"Adequate" is less vague than most other ways you could describe levels of funding though. You can easily enough define a base set of requirements that all educ

"Adequate" is less vague than most other ways you could describe levels of funding though. You can easily enough define a base set of requirements that all educational institutions need to be able to provide (independent of any proposed goal such as combating entrenched discrimination against particular minorities) and establish what the minimal funding necessary for that much is. And if after doing so, given a reasonable span of time of ensuring those requirements are met (let's say 10 years), there's still no measurable (relative) improvement in educational outcomes for those you're aiming to help, it's fair to say the theory is falsified - or at least, you've proven that adequate funding for all education institutions regardless of location or ethnic make-up of students isn't enough on its own. Which personally is the result I would expect to see, for various complex reasons - while I'm not a fan of policies that explicitly show favoritism to individuals based on ethnicity etc., I don't have a problem with accepting that it costs more to provide effective education to students from certain socio-economic backgrounds, and therefore there's an argument for allocating taxpayer funding accordingly (esp. in parts of the world, and it's certainly the case here in Australia, where even public schools rely on a percentage of their funding to come from the community/parents).