and state, must

first note the correlation between financing America's education and overall reform of the system.

These two issues have continued to stand separate and apart, though both have substantial impacts on

the results we get from our educational system and the diversity of our schools. It is essential that

future reforms demand equality and be coupled with reform which re-molds the funding underpinnings

of our schools. Absent this, equality in schools is not possible and any quality based legislation will

continue to drive divisions.

Clearly, the current funding system in most states is a detriment insofar as the possibility of

having an equal playing field for all schools. Specifically since most school systems have no

49 Amy Stuart Wells, Choice in Education: Examining the Evidence of Equity, 93 Teachers C.Rec. 137, 147-150 (1991)
guaranteed source of funds to meet the standards set by legislation, they continue to have more

expenditures than revenues.

To reform schools there must also be reform which would fund public schools on an equal

basis. Property tax schemes should only be a partial revenue source for public education. Courts have

continually taken up the challenge of the validity of school funding schemes and do not have the

requisite experience nor are they held politically accountable for their rulings. In essence, legislation

which reforms schools must take up the issue of education financing in America's public schools.

Federal legislation cannot continue to demand quality education which places a higher burden on

already struggling schools. This type of legislation continues to drive class and race divisions in our

educational system.

There are school districts which are able to create adequate funding from property taxes, while

others struggle to raise sufficient funds. In addition to making property taxes only one of the funding

sources, reform should permit the federal government to provide more funding to those disadvantaged

districts which would equalize the gap between well funded and disadvantaged districts. Federal aid

should also be distributed to those troubled schools for additional services such as security and

intervention programs. This needed extra funding should come to these districts as emergency aid

rather than funding which would later mandate requirements which are beyond the reach of the

administration and students at the district's present state. If these disadvantaged schools were given

sufficient funding which would allow for an improvement of their facilities and faculty, there would

likely be an improvement in diversity. The same families which often avoid and/or escape from an

inner city education will eventually see that the education offered in the inner city is of the same quality

as that in suburban, more affluent schools.

Administrators and lawmakers must recognize the importance of diversity in our classrooms.

Every person carries with them experiences and traits which make them unique to the body politic.
These traits can and must be utilized to improve the social growth of the pupils in our classrooms. We

must make valiant efforts to surround our youth with a diversity of individuals who have creative ideas,

ideals and traits which influence positive growth. As Carol Dweck stated, the growth mindset requires

surrounding yourself with people who will challenge you to grow, and so we must move towards a new

frontier in education, challenging students of all races, social classes, and religions, to grow into a new

diverse mindset of the twenty-first century.