Joy Ruppert wrote this piece on property taxes and public school funding for the Art of Writing Spring 2025 Legal Studies course “Theories of Justice” taught by Christopher Kutz and Laura Ramirez. “Theories of Justice” is a lecture course with an optional writing-intensive section. This essay is a finalist in the Spring 2025 Art of Writing Student Essay Contest.
Property taxation and public-school funding are closely linked in the United States, creating the underlying notion that the quality of a child’s education is largely influenced by the “brute luck” of their school district’s wealth. Brute luck, a concept related to the luck egalitarian view of distributive justice, refers to inequalities that arise from circumstances beyond a person’s control, such as race, disability, or birthplace.
While property taxes have historically provided stable funding for schools[1], growing disparities in district wealth have sparked concerns about educational inequality. From a luck egalitarian perspective, redistributing property taxes could address this growing inequality, but critics, drawing on political philosophers like Robert Nozick, argue that such redistribution undermines local autonomy and penalizes families who have made significant sacrifices to live in better-resourced school districts.
In response, this editorial reframes the redistribution argument away from a luck egalitarian justification and instead draws from John Rawls’s concept of fair equality of opportunity and Elizabeth Anderson’s theory of democratic equality. Rooted in principles of educational adequacy[2] and sufficiency, over compensating for the impact of brute luck, these approaches offer a more stable and morally compelling foundation for education reform.
Serrano v. Priest (1971)[3] in California and Abbott v. Burke (1985)[4] in New Jersey represent cases in which these conflicts came to fruition. Both cases were motivated by the concern that relying on local property taxes to fund public schools created deep inequalities between wealthy and poor districts, violating the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of their respective state constitutions. The core argument was straightforward: a wealthy town could tax its residents modestly and provide excellent schools, while a neighboring poorer town, despite taxing its residents more heavily, struggled to fund even basic education. In the Abbott cases, initiated by the Education Law Center, the end goal was improve the educational opportunities and outcomes for disadvantaged students in urban districts.[5]
The push for statewide property tax redistribution aims to neutralize the brute luck of a child’s birthplace. According to luck egalitarianism, inequalities that result from individual choice are considered permissible (option luck), while those that arise from arbitrary or uncontrollable circumstances are not (brute luck)[6]. In this view, the natural lottery assigns children vastly unequal starting points, and it is the role of just institutions to mitigate these disadvantages.
Because school funding relies heavily on local property taxes, child’s educational opportunities are largely shaped by the wealth of their neighborhood, a factor entirely beyond their control. For luck egalitarians, property tax redistribution could be seen as a necessary factor to mitigate the impact of brute luck on educational opportunities.
However, this argument faces significant pushback. Critics drawing from libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick argue that redistribution undermines local autonomy and penalizes families who made choice sacrifices to live in better-resourced districts. According to his entitlement theory of justice[7] individuals have a right to the fruits of their labor and choices, so reallocating property tax revenue to poorer districts could be seen as violating these rightful entitlements. Redistribution, in this view, is not a remedy for injustice but an infringement on individual liberty and parental choice.
This raises a deeper moral tension. Although children do not choose their birthplace or which school they get to attend, their educational outcomes are heavily shaped by parental choice, such as where to live, how much to save, or which schools to prioritize. The question, then, is whether the appeal to brute luck still carries the same moral weight. The distinction between brute or option luck becomes increasingly blurred in the realm of education, complicating efforts to determine when redistribution is morally justified. This ambiguity in the luck egalitarianism framework weakens the argument for the redistribution of wealth. If it cannot offer clear direction, we must instead turn to a more robust civic and moral framework to justify educational reform.
What might a theory of repair look like if we move beyond the justifications of luck egalitarianism? John Rawls’s principle of fair equality of opportunity alongside Elizabeth Anderson’s theory of democratic equality offers not only a more compelling foundation for educational reform but also a stronger moral imperative.
John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971), provides a strong theoretical foundation for using property tax redistribution to promote educational equality. Rawls argues that a just society must organize its “basic structure to guarantee fair equality of opportunity” meaning that social positions and offices should be open to all under conditions of fair equality, regardless of their socio-economic background[8].
Importantly, Rawls’s focus is less on achieving strict equality of outcomes and more on ensuring that every individual has access to the adequate conditions necessary to pursue their life plans. In the context of education, this means guaranteeing all children a baseline level of opportunity and resources. The Rawlsian framework provides a steady moral argument in support of redistributive policies that prioritize educational adequacy and fairness across school districts.
Building on the Rawlsian framework, Elizabeth S. Anderson, in her essay What Is the Point of Equality?, presents a theory of democratic equality that redefines the purpose of justice. Instead of emphasizing compensation for brute luck, as luck egalitarians do, or prioritizing improvements for the least well-off, as in Rawls’s theory, Anderson contends that justice requires the creation of a community of equals, one where no person must rely on the charity of others to meet their basic needs.
The proper negative aim of egalitarian justice is not to eliminate the impact of brute luck from human affairs, but to end oppression, which by definition is socially imposed[9]. From this perspective, justice involves more than merely compensating for disadvantages, it requires actively shaping social conditions that enable individuals to relate to one another as equals. At the same time, Anderson urges citizens to challenge the institutions and practices that sustain conditions of domination and oppression.
In practice, if the Federal Government guaranteed a consistent level of school funding, or required every state constitution to enshrine the right to adequate educational resources, parents would no longer need to relocate, save excessively, or make extreme sacrifices to secure a decent education for their children. Such reform would help individuals relate to one another as equals, rather than as competitors separated by structural advantage. To prevent new forms of inequality from emerging, states could implement a price ceiling on private or community donations to school districts, similar to how political campaign contributions are regulated. If one district exceeded this cap, all additional funds could be polled towards state educational needs.
This measure would help ensure that all districts offer students equal educational opportunities. The goal here is not to punish higher-income districts, but to reaffirm a shared civic responsibility and democratic commitment to education, an idea that echoes Anderson’s vision of a community of equals. Education could then function as a true public good, one that affirms equal citizenship rather than serving as a commodity earned through sacrifice or wealth.
Anderson’s and Rawls’s theories both emphasize the importance of creating social conditions that enable all individuals to function as equal citizens. While luck egalitarianism centers on charity and compensating for brute luck, the moral imperative of democratic equality is more compelling. It requires that institutions ensure every law-abiding citizen has effective access to the conditions necessary for freedom, with equal respect and concern for all. To realize this vision, policymakers must legally guarantee educational adequacy, allow for the redistribution of property tax revenues to promote equal opportunity, and dismantle the structural barriers that sustain inequality. Only then can education truly serve as a foundation for democratic equality.
[1] Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Public Schools and the Property Tax: https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/2022-04-public-schools-property-tax-comparison-education-models/
[2] Anne D. Gordon, California Constitutional Law: The Right to an Adequate Education, 67 Hastings L.J. 323 (2016).Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol67/iss2/1
[3] SCOCAL, Serrano v. Priest 5 Cal.3d 584 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/serrano-v-priest-27628)
[4] JUSTIA, Abbott v. Burke100 N.J. 269 available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1985/100-n-j-269-0.html
[5] ELC, The History of Abbott v. Burke (https://edlawcenter.org/litigation/abbott-history/)
[6] Dworkin, “Equality of Resources,” p. 293.
[7] From Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1974), pp. 149-154, 156157, 159-163, 168, 174-175, 178-179, 182
[8] Rawls, “A Theory of Justice,” pp. 73
[9] Anderson, “What Is the Point of Equality?” Ethics, vol. 109, no. 2, pp. 288