Educational Rights Under The Federal Constitution example essay topic

San Antonio School District vs. Rodriquez Rodriquez was started by parents whose children attended elementary and secondary schools in the Edgewood Indecent School District. About 90% of the students were Mexican American and 6% were African American. In Rodriquez, the Plaintiff's brought a class action on behalf of school children who were members of poor families who reside in school districts having a low property tax base. They claimed that the school's confidence on local property taxation favors the more well off and violates equal protection requirements. The Supreme Court examined the Texas school finance structure and rejected this claim. They ruled that education was not a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution and that students did not have the right to attend schools funded on the same level as a nearby wealthier district.

This case shows the lack of equal educational opportunities for many poor and minority students, which was present in many states. School districts in America involved much of the funding for public schools to come from local property taxes. By doing this it affected the disadvantaged students who attended schools in the area that had low property taxes. This decision essentially placed the responsibility of equitable funding for public schools in the hands of the states, and since that time many states have faced law suits and court decisions based on their "formulas" for funding public schools (Verstegen, 1998). One pro surrounding this case was how the discrimination of unequal opportunities of education was brought to the table. This meaning that the poorer the people within the neighbor the poorer the school districts will be.

Although this case shed some light, it failed under the federal Equal Protection analysis because education was not a "fundamental right" recognized by the Constitution and because the educationally disadvantaged poor did not constitute a "suspect classification". The Court refused to overturn the school finance system on grounds of inequality. Equally notable, this case "virtually abdicated any role for the federal courts in guaranteeing educational rights under the Federal Constitution", leaving future plaintiffs "to state courts and constitutions for the change they seek (web)". One con to this case was that even under independent state equal protection analysis, state courts are still responding as did the U.S. Supreme Court: "the existence of 'some inequality'... is not alone a sufficient basis for striking down the entire system". This reluctance to require equality marks the majority of all state decisions, as it did in the federal equal protection field.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs continue the traditional equality arguments (Verstegen, 1998). Education should not be denied because of financial reasons. Children shouldn't be denied an education because of their "wealth status"; they should be guaranteed an equal, fair education.

Bibliography

Brimely, V and Garfield, R. (2005).
Financing Education in a Climate of Change (9 the.) Boston, MA: Ally and Beacon Verstegen, D. (1998).