scholarly journals For the Kids: A Place for Equity in Kansas School Finance Litigation

2015 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 104-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Roellke ◽  
Preston Green ◽  
Erica H. Zielewski

Author(s):  
Rachel F. Moran

Many people take for granted that the antidiscrimination principle and an equality norm are one and the same. In fact, there are significant differences that should not be overlooked. Education law offers unique insights into the distinctions because school desegregation cases both concretized demands to be free of discrimination and cultivated aspirations to be equal. In the years since 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that racially separate schools are inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education, the antidiscrimination principle has evolved into a requirement that the government be colorblind; that is, public officials must refrain from all consideration of race in their decision-making. A colorblindness requirement can have perverse consequences for equality. Most notably, local school districts today cannot weigh race in making student assignments to promote voluntary integration. Faced with constraints like these, reformers have sought to capitalize on an antidiscrimination principle without sacrificing their goals for equality. For example, federal civil rights statutes designed to protect children with disabilities and English language learners mandate meaningful access to the curriculum as well as protection from discrimination. In school finance litigation, advocates have moved even further away from an antidiscrimination focus. They have demanded recognition of a right to education, an interest that acknowledges every child’s right to flourish. New strategies that push beyond the antidiscrimination principle to promote equal educational opportunity have not been uniformly successful, but they can deepen our understanding of a fair and inclusive educational system.


2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Newman

Deliberative theory has served two purposes in recent studies of education policy-making at the community level in the US: as a lens through which to examine existing practices, and as an ideal toward which to strive.These studies, though, overlook a prior and important theoretical question: should deliberative theory be applied to education policy-making? In this article, I explore this question from an egalitarian perspective. I criticize the prevailing assumption that deliberative decision-making is an egalitarian way to make education policy, by underscoring how it fails in this instance on its own terms. I argue that deliberating about education policy is especially problematic compared to deliberations about other social goods, owing to the unique relationship between education and political equality in public fora. I also highlight two features of American education — de facto segregation, and the availability of exit options — that further challenge the appropriateness of using deliberative processes for education policy-making. Given the current state of educational politics, I conclude by pointing to the benefits of school finance litigation and its rights-based approach, which establishes educational entitlements that apply across communities.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document