FPJ Thesis

Inequality in the Classroom: An Ethical
Analysis of Educational Disparity in

America
Makenna L Bright
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the Minor of
Faith, Peace, & Justice Studies
Boston College
Morrissey College of Arts and Sciences
May 2020
© Copyright 2020 Makenna L Bright
Inequality in the Classroom: An Ethical Analysis of Educational Disparity in
America
Makenna L Bright
This paper is an analysis of inequality in the realm of education, specifically pertaining to
the uneven allocation of resources and the de facto segregation existent in today’s public
school system. The paper focuses on Boston as a specific example of this complex social
justice issue in the United States. This paper traces the history of systemic racism and
market-driven principles that contributed to the modern-day issue, discusses current
views and research on the disparities between schools in Boston, analyzes the injustice of
the issue through a Kantian ethical lens, and calls for a plan of action to help solve the
issue. The solution to this problem involves electing former and current teachers to
office, organizing protests and demonstrations, and finally changing the current funding
structure of public schools in America.

RUNNING HEAD: INEQUALITY IN THE CLASSROOM: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF 4
EDUCATIONAL DISPARITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................. 4
1.0 Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................... 5

2.0 Chapter 2 Normative Analysis.................................................................................. 6
2.1 Description of the Problem: Context and Views on the Issue.................................6
2.1.1 Historical Context of the Issue.................................................................................................. 6
2.1.2 Academic Scholarship on the Issue...................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Current Views on the Issue..................................................................................................... 18
2.2 Personal Experience and Ethical Analysis................................................................. 23
2.2.1 Personal Experience of the Issue.......................................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Ethical Analysis: Kantian Ethics............................................................................................ 25
3.0 Chapter 3 Action Plan................................................................................................ 29
4.0 Chapter 4 Conclusion................................................................................................. 33
Bibliography........................................................................................................................... 34
INEQUALITY AS WE KNOW IT: AN ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF EDUCATIONAL 5
DISPARITY
1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction
Inequality is as entrenched in American society as is classism. Nowhere is this inequality
more evident than in this country’s education system. The public school system favors the
wealthier communities and leaves poorer communities with fewer resources and lower quality
schooling overall. The root of these inequities can be traced back to the era of segregation and
the reign of white supremacy (which can further be traced back to the rise of slavery in America
and the trend of colonialism globally). The racist attitudes towards minority-races and ethnicities
is embedded in America’s classist education system. These attitudes and systemic injustices in
the education system are morally wrong, according to a Kant’s categorical imperative, definition
of duty and good will, and his ends principle. Boston is a particularly relevant example of
inequality in America. The city is known for having racist attitudes and is highly segregated in
terms of the public school system. The system is highly unfair and only a breakdown of this
social justice issue and a plan of action can make it more equitable. According to a Kantian
perspective, the inequitable allocation of resources in different school districts in Boston is unjust
and can only be remedied after a confrontation of white supremacy along with capitalism as well
as a reconfiguration of funding efforts when it comes to public schooling in the United States.
DISPARITY
1.0 2.0 Chapter 2: Normative Analysis
1.1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM: CONTEXT AND VIEWS ON THE
ISSUE
1.1.1 2.1.1 Historical Context of the Issue
In order to break down the social justice issue of inequality in the education system, it is
important to explain the context and the background of the issue first. The origin of the issue can
be traced back to the time of school segregation in the United States. Prior to 1954, schools were
segregated on the basis of race, and it “was absolute in the South and very high in many school
districts in other parts of the country” (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 200). In 1954, the Supreme
Court outlawed “de jure racial school segregation in American public schools” (Reardon &
Owens, 2014, p. 200) in the Brown v. Board of Education decision. This legal decision did not
immediately eradicate segregation in America, however. Segregation had become systemic at
this point in history as a continued tactic to keep the resources under tight control in the agenda
of whiteness.
Children of color still often ended up in lower quality schools surrounded by other
children of color and certain laws and restrictions kept children of color out of white schools. In
the South, for example, many school districts initially put into place so-called “freedom of
choice” desegregation plans, which were designed largely to preserve racial segregation by
putting the onus on black families to enroll their children in white schools, an option unappealing
to most black families given the animosity of many white families to integration” (Reardon &
DISPARITY
Owens, 2014, p. 202). Although the student population was 79% white in public schools in 1968,
“over half of black students attended schools where 90% or more of their classmates were black”
(Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 202). In fact, according to Reardon and Owens (2014), “nationally,
77% of black students attended majority black schools in 1968 (Orfield 2001), …and the average
black student was enrolled in a school where only 22% of students were white, (Coleman et al.
1975)” (p. 202). These patterns of segregation did not only affect black students; the systemic
racism extended to other minority groups, as well. Since 1968, “Hispanic students have
experienced continually increasing segregation from whites… as Hispanic students’ exposure to
white students has steadily fallen since the late 1960s and representation in majority-minority
schools has steadily risen” (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 204). This de facto segregation did not
end with time, either, although it did decrease at times.
In 1968, the Supreme Court again stepped in to outlaw segregation in schools. The
decision in the case of Green v. County School Board of New Kent County required school
districts to adopt more effective plans to achieve integration (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 202).
As a result of this decision, “hundreds of school districts were subject to court-ordered
desegregation plans” by the mid-1970s (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 202), which caused a
temporary decline in the levels of segregation. According to Reardon and Owens (2014), “The
average within-district variance [segregation] ratio index dropped from 0.63 in 1968 to 0.37 in
1972; the black-white exposure index increased from 0.22 to 0.33 over the same time period” (p.
202). However this momentary decrease in segregation did not last into the beginning of the
twenty-first century, almost fifty years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
According to Reardon and Owens (2014), the proportion of black students attending
predominantly minority schools rose from 63% in 1988 to 73% in 2005 (Orfield & Lee 2007)”
DISPARITY
(p. 203). Although the groundbreaking Brown v. Board decision and the consequent reforms
were not immediately implemented across the country, they led to a decline in segregation along
racial lines and paved the way for future policies and programs in the Boston Public School
System.
The reason for the renewed decline in integration is partially due to the opposition from
white families. White families resisted the desegregation movement. White flight became the
trend of the time; white families not only fled to other districts but some also left the public
school system completely. According to Reardon and Owens, “white enrollment in private
schools increased, particularly in majority black school districts” “in response to desegregation
in the 1960s and 1970s” (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 206). Many white families attempted to
delay segregation as much as they could. They did not want to send their children to the same
schools as black and other minority-race students, therefore, perpetuating white supremacy and
segregation long after the Brown decision.
After the decisions of Brown v. Board of Education and the move toward desegregation
and integration in schools, the government officials in Boston began to implement busing
programs and other desegregation reforms. The segregation of public schools was so ingrained
and mainstream, black activists “had organized meetings, organizations, rallies, boycotts,
independent busing programs, independent schools, and candidacies for public office all to draw
attention to the inequalities endemic in BPS” (Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 192). Nothing was
done about it until about twenty-five years after the Brown decision, however. Finally, Judge
Garrity of the District Court in Massachusetts found that Boston’s School Committee had
“knowingly carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting all of the city’s students,
teachers, and school facilities,” and ordered comprehensive desegregation to begin in September
DISPARITY
[1974]” (Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 192). Although the segregation in Boston was even
recognized and outlawed by a judge, the city still pretended it was not an issue.
The media in Boston as well as opponents to the new reforms, such as the Boston School
Committee, started framing the issue as a busing issue instead of an issue of segregation in the
mid-1960s. As Delmont and Theoharis (2017) put it, “with “busing,” Northerners found a
palatable way to oppose desegregation without appealing to the explicitly racist sentiments they
preferred to associate with Southerners” (p. 193). Segregation and racism was not unique to the
South, even in the wake of the aforementioned court decisions and policy reforms. White city
officials in Boston “were denying the problem and denying the fact that it was a problem due to
racism…and characterized those pushing for desegregation as “outsiders” (Delmont &
Theoharis, 2017, p. 195). They were also claiming “there has never been any discrimination in
the city of Boston and those who say there is are doing a great disservice to this great city”
(Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 195). The city was virtually split by race. The busing program
became a point of contention between whites and other races in Boston. The reform meant to
decrease segregation became a tool for white people in Boston to keep students of minority races
and ethnicities from receiving a quality education.
The government in Boston decided to work to uphold segregation in the city instead of
doing as Court had told them to do to desegregate (which would have been cheaper). The city
officials “decided to buy an old synagogue, Beth El (which cost $125,000 to buy, $10,000 to
repair, and $90,000 a year to operate), rather than bus nearly two hundred black students from
the crowded Endicott District to white schools (which would have cost only $40,000)” (Delmont
& Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). According to Delmont and Theoharis (2017),

