Legacy of Jim Crow still affects funding for public schools

( Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from acemic experts.)

Derek W. Black , University of South Carolina and Axton Crolley , University of South Carolina

( CONVERSATION) Nearly 70 years ago – in its 1954 Brown v. Board decision – Supreme Court framed racial segregation as cause of educational inequality. It did not, however, challenge lengths to which states went to ensure unequal funding of Black schools.

Before Brown, Sourn states were using segregation to signify and tangibly reinforce second-class citizenship for Black people in United States. court in Brown deemed that segregation was inherently unequal. Even if schools were “equalized” on all “tangible factors,” segregation remained a problem and physical integration was cure, Court concluded.

That framing rightly focused on segregation’s immediate horror – excluding students from schools based on color of ir skin – but obscured an important fact. In dition to requiring school segregation, many states also h long segregated school funding. Some h used “ racially distinct tax ” policies that reserved separate funds for white and Black schools. Or states h moved school funding responsibility and control from state officials to local communities. Local officials could n ensure inequality without any specific law mandating it .

Brown’s focus on physical segregation invertently left important and less obvious aspects of local funding inequality unchecked. Those practices still drive underfunding in predominantly poor and minority schools. Through University of South Carolina School of Law’s Constitutional Law Center , since 2021 we have been documenting historical connection between segregation and states’ reliance on local school funding. In our view, until states stop relying so heavily on local school funding, equal educational opportunities that Brown first sought will remain out of reach for K-12 students in 21st century.

What’s wrong with local funding

A large body of evidence shows “ money matters .”

Increased spending improves college attendance rates, gruation rates and test scores. But, as a 2018 report revealed, school districts enrolling “ most students of color receive about $1,800, or 13%, less per student” than districts serving fewest students of color.“

A more recent analysis furr demonstrated that school funding cuts during Great Recession disproportionately affected Black students and exacerbated achievement gaps.

Most school funding gaps have a simple explanation: Public school budgets rely heavily on local property taxes . Communities with low property values can tax mselves at much higher rates than ors but still fail to generate anywhere near same level of resources as or communities.

In fact, in 46 of 50 states , local school funding schemes drive more resources to middle-income students than poor students. local funding gap between districts mostly serving middle-income versus poor students in New Jersey , for example, is $3,460 per pupil. While state and federal programs often send ditional funds to poor students, y are insufficient to fully meet ditional needs of low-income students .

Missed opportunities to cure local funding

In Brown v. Board, court glossed over history of school segregation and its nuances. court said it was impossible to "turn clock back to 1868,” when nation opted Fourteenth Amendment, or “even 1896,” when court authorized segregation. Inste, it declared that “we must consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout Nation.”

This pivot let court tackle segregation on a slate scrubbed clean of history’s mess. But it also deprived court of any serious consideration of Sourn states’ complex and racially motivated system of local school funding.

Later court decisions did not even recognize that a problem with local funding might exist. To contrary, y put a preference on local funding over remedying inequality. In 1973 case of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, court rejected a challenge to inequality local school funding causes, reasoning that “local control” over school funding was “vital to continued public support of schools” and “of overriding importance from an educational standpoint as well.”

A year later, in Milliken v. Brley, Supreme Court blocked a desegregation remedy that would have spanned multiple districts. Finances and local autonomy were at heart of court’s rationale. It wrote , “No single trition in public education is more deeply rooted than local control over operation of schools.” In its view, desegregation between districts would destroy that trition and create a host of problems regarding local school funding.

To be sure, those decisions did not preclude desegregation within individual districts. But Court declared desegregation and school funding inequality that occurs between school districts – as opposed to within school districts – as largely beyond reach of federal judicial power.

Funding, control and segregation

Our research reveals that during South’s Reconstruction , Black people and progressive whites saw state control as solution to inequate and unequal education. y opted policies to that effect , many of which were enshrined in state constitutions rar than laws reversible by legislature.

Local communities were certainly important to implementation of schools, but states like Texas and Virginia centralized school ministration, school finance and a variety of or policies. Some states, such as South Carolina , placed core issue of physical segregation under state control and prohibited it outright.

n, during Jim Crow era, localism became tool to reverse this progress and equality . States increased reliance on local taxation , gave local white officials discretion over state funds, and constitutionally secured segregation . Some went so far as to craft color-coded funding systems where white taxes funded white schools exclusively.

Ors, like South Carolina , achieved same end by letting taxpayers select which of segregated schools would receive ir funds. Sourn leers openly linked local funding and control to “wisdom” of segregation .

development of Norrn local school systems was historically distinct. Yet, even in some Norrn states, racial antagonism and concerns over segregation prompted pushes for local decision-making . More generally, some Norrn states followed a trajectory similar to Sourn states: Illinois, for example, imposed a statewide property tax for white education with supplemental local funding before Civil War. Ironically, though, it ultimately became one of states most dependent on local funding .

Toward a more fair system

While Brown v. Board declared school segregation itself unconstitutional, or related aspects of segregated schools – particularly decentralization of school funding – continued unchecked after it. longer those aspects remained, more courts accepted m as a neutral aspect of delivering public education.

[Over 150,000 reers rely on Conversation’s newsletters to understand world. Sign up today .]

An important step in remedying entrenched school funding inequalities is to first recognize that y are rooted in history of Jim Crow segregation. Anor potential step is to return to more centralized approach of Reconstruction – an approach that states during ir progressive eras have long recognized. And this step makes good constitutional sense, too. After all, every state constitution places ultimate obligation to fund and deliver public education on states , not local governments.

This article is republished from Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Re original article here: https://conversation.com/legacy-of-jim-crow-still-affects-funding-for-public-schools-181030 .