Disparity in education financing has been the major issue with the judicial system. Legal provisions for equal protection, based on the 14th amendment, have formed the basis of the litigation regarding the finances. According to the clauses, every person is entitled to equal treatment and no disparity should therefore exist on education financing (Ryu, 2015). While the courts made significant efforts in enforcing existing laws to regulate educational financing, reforms that he courts initiated had little effects in solving the financing inequality that the society realized. Ryu further argues that court decisions on educational reforms have argued for adequacy of available education and not on financial neutrality. The ineffectiveness in previous courts’ attempt to regulate educational financing suggests lack of power to implement the decisions and indicate possible occurrence in future. The change in focus from fiscal neutrality also means possible elimination of the jurisdiction from the judicial system and suggests that the courts are not likely make decisions on the issue (Ryu, 2015).
The Supreme Court decision on fundamentality of education as a constitutional right and the court’s final decision on related cases is another indicator that courts have ceded their power on educational financing and are not likely to make any ruling on a case that seeks to challenge educational financing policies. The Supreme Court noted that education is not a fundamental right and should therefore not be considered under the equal opportunity clauses and any other amendments that provides for human rights. In addition, the court offered a directive that such cases as cases on educational financing issues should not be brought before the judiciary and one of the arguments was involved complexity of such cases. Decision on related policies to educational financing were then directed to state legislatures and the ...Show more