DISPARITY
“Keeping black students in separate facilities was a way for the Boston School
Committee (the elected body that ran the BPS) to provide them with an inferior
education: six of the city’s nine black elementary schools were overcrowded. Four of the
district’s thirteen black schools had been recommended for closure for health and safety
reasons, while eight needed repairs to meet city standards. Per pupil spending averaged
$340 for white students but only $240 for black students” (p. 195).
In response, the NAACP and other activists called for reform and organized protests, such as the
“Stay Out for Freedom” protest in which black students boycotted school (Delmont & Theoharis,
2017, p. 192). But, the white officials and organizations were smart and tactful in the name of
white power and supremacy.
The local government did everything in their power to disguise policies as reforms
aiming to end segregation, but in reality, the policies upheld segregation and disadvantaged
people of color at every turn. Boston passed an open enrollment policy in 1961, “much like the
freedom of choice plans that popped up across the South in the mid-1960s” (Delmont &
Theoharis, 2017, p. 196), in order to appear compliant with the federal mandates of the time.
However, “there were numerous barriers for black families to actually use it, while white
families often took advantage of it to transfer out of schools in transitional neighborhoods”
(Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). Further, the Boston School Committee “forbade the use of
school funds to bus children” to out-of-district schools, even though there were “seven thousand
open seats through the city” (Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). Again black families and
activists organized efforts to protest these injustices. Some parents under the leadership of Ellen
Jackson and Betty John created “Operation Exodus,” in which the parents used their own money
to pay for the busses to bring their children to the open seats in public schools throughout Boston
DISPARITY
(Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). Their efforts to desegregate did not end there either. The
black parents and activists started the METCO (Metropolitan Council for Educational
Opportunity) program “to enable black students to attend suburban schools” (Delmont &
Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). METCO may have bused some students of color to higher quality
schools, but it did nothing to raise the quality of the schools they came from.
The racist attitudes in the city extended beyond just black students and families. They
also affected other minority race and ethnicity groups. According to Delmont and Theoharis
(2017), “five thousand Latino students, according to a 1970 report, were systematically excluded
from schools.” (p. 196). Not only were they excluded, but Latino students were also mistreated
within the classroom. They “were treated as deficient and a problem in need of fixing—not the
school system itself” (Delmont & Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). Despite the legal requirement to
desegregate public schools in Boston, the programs, such as METCO, and legislation put forth
by white government officials and families often perpetuated the racial inequality in the city
instead of solving it.
1.1.2 2.1.2 Academic Scholarship on the Issue
The current desegregation programs in Boston, including METCO and the school
assignment system are the same ones that have been around for decades. According to Haynes
(2019), “3,100 Boston kids are waking up and commuting for more than an hour on buses and
trains to go to school in 33 suburbs, in an effort to help integrate them.” As one of the most
current initiatives aiming to desegregate public schools, “the four-year graduation rate for
students in METCO is roughly 30% higher than students in Boston public and charter
schools, according to a Harvard researcher. The college enrollment rate was also 30% higher”

