"It didn't work" means that it didn't achieve a desired outcome (good education for all) by its chosen means (racial quotas). Mandatory bussing didn't exist sol

"It didn't work" means that it didn't achieve a desired outcome (good education for all) by its chosen means (racial quotas). Mandatory bussing didn't exist solely for its own sake, but the reasoning of using force to mandate student diversity was and is still dubious in achieving better educational outcomes for students. Forced association does not make a school better equipped to provide a good education for anyone. One major result is that a number of parents decided to vote with their feet and their dollars. They didn't, as you put it, "take funding away" from other districts. The citizens of the United States are not serfs. They have the freedom to move to and pay property taxes where they see fit. School districts are not owed money simply for existing. If the courts argued on issues of how states should fund students rather than how many kids of a certain race in are in a certain district, perhaps a more sensible solution could have been reached (although that should not justify egregiously high levels of funding). There were already a number of voluntary bussing programs in a number states, and they were successful, despite the courts claims that they were "insufficient". In addition, schools are already federally funded in proportion to state population (a major reason for states to push filling out the census). Several states also dedicate money to funding education. Property taxes may supplement federal and state funding for schools, but there's no federal requirement for levied property taxes to go to schools. That's generally a decision left to the local populace and its elected representatives.