Today, the conversation around equal educational opportunity has shifted largely to its application in higher education. 

Former President Joe Biden’s administration focused significant attention and effort on advancing actions that would apply the mission of diversity, equity and inclusion policy into the strategies and procedures of postsecondary learning institutions. 

The Biden administration’s pursuit of DEI in American universities and colleges has been met with significant resistance and reversals from President Donald Trump’s administration. This has been successfully changing the conversation concerning educational reform to postsecondary education. 

Decades of debate and reform across all levels of society and government have defined a historical –– now centuries long –– battle to provide equal opportunity of education in the United States. Despite a long succession of progress, unevenness persists in education across the country –– both in higher academia and precollege institutions.

What is being overlooked is a disparity in the distribution of resources and opportunities at the local and state levels for pre-K-12 public education, resulting in significant inequalities where the adverse consequences have continually and disproportionately affected underprivileged communities and underrepresented students. 

A study published last year revealed that the U.S. maintains the most unequal pre-K-12 public education funding in the industrialized world. Financing imbalances at the local and state levels for public education deprive students of the opportunity to succeed. 

Funding for learning in public schools varies wildly from state to state, where states with the highest funding levels spend, on average, about twice per pupil compared to states that spend the least. 

Schools predominantly in the South and Southwest are severely underfunded when compared to the Northeast. A student in New York receives almost $30,000 in state and local revenue investment into their K-12 education, while a student from Idaho only receives about $11,000.  

The funding disparity corresponds to major differences seen between states in the performance of their schools, with less revenue often correlating to worse test scores, lower graduation rates and worse academic performance in general. 

States such as Vermont, Maine and New York, which are among the top spenders per capita on their students, rank among the top in statistics like high school graduation rates and college readiness. 

In contrast, California, despite being the richest state in the country, ranks among the lowest spenders on K-12 public education per capita. Its schools boast some of the most dismal rankings in high school retention rates, ACT and SAT scoring, and National Assessment of Educational Process scoring.

Public schools’ reliance on local property taxes for revenue further contributes to inequalities in financing learning. In California specifically, school districts in well-endowed areas where property values are high capitalize on their excess revenues in ways that are simply unavailable to areas with lower property values. 

The result is what are called “excess advantage” school districts. These districts have thousands of dollars more to spend per pupil compared to regular districts, meaning more academic resources, more learning options and support, and more competitive faculty salaries for already advantaged districts. 

Despite efforts from the federal government and the states to level the playing field, they have largely failed to diminish the opportunity gap that exists from funding discrepancies. 

For example, federal funds account for about 12% of public schools’ pocketbooks, which, while meaningful, is overshadowed by local and state revenues and hardly makes up for the significant differences in funding across the board. At the same time, California funding formulas have failed to equalize the difference in funding between rich and poor districts. 

A clear example is visible here in Los Angeles County, where the Los Angeles Unified School District is outspent by Beverly Hills Unified by more than $6,000 per pupil. According to data from the 2024-2025 school year, LAUSD spent about $29,000 per pupil, while Beverly Hills Unified funding allowed for more than $35,000 per pupil.

What we’re seeing as a consequence of all these factors is that already disadvantaged districts, where the community is generally poorer and more racially diverse, are deprived of the financial resources that offer more affluent communities a legitimate and continually entrenched academic advantage.

Over the past 250 years, the U.S.’s public education system has expanded to encompass almost 50 million students and 18,000 school districts. LAUSD alone, the largest school district in California and the second largest in the nation, currently enrolls more than half a million students.  

Students and families across the nation rely on public education for their futures, for participation in higher academia and for a chance in the job market. 

Looking forward, public education faces increasing pressures, from a hostile presidential administration to growing impacts from artificial intelligence and social media. By most measures, the country is more unequal than ever. Protecting and improving public education is vital for protecting and preserving opportunity for all and meaningfully bettering the lives of millions of families across the nation.