DISPARITY
(Haynes, 2019). METCO helps the students who are lucky enough to be selected because they
get to receive a higher quality education they would not be able to receive otherwise. METCO
may have both positive and negative consequences, but it ultimately fails to address the root of
the problem.
METCO students are not always completely accepted into their new schools; they still
face discrimination and persecution. According to Haynes (2019), METCO students often have
difficult times in their new schools “because of the discrimination and the racism they encounter,
and the lack of belonging.” Students of color who are bussed out to suburban schools learn to
assimilate to their new surroundings. According to the METCO CEO, Milly Arjabe-Thomas,
METCO students will say things like, “I know how to navigate the white world. I’ve spent my
whole life this way so now when I go out to a job out there I feel like I belong and no one can
shut that door on me” (Haynes, 2019). A Boston area sophomore, Kayla Simpson, says, “hearing
racial slurs,” including the n-word, “in the hallways or in class is not uncommon” (Haynes,
2019). Although the Boston government markets the METCO program as a desegregation
program, it is nowhere near a fix for the systemic racism that is the root of the issue in the city.
As the Boston city council education chair said, “a handful of kids in a suburban school is not
going to diversify that school experience” (Haynes, 2019); he then calls for “more diversified
communities” in order to create “more diversified schools” (Haynes, 2019). METCO may
expose certain students to new areas and experiences, but it does nothing to answer the protests
and outcries of people of color in Boston or to address the inequality throughout the public
school system there.
METCO is only one piece of the school assignment system in Boston. The overall school
assignment system in Boston is based on a tiered-model and assigns students by a lottery system,
DISPARITY
which sounds like a fair system but is far from it. The schools in each school district are
separated into four groups, or “tiers,” that include the following: the top 25 % of schools in BPS
(Tier I), the middle 26-50 % of schools (Tier II), the middle 51-75 % of schools (Tier III), and
the remaining schools in BPS (Tier IV) (Learning Lab Staff, 2014). The Learning Lab website
(2014) explains the process of school assignment as follows:
“When a family wishes to register a child for school in Boston, every family receives a
customized list of schools to choose from based on where a family lives. A family’s list
includes every school located within a one-mile radius of a family’s home. The list
includes at least two top performing BPS schools and at least four schools that are in the
top half of district performance. If the schools within a one-mile radius do not meet these
qualifications, BPS will include the nearest high performing schools on a family’s list.”
Parents “List a number of choices (BPS recommends at least five) and order them in the true
order of preference to increase the chances of getting the school that you want. Students are then
assigned a school by a computerized lottery. The computer tries to assign students to their
highest listed choice for which they have the highest priority.” (Learning Lab Staff, 2014This
process is not inherently racist, but the way it is implemented in Boston and the exceptions made
result in a racist system that perpetuates segregation in the public school system.
Due to exceptions to the school assignment system, groups of minority races and
ethnicities are often disadvantaged and end up segregated in the often lower-tiered schools. Some
areas of Boston are overcrowded, and the number of families living in these areas sometimes
outnumbers the spots available in the public schools in the area. “When this is the case, a list
may also include “option schools,” according to the Learning Lab website staff (2014). Option
schools “provide families with additional school choices beyond the mile radius, so as to reduce
DISPARITY
crowding certain parts of the city,” or “they will be on a family’s list if they provide access to a
program that would not otherwise be available, such as Advanced Work Class or early education
programs” (Learning Lab Staff, 2014). There are also “pathway schools,” which refers to paired
elementary schools and middle and high schools (Learning Lab Staff, 2014). Then, the “students
completing the highest grade at BPS early education schools are guaranteed a seat at a pathway
school or have priority for the next grade in other schools on their list” (Learning Lab Staff,
2014). These exceptions to the lottery system give families who can afford early childhood
education and pathway schools an academic advantage because they are guaranteed a spot in
certain elementary schools. METCO and the school assignment system for Boston Public
Schools are the perfect example of systems that favor white, affluent students and promote
inequality rather than remedy it. The issue lies in the implementation of certain exceptions that
put wealthy, white families at an advantage over other families. The education system is not only
built on preference for whites, but it is also built on market-driven principles.
Current scholarship reflects previous findings that the market-driven, racially segregated
public school systems in our country and in Boston, in particular, fail to eradicate inequality.
Scholars recognize the fact that no matter what definition is used, “segregation has either
increased substantially or changed little” (Reardon & Owens, 2014, p. 199). “The confluence of
residential segregation in US cities and neighbourhood school student assignment patterns often
results in highly segregated school systems with disparate outcomes between schools in
neighbourhoods with different economic and demographic compositions,” says Billingham
(2014, p. 697). The intersection of race, socioeconomic status, capitalism, and education
manifests in the segregation and disparities between schools in Boston’s public school system.
DISPARITY
The capitalist system that America is built on has created a market-driven education
system. Market-driven principles aim to create products that customers want to buy. In a
capitalist, consumer-driven system, all institutions (including schools) want to do whatever will
bring in the most money. According to Billingham (2014),“contemporary school reforms often
reflect an infusion of market-driven logic into traditional public education systems” (p. 688). The
money for the public schools is generated by taxes on the real estate of the residents of the
district in which the school is zoned. The more money the schools have, the higher the quality of
the school. Since the city of Boston is highly separated by race and SES geographically, the
schools that serve mostly students of color and students from low-SES backgrounds have less
funding than schools in affluent, mostly white neighborhoods. The affluent, predominantly white
areas of Boston also have higher rates of graduation and academic attainment. For example,
Back Bay is a Boston neighborhood with 87.7 % white residents, while the neighborhood of
Jamaica Plain has 51.3 % Latino residents and 14.9 % black residents and the South End has
19.6 % Latino and 8.5 % black residents (Kwate & Goodman, 2014, p. 155). According to this
study, Back Bay residents have higher educational attainment on average than those in Jamaica
Plain and South End (Kwate & Goodman, 2014, p. 155). The capitalist system and the need to be
competitive even in the market of education have caused much of the inequality in the education
system.
Many of the educational reforms of the past fifty years have one thing in common:
market-driven motivations and foundations. Opening up more schools in Boston, an example of
what was happening across the country, introduced “more competition into the educational
market” and “is seen as the best way to promote families’ liberty” (Billingham, 2014, p. 696)
following the American philosophy of individualism and freedom. However, on a closer look,
DISPARITY
more options and more competition in the education market does not benefit every American
family. Billingham’s (2014) article says:
“While professional parents in urban areas are frequently supportive of other market-
driven components of school reform movements (changes to teacher tenure, merit pay
systems, etc.), when it comes to student assignment they frequently advocate
constraining, rather than expanding, the educational marketplace. This serves not as an
example of free-market infiltration, but rather as an example of exclusionary social
closure within urban neighbourhoods (see Parkin, 1979)” (p. 696).
Many urban families cannot afford the competitive schools, and the public schools that are
competitive are unattainable to them, as well, due to the zoning laws, lack of feasible
transportation options, and largely geographically based assignment systems in place.
In Boston, they tried to counteract this trend by implementing the tiered, lottery system of
school assignment. However, Billingham (2014) states: “despite critics’ claims that market-
driven reforms provide added privilege to affluent urbanites, the evidence from Boston suggests
that the retraction of market-driven policies does not necessarily counteract urban inequality” (p.
698). Despite the new assignment policies in the Boston Public School System, the inequality in
the system remains. Addressing the market-driven aspect of education policies is not the solution
to inequity in the public school system. The inequality extends and compounds in all factors
affecting the lives of those living in urban poverty. “Watson (2009), for example, concluded that
income inequality ‘affects the prices of housing and neighbourhood attributes, making it costlier
for low-income families to live near high income families” (Conkling & Conkling, 2018, p. 518);
and moreover, “housing markets amplify the effect of income inequality on the well-being of
different socioeconomic groups’ (843)” (Conkling & Conkling, 2018, p. 518). The current
DISPARITY
education system may look like a fair and equal process on the surface, but underneath it is a
systemically racist system that disadvantages not only minority-races but also people living in
poverty.
The schools in lower-income neighborhoods are often dealing with greater constraints
than those in affluent areas. One study found “surprisingly few enrichment activities available in
schools serving low-SES families because fewer budgetary resources were allocated to those
schools” (Conkling & Conkling, 2018, p. 519). In lower SES areas and schools, both the student
and teacher turnover rates are high, leaving teachers and students constantly having to adapt and
reconfigure their learning. In Conkling and Conkling’s article they explain this unique challenge
facing schools serving lower SES students:
“Teachers must figure out how to maintain curricular consistency and common
expectations for students while the composition of their classes changes from week-to-
week. In addition, schools that primarily serve low-income students are likely to have a
higher percentage of first-year teachers (Ingersoll and Merrill 2010), generating
expectations that even second- and third-year teachers will provide a great deal of
mentoring and leadership, which can become overwhelming when added to teaching
responsibilities. (Conkling & Conkling, 2018, p. 519).
Overall, scholars agree that the market-driven system and reforms in the United States does little
to counter-act inequality and racism, and they are not the only ones who see the injustices
brought on by the current system.

