HOW ABOUT AN EQUAL EDUCATION AMENDMENT?

 

Every American child's educational opportunities are, in large measure, determined by their zip code. Why? Because education spending varies dramatically from school district to school district and from state to state.

When the "No Child Left Behind Act" became law; and when the "Every Student Succeeds Act" replaced it, Congress and the President were just feeding the voters humbug. Instead of demanding the transparently impossible, they should have addressed these funding inequalities. 

Sure, "throwing money" at schools won't necessarily make them better. Nevertheless, you usually get what you pay for. Besides, how many times have you heard that "throwing money" argument directed at defense spending or paying to get star professional sports players? Seldom, I'll wager. That argument is primarily used to obscure the intention of just not spending any more money regardless.

 Outrageous inequalities in per-student spending persist from district to district and state to state. Federal politicians are well aware of this. But they, in essence, say, never mind that. Just, make sure every student succeeds. That no student is left behind.  That level of hypocrisy is breath taking — even for politicians.

Federal tinkering minimally addresses some of the most grotesque inequality. But more than a century of widespread persistent inequality suggests that only a constitutional amendment would apply the consistent and persistent pressure necessary to actually correct this situation. Such an amendment would bring federal judicial scrutiny that would pack the legal muscle necessary to insure compliance. 

What would an Equal Education Amendment look like? It might read something like this:

EQUAL EDUCATION AMENDMENT Section 1. Equality of Educational opportunity under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of race, sex, income or place of residence. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Would an equal education amendment have sufficient support in Congress? That seems doubtful. Would the required two thirds of the states ratify it? Probably not. But just raising the issue of such an amendment would focus needed attention on the inequities. 

 Who would oppose such an amendment? In a MAGA dominated House and Senate, there would be abundant opposition. What would be their stated grounds? Probably that an equal education amendment would establish excessive federal control over what are properly state and local matters. Never mind that in the Bush years Republicans took the lead in the most massive federal infringement of state and local control of schooling in our history. The No Child Left Behind Act and its successor. But that was then, this is now. 

Of course the most vociferous opposition would come from whoever benefits from the present inequalities. The more advantaged states and communities would forfeit their present advantage. And you can bet both voters and their representatives would oppose that. 

Only the federal government commands the necessary resources to provide every child in the nation with equal educational opportunity.  At least as that is defined by per-child spending. But to pull that off federal legislators and the Whitehouse would have to rearrange priorities pretty dramatically. 

That gets us to the main advantage of putting an Equal Education Amendment on the table. It forces hands and reveals agendas. It puts an issue out there that most politicians want to dodge. The question is, what is more important, providing every child with equal educational opportunity, or serving interests they are presently beholden to? It’s high time that we ask that question. But don't hold your breath for an honest answer. 

There is, however, one other consideration. Extra financial resources for economically disadvantaged schools might be throwing good money after bad. Why think that kids who often fail to take advantage of present opportunities, would take advantage of better ones? A lot of kids in financially disadvantaged school districts are truant a good portion of the time, are openly dismissive of the opportunities presently provided, and make life miserable for any classmate who takes learning seriously. People will ask, why pay more for that? Is that a good question?