Educational Equity And Rodriguez And Their Aftermath Summary

In his address to Columbia University, titled, “Educational Equity and Quality: Brown and Rodriguez and Their Aftermath,” Lee Bollinger discusses the issues of educational inequity and inadequacy still present today, fifty years after the Brown vs. Board of Education decision of 1954. According to Bollinger, education is “the very foundation of good citizenship.” It exposes children to cultural values, prepares them for professional training, helps them adjust to their environment, and teaches them work independently and with others. It can be argued quite convincingly that a child cannot succeed in life without an education or without a proper education.

Bollinger first discusses Brown vs. BOE. This case defined what “equal educational opportunity”

means in a racial context. It highlighted the importance of education to individuals and to the nation as a whole. It eliminated de jure segregation. It brought about a theory of education in which public education should be racially integrated, because racially segregated education means unequal segregation. Despite the progress made in this case, de facto segregation exists and is on the rise. In addition, schools made up mostly of students of color are the poorest in the nation and fail to provide a good education for its students. This calls for equity in educational funding and opportunity so that every child can have an adequate education.
Money going toward public education relies heavily on on property taxes.

This is a problem when a local community is too poor to put in enough money to fund schools. This was what caused the court case Rodriguez vs. San Antonio Independent School District, 411 US 1 in 1973. This school was composed of Hispanic and African American students. Parents and students spoke up in response to inadequate supplies and lack of qualified teachers. The plaintiffs argued that school district had one of the highest tax rates in the county by raised less per student than the nearby wealthy, predominantly white district. Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court rejected argument that the disparities in funding among the school districts went against the Constitution. They said that under the Constitution, education was not a fundamental right. In response, parent Demetrio Rodriguez spoke, “The poor people have lost

again.”
According to Bollinger, “The simple fact of life is that education is the sine qua non of citizenship and all it entails.” Those that recognize the immense disparities in education argue that the first amendment and the right to speak is pointless if the speaker is not educated and cannot articulate his or her thoughts in an intelligent and persuasive way. Those who lack basic communicative skills cannot participate in sharing ideas and be successful members of society. A voter cannot cast his ballot intelligently if he cannot read and his cognitive skills are underdeveloped because of lack of education.
Every state mentions education in its constitution in one way or another; the problem is that education is addressed in a variety of ways.

In his address, Bollinger calls for a national constitutional norm in order to balance the different public education systems and to fix injustices. Schools in the United States were created to be under local control because of the largely agricultural society and the belief that education benefitted the individual and the community where he lived. He informs us that this changed in the nineteenth century when “the Morrill Act’s creation of the Land Grant colleges during the Civil Way reflected the nation’s new recognition that the economic and social benefits of education flow not only to the student but also to the state and the economy at

large.”
Education reform had always focused on education equity, in which all communities are taxed at a similar rate and the amount of revenue per student is similar. Governments would focus on disparity between districts. The new approach to education reform is finance adequacy, which is defining a minimum level of funding for each school to successfully teach students. Education resources, which includes teachers, facilities and equipment generally correlate with quality of education, and all these resources require money. Better resources usually correlate with better education and better test scores. More importantly, better resources bring about a better quality of life for students and their families. Poor and inadequate schools makes it look like students are not respected or viewed as worthy of a better education. Providing financial support to improve schools shows students that they deserve respect.
Growing up in a conservative household in a nice neighborhood with a successful school school district, I was brought about to believe that education is the responsibility of the states. However, after reading this article and having discussions in class, I realize that the current system is not working. I believe that education adequacy is a step in the right direction, making sure that all students are treated as human beings who deserve an education. However, adequacy simply ensures that schools provide education that is “just enough.” Many schools are not by any means excellent. While I still think that education should still fall heavily on state governments, I think the federal government should provide the money necessary for state and local governments to use to help the schools that need it most. Of course, I do not know anything about government duties and responsibilities and what is possible for local, state and federal governments, and I know that many things have been done in the past to try to fix the problem, but we need to keep working to find a solution that works in both the short- and long-term.