DISPARITY
1.1.3 2.1.3 Current Views on the Issue
Citizens and contemporary journalists have confirmed the findings of the scholars and
historical research in saying that the current system and policies related to education in Boston
are inequitable and favor white, affluent families over most other families. In fact, a piece on the
website for the WBUR radio station reports on a study conducted by the Boston Area Research
Initiative saying, “that Boston's algorithm for assigning students to schools is restricting access
to high-quality schools for many minority students, and that high-quality schools are
disproportionately grouped in the city's historically white neighborhoods” (Chakrabati & Alston,
2018). Therefore, white students are faced with fewer obstacles to achieving success than
students of color. Chakrabati and Alston (2018) recognize that “the findings are reflective of the
racial and socioeconomic segregation evident in the city's geography” (Chakrabati & Alston,
2018). Boston is a prime example of a city separated by race and by the ideology of white
supremacy, which affects the quality of education available to citizens of the city.
The inequality evident in BPS, even with programs and policies like METCO, is a multi-
faceted social justice issue. Sending minority-race, urban-based students to primarily white
suburban schools up to two hours away from their homes is a “trade-off” that “might not be
attractive” to all families (Chakrabati & Alston, 2018). Therefore, “we need to be having those
two conversations simultaneously, rather than just arguing about the policy on one end and the
quality on the other end, they go hand-in-hand” (Chakrabati & Alston, 2018). Other
contemporary sources agree with WBUR’s Chakrabati and Alston. Boston is rife with inequality,
despite the efforts to minimize it, and the data supports it in a Boston Herald piece claiming
“ninety-three percent of Asian and 85% of white sophomores last year scored “proficient” or
“advanced” in math, compared to 57% of black and 58% of Hispanic sophomores” (Sobey, 2019).
DISPARITY
According to the article, “more than 40% of both black and Hispanic sophomores are in the “needs
improvement” and “failing” categories for math, compared to 15% of white and 7% of Asian
sophomores” (Sobey, 2019). The inequality that is a result of the city’s education system is
evident.
In Boston, schools that are only miles away could not be more different when it comes to
quality, demographics, and resources for students. In a Boston Globe article written by Gay and
Russell (2019), they follow two students: one at the affluent, white, suburban high school of
Newton South and one at the under-resourced, poorer, minority-majority high school of Brighton
High. Although the schools are only 3 miles away, the obvious differences and disparities
between them seem glaring and almost appalling. “Jada attends Newton South, a sterling
suburban high school that routinely sends graduates to the country’s elite universities” (Gay &
Russell, 2019), in the article. Meanwhile, “Britney lands just 3 miles away at Brighton High, a
floundering city school where fewer than 30 percent of graduates earn a college degree or other
credential within six years of graduating” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The two students’ experiences
are telling of the educational paradox in Boston: the fact that two schools in the same city can be
so different and be on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of a quality education.
Britney recounts her struggles at Brighton High to Gay and Russell, and, in the process,
she exposes the inequities in Boston’s public school system. At Brighton High, “many students
have significant unmet needs beyond campus, ranging from mental health concerns to
immigration anxieties” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The students are struggling with more than just
school and the pressure to succeed academically. There are often mental health issues related to
issues of systemic injustice around poverty, criminalization, and racism that go undiagnosed and
untreated in these students. At Brighton “nearly all the students are black or Latino,” “roughly
DISPARITY
half its 600 students are still learning English,” and many students work full time jobs on top of
going to school (Gay & Russell, 2019). All of the Brighton students “are trying to bootstrap their
way into English language proficiency — perhaps even a shot at college” while dealing with
external factors and responsibilities that many grown adults do not even have to handle (Gay &
Russell, 2019). Brighton is also the type of school where “the average student missed nearly 30
days of class,” “more than 40 percent of… students did not graduate within four years,” and the
“dropout rate outpaced the rest of the state by a factor of four” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The
teachers “have some students who need more [academic] challenge” and some “students who are
dealing with homelessness” (Gay & Russell, 2019). According to Gay and Russell (2019), “its
struggling student body is in some ways the inevitable result of a stratified district that funnels
high-achieving pupils to a handful of elite…schools while relegating others to a range of lesser
classrooms, where performance and expectations often fall short” (Gay & Russell, 2019). Again,
this is more proof that the competitive education system based on capitalist ideals in the city of
Boston puts students of minority races and ethnicities at a disadvantage from the start. Many of
them never get the chance to bring themselves out of poverty, unlike their primarily white,
wealthy, economically successful counterparts at schools like Newton South.
At Newton South, Jada, an African American METCO student, speaks of the array of
opportunities she and her classmates receive through their high school. Newton South has a
dropout rate 26 times lower than that of Brighton High, and “nearly every member of the
school’s affluent, mostly white student body graduates on time” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The
students here receive every opportunity to succeed and a public education of the highest quality.
According to the Globe article, “in 2018 fully 100 percent of 10th-graders scored proficient or
higher on the English Language Arts MCAS, the state achievement test” (Gay & Russell, 2019).
DISPARITY
The school’s enriching extracurricular activates achieve excellence, as well. The “speech and
debate team has earned two state championships in recent years” (Gay & Russell, 2019), while
the “theater program, which is supported by a dedicated parent group, mounted a host of
productions last year, including a student directing festival” (Gay & Russell, 2019). Also, “the
school boasts more than 100 clubs — groups for would-be doctors and strategic financial
investors, aspiring roboticists, attorneys, even cheese enthusiasts” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The
opportunities offered to Jada and the students of this suburban public school set them up for
prosperous college and professional careers in a way that Brighton High does not.
Not only are opportunities more plentiful, but also the parents are more involved in the
suburban wealthy schools because they simply have more time to demonstrate their interest in
their children’s educations. The funds for the school and its activities come from parent
organizations, fundraisers, taxes, and the government. To add onto this, “a community-supported
scholarship fund provides financial assistance for low-income students to join their classmates in
a variety of international programs: cultural exchanges with China and France, a service trip to
Puerto Rico, expeditions to the Galapagos Islands to study ecology or to Sweden and Iceland to
study climate change” (Gay & Russell, 2019), so every student may have the opportunity to
participate in these enriching activities and experiences. Jada herself had the chance to attend a
service trip to Puerto Rico. The school provides Jada with more opportunities than her peers at
Brighton High.
The disparities between these two geographically close schools are glaring. Gay and
Russell (2019) sum up the differences in two perfectly descriptive sentences towards the end of
their article: “At one, students select new and gently used clothes that have been donated to an
onsite “store.” At the other, students park in a lot that offers a charging station for electric
DISPARITY
vehicles.” It is obvious the suburban school serving the children of the wealthy is the higher
quality school in terms of academic achievement and opportunities offered. It has more resources
and funding to provide its students with every opportunity to succeed in the world, while the
urban school serving the city’s poorest families struggles to keep students engaged and is barely
keeping its doors open.
The lives of the students in each of these two schools are as different as the two schools
themselves. At Brighton, students like Britney sleep for four hours a day, go to school for seven,
and work minimum wage jobs (PETCO for Britney) for the rest, all while keeping up their
school work, dealing with mental health issues, and taking care of their families. Students at
Newton South stress about homework, soccer games, and deciding to which colleges they will
apply. Gay and Russell said, “And yet, if education, proverbially, is America’s great equalizer,
schools like Brighton are often called upon to perform double duty: serving as a triage station for
students who’ve fallen through the social safety net, while also striving to prepare those students
to compete with the Newton South graduates of the world” (Gay & Russell, 2019). But, these
schools are so under resourced that achieving this feat would be nothing short of a miracle.
Sobey’s article (2019), too, remarks on the education gap saying, it “can be disastrous for
peoples’ personal lives” because “it doesn’t allow people to develop the skills and knowledge to be
employable” as schools like Newton South do. The discourse paints a detailed picture of the
inequality within the public school system in Boston and begins to explain some of the
consequences of this inequality for students. My own personal experience reflects this research,
as well.
DISPARITY
1.2 2.2 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND ETHICAL ANALYSIS
1.2.1 2.2.1 Personal Experience of the Issue
I have witnessed the disparities in the education system in Boston firsthand as a student
teacher in the city’s public school system. Through my teacher education program at Boston
College, I have worked at both an under-resourced, urban public elementary school and an
affluent, high quality suburban public school in the greater Boston area. Not only were the
demographics and experiences of the student body glaringly different, but also the amount of
funding and resources each school had was obviously much lower in the urban setting. At the
suburban school, the student population was primarily white. The urban school I worked at, on
the other hand, was a majority-minority school, and I taught primarily Hispanic students in the
Sheltered English Immersion second grade classroom. Not only were these students learning the
core subjects, but they were also trying to understand and learn English at the same time. Many
of the students at this school were new immigrants, coming straight from Honduras or the
Dominican Republic, etc. They did not speak a word of English, yet they had to learn math,
reading, and writing taught completely in English. These students received clothing, meals, and
medical checkups from the school in addition to their studies. Many of their parents had too little
formal education to be able to read and write and most did not speak English, making parent-
teacher interactions more difficult and few and far between. This also meant the parents were
less involved in their children’s education, either for anxiety of having to speak English or for
not knowing it at all or for not understanding some of the cultural interactions of schooling in the
U.S.
DISPARITY
A couple of miles away, the suburban school in which I taught housed mostly white
students from affluent families. It was clear these students were having academic conversations
with their parents at home when they were aware of contemporary social justice issues, such as
climate change, and when they often remarked excitedly, “I’ve read this book before!” during a
read-aloud lesson. The school had an abundance of specialists to give extra support and
scaffolding to the students who needed it most, including one-on-one classroom aids, English
Language Learning support, and Leveled Literacy support, just to name a few. Although all of
the students in the urban classroom that I was in were English Language Learners, none of them
received extra support for their language learning outside of the classroom as the ELL students in
the suburban school did. The teachers at the suburban school in the Boston area were committed
to their students, and they continued their own learning every Tuesday with time provided by the
district and the administration to hold staff and grade-level development meetings. They
followed a revolutionary program of behavior management called Responsive Classroom that
focused on positive reinforcement and logical consequences. The teachers realized that students
did not need to be severely punished in order to follow instructions and meet state standards. In
the urban public school, the teachers would punish the students by disallowing them from
participating in lessons. In my experience, the suburban, well-resourced schools in Boston
provide a higher quality education, a warmer and more communal environment, and more
dedicated and highly trained teachers than most of the urban schools. The disparities in education
continually deny students of color the quality education they inherently deserve as human beings,
and my experience is proof of that. This paper has continuously proved that there are glaring
disparities in the Boston public school system, but the moral injustice of this issue has yet to be
explored in depth in this paper.

