However, some major questions arise, some of which point out both the ironies of any change and the difficulties of not doing some things. Hill proposes that children, not jurisdictions, should be subsidized. On its face that is a compelling idea. However, saying that all schools should get the same amount of state and local aid, the question immediately arises of how that would be enforced. And a law of this nature would bring with it enormous potential for lawsuits, some of which might be brought by teacher unions to challenge the potential abrogation of contracts that often permit senior teachers to move to schools of their choosing, few of which are schools that need the most help.
New policy invites legal challenges.
Children attending school in areas with high concentrations of poverty represent the most difficult challenge. Any proposal that has money following the child needs to take that factor into account. I do not know how that can be done in a way that does not invite greater federal involvement or that does not do something extra for those schools where concentrations of poor children are highest. Under the constitutional system of separation of powers, judicial review cannot be prevented. The best hope is that the courts will come to understand their role in undermining certain aspects of society and restore to schools some ability to make and enforce reasonable regulations.