Have you ever asked yourself why the US public education system (K-12) is founded on local community level school districts funding??
In this system, the best educational schools and funds for those schools' resources (breadth and depth of the curricula, teacher quality, & class size) occur in the local school districts with the highest per-capita income levels. The reverse is true for low income per capita districts.
So if equal opportunity, which hinges largely on one's educational experience, is so important, then why does the US system continue to insist that it be so inherently & deeply biased to favor the higher income school districts? One obvious reason that it remains so heavily biased is that it perpetuates & maintains the relative income of the high income groups.... this is a simple way of saying that the nation (as a whole) believes we should discriminate among students by their family's income levels. ... keeping the lower classes in their place (so to speak)... or stated another way, "privilege has its privileges".
Shouldn't we (as a society) want to maximize overall educational opportunity rather than maintain & continue to promote a system that inherently provides a relatively better educational opportunity & experience in k-12 public education for those with the greater incomes? and a relatively worse one for those with lower incomes?
The empirical observation irrespective all the rhetoric is that we obviously don't want to maximize it... but to the contrary want to maintain a system where the higher income groups get a better public education in k-12. Now why would this be the case?
The obvious answer is that "somehow" the maintenance of an income discriminatory public education system which favors the higher income groups is perpetuated by those who's children receive the greatest benefits of the discriminatory system That would be the higher income groups of course. So how does the relatively smaller group maintain a system which discriminates in their favor over the relatively larger and lower income groups?
Well, since bouderies of school districts are decided by the school districts themselves, then naturally, those in higher income groups don't want to reduce their relative advantage by incorporating lower income groups that border them... since this dilutes the income per student in that district.
So who are the deciders in school districts? Oh... that would be the district wide elected Superintendent and School Boards. Which bodies of course are elected by the parents (voters) within that school district whose incentives are to maximize their own student's educational opportunities and experiences... not worry about or even consider those of the lower income neighboring districts.
Such a system that is designed to inherently perpetuate inequality in education is testament to the fact that the segment of society with greater incomes, although a much, much smaller proportion of voters and society, has and maintains control of the political forces that also perpetuate and maintain the "public" advantages of that much smaller but higher income group.
Just another blatant example of "money talks, everybody else sucks hind tit".
Is it possible, I mean is it just possible that we really don't operate a democratic system where one person = one vote in any real sense of the term? Or is it that parents in lower income school districts just prefer that the ones in their neighboring high income districts get more and better educational resources? Go figure