DISPARITY
1.2.2 2.2.2 Ethical Analysis: Kantian Ethics
Kantian ethics is an ethical framework that I will use to analyze the complex issue of
inequality in the Boston public school system. The framework focuses on categorical
imperatives, or “maxims” (Churton, n.d.), and duty. Kant believes humans are deserving of
dignity by their very nature. Human beings possess reason and free will, which inherently endow
us with dignity, as well. Kant says we must recognize the dignity of other humans by treating
them in just ways in order to be just overall. This idea of human dignity is the basis of Kantian
ethics. Some of his other main ideas, including the categorical imperative, his definition of duty
and good will, as well as his ‘the ends do not justify the means’ principle, come out of this
foundational philosophical idea. All of these ideas are imperative in critiquing and analyzing the
educational inequality in Boston because they can establish the idea of education as a right and
not a privilege (as it is often viewed as in American society.)
The categorical imperative is a moral rule that every person should live by and applies to
every situation with no exception in order to decide whether an action is morally just or not. The
categorical imperative is the moral rule with which one would measure all actions against. “Kant
intended the categorical imperatives themselves to be universal, affording respect to each person
and to their personal autonomy,” according to Ramswamy (2018, p. 51). It would be an
inherently right and just rule; therefore, any action that breaks this rule would be unjust. If a
situation in which this rule does not apply exists, however, then it would not be considered by
Kant to be a “categorical imperative.” Kant sees duty as the ultimate motivator in doing things
considered “right” and “just.” Duty is one of Kant’s own categorical imperatives that he sees as a
universal rule that applies to every person and every situation. As long as people act out of a
sense of duty to themselves and to humanity, then their actions are considered by Kant to be just.
DISPARITY
For him, “to do something for the sake of duty means obeying reason” (Churton, n.d.).
According to Kant, as long as a person acts out of good will, or a sense of duty to do what is
right, they are acting in a morally just manner. Another categorical imperative of Kant’s is the
ends principle. Kant believes that the ends cannot justify the means if the means are wrong or
unjust. To Kant, a just act “should always treat humanity, every individual including the actor, as
an end in themselves and never as a means to an end” (Ramswamy, 2018, p. 52). If a person is
using someone in a negative way that helps the person achieve a goal or an “end,” the act of
using the person is morally wrong even if the “end” is morally right. To treat a person as an end
in themselves and to manipulate or use them is to completely disregard their inherent dignity as a
human being in the eyes of Kant.
The education we have set up in the United States currently treats students as a means to
an end and does not recognize the dignity of each individual student, just as “sovereigns look
upon their subjects merely as tools for their own purposes” (Churton, n.d.). The system is set up
to give certain advantages to certain students. The students with money to afford a quality
education receive this education and in turn receive high-paying job offers and go on to earn
more money than students who cannot afford an education of such high quality. The students are
essentially treated like economic vessels to be used to propel the economy forward by
contributing immense amounts to it financially. Capitalism allows for the students from low-
income areas to be disrespected and completely disregarded as dignified human beings. The fact
that there are still inequities when it comes to the quality of schools proves that the dignity of
students of color and lower SES is not upheld or recognized by the people in power in this
country. They are left with less resources and lower quality schools. All human beings are
DISPARITY
intrinsically equal in that we are all rational beings that possess free will. We all deserve to be
respected and to remain dignified.
I believe it is our duty (in the Kantian sense of the word) to promote and work for equity
and equality in the education system in our country. It is our duty as human beings to recognize
the dignity of all students as individuals, not as economic tools. One categorical imperative for
me is that education is a right and not just a privilege—not just any education, but a quality
education is in fact a right. Anything less would be undercutting and disrespecting the dignity of
a human being for “it is through good education that all the good in the world arises” (Churton,
n.d.). This is the importance of education; it can bring out the good in students and teach them
right from wrong. As Kant puts it: “Man can only become man by education. He is merely what
education makes of him. It is noticeable that man is only educated by man—that is, by men who
have themselves been educated” (Churton, A., p. 1, n.d.). The fact that we as humans are rational
beings means that we can in fact expand our minds through education. We can engage in
conversation and debate each other. We can learn from each other and with each other. We can
freely decide to participate in or own learning. We are all capable fundamentally of learning to
some degree.
However, in order to reap the benefits of education and to truly be able to learn in the
purest sense of the word, we must all receive an education of the highest caliber possible. It is
imperative that every person receives a quality education because “the quality of one’s education
can determine one’s quality of life” (Ramswamy, 2018, p. 49). No education, no teacher, no
school will ever be perfect; but, as perfect as they can possibly be is what well deserve. We all
deserve to grow as human beings through education and through the relationships and social
situations we experience in school. As Kant writes, “All the natural endowments of

