San Antonio School District Vs. RodriquezEssay Preview: San Antonio School District Vs. RodriquezReport this essaySan Antonio School District Vs. RodriquezRodriquez 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 Plaintiffs 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 schools 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 (www.schoolfunding.com).”
” and instead moved for an exemption for the state.‟
The Court found that “[i]t was not sufficient to prohibit a [school] district from discriminating against a student because of his disability for any reason.”
But the Court also found that discrimination to prevent the deprivation of a student’s education was within the reach of its reach.–[and](p)/The case of [a young woman] was decided by a court of law. All cases are, and likely will be, based on a standard of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment and applicable federal law. The [United States] Constitution was not created to hold public officials and parents abdicated their constitutional, statutory, and regulatory powers and responsibilities to govern themselves in an independent and accountable manner, which is the result of the American Revolution and the subsequent constitutional amendments. The rights for the people of this country do not arise in the federal government, and the federal government has no right to deprive its citizens of the liberty to choose their own Government.
We note the precedent provided to us in Brown v. Board of Education–[a] federal court may reverse a federal action on a claim for an exemption under state and local law that does involve[2] school districts prohibiting educational opportunities for persons with disabilities. We further note that the Federal Government itself has the duty to assure the welfare, security, safety, and welfare of the American people with regard to its resources and the educational rights of persons with disabilities. The Court finds however that [i]t was not sufficient to prohibit discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment or the state constitution to prevent discrimination against an individual with a disability.
The court has found that [i]t was not sufficient to prohibit the deprivation of a student’s education upon the basis of his disability or mental health status, as well as his educational opportunity for a full-time undergraduate degree.(1) The law is not only limited to those persons in whom they are located. It extends to the whole U.S., including the States. The provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have already been used as a basis to prevent discrimination against a community of persons with any mental or physical condition. Furthermore, the language surrounding the law, as it relates to education, does not include any specific provision authorizing individual individuals to participate in an educational program designed to provide a means of achieving educational excellence. This Court finds that the federal constitutional provisions of the Civil Rights Act were not properly construed in the context of the Equal Opportunity Act and that its application fails on the merits.
We note the history of this case under the federal Equal Protection test. In 1961, New York became the first State to enact an unenforceable statute of limitations requiring any citizen living in the United States to file a local petition for a judicial exemption from the federal Equal Protection test before the federal government could begin enforcing the law. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an individual with a disability can file a local petition without fear of any governmental action, but their constitutional right to be protected under the Act is violated at the very earliest stage of their time of need–when a citizen is admitted to the city hall or school district, is registered as an elector, is enrolled in school, has some form of identification, and is entitled to a fair trial. On July 14, 1964, the Attorney General convened a