DISPARITY
mankind must be developed little by little out of man himself, through his own effort” (Churton,
A., p. 1, n.d.). Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to receive this type of education,
including those in underserved communities. Kant’s ethical framework establishes the sheer
injustice and moral wrongness of the inequality in the education system, but now this paper will
attempt to outline a plan of action moving forward to address this social justice issue.
DISPARITY
2.0 3.0 Chapter 3: Action Plan
The plan of action I propose to help solve this issue is a multifaceted plan. It includes a
restructuring of the current geography-driven funding of these schools; the funding must be used
wisely to increase opportunities for students of color in low-income areas. The need for more
equitable funding, as well as other reforms such as less administrative burdens placed on
teachers and more time to work collaboratively, is an imperative piece of the solution to the
educational social justice issue facing the nation today. However, the only way to achieve these
goals is to organize teachers and other citizens to rally for these changes and to elect more
former and current teachers as government officials.
The people who truly understand the disparities in our education system and the toll it
takes on students are teachers themselves. Teachers are the ones who see the differences between
schools firsthand. They are probably the most knowledgeable source when it comes to
educational inequality. Therefore, in order to change anything at a government-level, citizens
must elect more teachers who have experience in the public education system to government
positions. Only then will our local governments prioritize the changes that need to be made.
Former and current teachers will know of the burdens placed upon teachers. They will make pay
raises and time to plan lessons a priority because they have most likely experienced the lack of
these things in their own careers. Candidates who are former or current teachers need to
campaign in all areas in a city in order to have a chance of being elected. In order to raise
awareness for the need to include teachers in our law-making entities, teachers and families need
to speak about this need and why it is important. People in positions of power need to make the
disparities in education known so that citizens care enough to elect candidates with firsthand
experience in education. For example, current senators or representatives must speak publicly
DISPARITY
about this need. In addition, citizens of this country also need to put pressure on the government
to make these changes in order to make changes to the education system.
The other important way to raise awareness for this issue in order to make funding
changes possible is to organize demonstrations in protests, just as activists and parents did in the
1960s and 1970s in Boston. Families and teachers could organize a protest like the “Stay Out for
Freedom” to protest the inequities in the public school system in this country. Other
demonstrations, such as marches throughout major cities like Boston, could also be organized to
raise awareness of this issue and highlight the gravity of the situation. The people to organize
these peaceful protests should be people heavily involved and passionate about this social justice
issue. For example, current and former teachers would have a stake in this issue and are also
used to organizing groups of people. Parents and families of students at public schools would
also have a significant stake in this issue, enough to drive them to speak out in favor of major
changes at the legislative level. These groups can meet in Facebook groups or other social media
platforms to plan and organize demonstrations. Posts and fundraisers on social media would help
raise awareness for the issue of inequality in education as well. People need to hear the stories
from overburdened and underpaid teachers themselves in order to care enough to do something
about the issue. Once citizens and government officials alike bring the issue to light, local and
federal governments can make legislative changes to benefit the underserved community when it
comes to education.
The funding of public schools currently comes from the taxes paid by residents of the
specific school district the school is located in. In order to decrease the inequity between
different schools and school districts, the government must distribute the taxes throughout
districts, funding education equally. To do this, large portions of the taxes collected from people
DISPARITY
in more affluent neighborhoods should be used for the schools in all districts around them, not
just their own. If the funds were shared between districts, the issue of poorer school districts
having fewer resources and funding would be solved. Baker, Sciarra, and Farrie (2010, 1) argue
that “sufficient school funding fairly distributed to districts to address concentrated poverty is an
essential precondition for the delivery of a high-quality education” (Conkling & Conkling, 2018,
p. 527). Equally distributing funds would be a major step in achieving equality in the American
Education System.
Massachusetts has a more progressive funding structure compared to most of the country,
but in practice, it is not as progressive and beneficial to under-resourced areas as it seems.
Although “Massachusetts has a relatively progressive funding formula…state and local funding
combined results in only about 11 percent more funding per student in high poverty school
districts than in low poverty school districts, and increasing costs for special education and
English language learning narrow the effects of the progressive spending formula” (Conkling &
Conkling, 2018, p. 527). The districts that are under-resourced need more money in order to give
every student a quality education. These are the schools that need the funding from the more
affluent areas in order to successfully give their students a quality education, as these schools
often have students who may need more support. According to Gay and Russell (2019), Boston
“lawmakers work to overhaul the state’s educational funding system — with some urging an
estimated $2.4 billion increase to help cover the higher costs of educating disadvantaged
students;” “but the gulf between these two schools, and their student bodies, may be too deep for
school funding alone to erase” (Gay & Russell, 2019). These inequities are “reflection of much
deeper inequalities in the larger society” (Gay & Russell, 2019). The capitalist funding structure
and the competitive market that society has formed around education has decreased the overall
DISPARITY
quality of education for many students and has disrespected the dignity of many deserving
individuals. All of the research points to a need to re-invest in education, especially for students
of minority races and ethnicities who have been continually ignored and neglected in the current
education system in Boston and in the United States as a whole.
The country needs major reforms in order to achieve equality and equity in its education
system. The only way to address many of the root causes of the issue (including white
supremacy and capitalist ideals) is to first raise awareness of the issue and then elect officials
who have firsthand experience of the issue. Once we have done this, we need the government to
change the funding structure of our public education system in order to provide universal access
to a quality education.
DISPARITY
3.0 4.0 Chapter 4: Conclusion
After a thorough analysis of research through a Kantian perspective, this paper concludes
that the inequality in the systemically racist education system in Boston puts students of color at
a disadvantage and is not only unjust but also amoral and irrational. The city of Boston is
representative of the country in that public education across the country is set up to aid white
students in reaching socially acceptable success and neglects students of color, leaving them with
fewer resources and lower quality schools. Although the American government officially made
segregation illegal in the 50’s, segregation is still very much a part of the education system in
Boston and elsewhere in the U.S. In fact, inequality has always been a defining characteristic of
this country. In order to alleviate some of the inequality, the government must make education a
priority and they must start in the schools in lower-income areas with students of color who face
discrimination every day, with young immigrants who live in constant fear, and with
overwhelmed students living in poverty who have to balance jobs on top of their education. Only
when these populations of students are given the supports and opportunities they need will the
education system in our country truly be equitable.

DISPARITY
Bibliography
Billingham, C. (2015). Parental choice, neighbourhood schools, and the market metaphor in
urban education reform. Urban Studies, 52(4), 685–701.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014528395
Haynes, C. (2019). Equity in education: A closer look at the METCO program. Boston 25 News.
https://www.boston25news.com/news/equity-in-education-a-closer-look-at-the-metco-
program/953402705/
Chakrabarti, M. and Paris Alston (2018). Report finds inequalities in Boston public school
assignment system. 90.9 wbur. https://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2018/07/19/boston-
school-assignment
Churton, A., n.d. Immanuel Kant, Kant on Education (über pädagogik) [1803]. Online Library
of Liberty. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/kant-kant-on-education-uber-padagogik.
Conkling, S. W. drc@bu. ed., & Conkling, T. L. . (2018). I’m the one who’s here: an
experienced music teacher, a low-income school, and arts participation as a reform
strategy. Music Education Research, 20(4), 517–530.
https://doi-org.proxy.bc.edu/10.1080/14613808.2018.144521
Delmont, M., & Theoharis, J. (2017). Introduction: Rethinking the Boston “Busing
Crisis.” Journal of Urban History, 43(2), 191–203.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144216688276
Gay, M. and Jenna Russell (2019). Neighboring schools, worlds apart: 3 miles: That’s what
separates one of the state’s best high schools and one of its most troubled. Boston Globe.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/09/14/neighboring-schools-worlds-apart/
ytlIIcdbbO59i2CDK2qWOL/story.html
DISPARITY
Kwate, Naa Oyo A., & Goodman, Melody S. (2014). An empirical analysis of White privilege,
social position and health. Social Science & Medicine, 116.
Learning Lab Staff (2014). How school assignment works in Boston. Learning Lab.
http://learninglab.legacy.wbur.org/topics/how-school-assignment-works-in-boston/
Ramaswamy, K. (2018). Right to Education: An Analysis through the Lens of the Deontological
Method of Immanuel Kant, 16 Nw. J. Hum. Rts. 47.
Reardon, S., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school
segregation. Annual review of sociology, 40, 199-218. Retrieved May 5, 2020, from
www.jstor.org/stable/43049532
Sobey, R. (2019). Boston schools achievement gap remains wide along racial lines–a ‘troubling
sign’. Boston Herald. https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/05/07/boston-schools-
achievement-gap-remains-wide-along-racial-lines-a-troubling-sign/

FPJ Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FPJ Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inequality in the Classroom: An Ethical

Analysis of Educational Disparity in

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the Minor of

Faith, Peace, & Justice Studies

This paper is an analysis of inequality in the realm of education, specifically pertaining to

market-driven principles that contributed to the modern-day issue, discusses current

structure of public schools in America.

1.0 Chapter 1 Introduction............................................................................................... 5

1.0 Chapter 1: Introduction

Inequality is as entrenched in American society as is classism. Nowhere is this inequality

1.0 2.0 Chapter 2: Normative Analysis

1.1 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM: CONTEXT AND VIEWS ON THE

1.1.1 2.1.1 Historical Context of the Issue

immediately eradicate segregation in America, however. Segregation had become systemic at

experienced continually increasing segregation from whites… as Hispanic students’ exposure to

end with time, either, although it did decrease at times.

As a result of this decision, “hundreds of school districts were subject to court-ordered

segregation long after the Brown decision.

racism…and characterized those pushing for desegregation as “outsiders” (Delmont &

and ethnicities from receiving a quality education.

& Theoharis, 2017, p. 196). According to Delmont and Theoharis (2017),

white power and supremacy.

families often took advantage of it to transfer out of schools in transitional neighborhoods”

instead of solving it.

1.1.2 2.1.2 Academic Scholarship on the Issue

schools, according to a Harvard researcher. The college enrollment rate was also 30% higher”

school system there.

(2014) explains the process of school assignment as follows:

built on preference for whites, but it is also built on market-driven principles.

neighbourhoods with different economic and demographic compositions,” says Billingham

market-driven motivations and foundations. Opening up more schools in Boston, an example of

family. Billingham’s (2014) article says:

systems, etc.), when it comes to student assignment they frequently advocate

example of free-market infiltration, but rather as an example of exclusionary social

closure within urban neighbourhoods (see Parkin, 1979)” (p. 696).

transportation options, and largely geographically based assignment systems in place.

facing schools serving lower SES students:

higher percentage of first-year teachers (Ingersoll and Merrill 2010), generating

responsibilities. (Conkling & Conkling, 2018, p. 519).

brought on by the current system.

so different and be on opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of a quality education.

high-achieving pupils to a handful of elite…schools while relegating others to a range of lesser

wealthy, economically successful counterparts at schools like Newton South.

keeping its doors open.

1.2.1 2.2.1 Personal Experience of the Issue

followed a revolutionary program of behavior management called Responsive Classroom that

participating in lessons. In my experience, the suburban, well-resourced schools in Boston

explored in depth in this paper.

not a privilege (as it is often viewed as in American society.)

and to their personal autonomy,” according to Ramswamy (2018, p. 51). It would be an

human being in the eyes of Kant.

respected and to remain dignified.

situations we experience in school. As Kant writes, “All the natural endowments of

2.0 3.0 Chapter 3: Action Plan

former and current teachers as government officials.

educational inequality. Therefore, in order to change anything at a government-level, citizens

to make these changes in order to make changes to the education system.

but in practice, it is not as progressive and beneficial to under-resourced areas as it seems.

education system in Boston and in the United States as a whole.

3.0 4.0 Chapter 4: Conclusion

education system in our country truly be equitable.

urban education reform. Urban Studies, 52(4), 685–701.