San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) 50th Anniversary: Exploring the Link Between School Funding and Segregation
In recognition of the 50th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court school funding case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), this NCSD and IDRA Twitter chat aims to spark a conversation around the link between school funding and segregation. The Rodriguez case primarily held that Texas’ school finance system, based on property taxes, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, despite producing stark inequities in funding between districts. The Rodriguez Court made two other important findings: that education is not a “fundamental right” under the U.S. Constitution, nor is a person’s income status a protected class.
Today, policies that tie funding levels to local property taxes remain a standard practice. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in FY20, nearly half (44.9%) of all U.S. public school revenue came from local funding, comprised mainly of property taxes. Since Rodriguez, however, state-level school finance litigation and policy reforms have caused shifts in the landscape over the last 50 years. Have these efforts successfully addressed the concerns at issue in Rodriguez?
To what extent does continued reliance on local property taxes systematically deny students living in areas of concentrated poverty equitable and/or adequate school funding? What would it take for all children to have access to diverse, well-resourced schools? What are the barriers to making this a reality? These are just a few of the questions we’ll explore during the chat.
#RodriguezAt50 Twitter Chat – Join us at @diverse_schools on Monday, March 20, 2023 at 1:00pm ET
Our latest fact sheet compiles news about four places that have been grappling with school transportation challenges and describes implications for integration, equity, and student success.
“Brilliance isn’t allocated along zip code but often your race is.”
On Friday, January 27, 2023, Learn Together, Live Together (LTLT) and the National Coalition on School Diversity (NCSD) will host the first-ever live performance and panel discussion of Between the Lines, a student-led play created by Epic Theatre Ensemble youth artist-researchers. The play, which was commissioned by NCSD and the Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC), explores the connection between housing policy and segregation/inequity in schools. Following a live performance, a panel of experts will provide additional context from their legal, research, advocacy, and educator perspectives. The youth performers and panelists will engage in a moderated discussion, followed by an audience Q&A period.
Panelists include:
- Matthew Di Carlo, Senior Fellow, Albert Shanker Institute
- Aderson Francois, Professor of Law; Director, Institute for Public Representation Civil Rights Law Clinic, Georgetown Law
- Meredith Morelle, Managing Director of National Programs, Kindred
- Sandra Vanderbilt, Assistant Professor of Research Methods, Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University
This in-person event is free and open to the public, masks are optional but encouraged, and light refreshments will be provided. A livestream option is also available for virtual attendees.
More information and registration here.
Our newest research brief, “Accountability Systems and the Persistence of School Segregation: Research Evidence and Future Directions,” looks at recent empirical research to consider what, if any, relationship exists between systems of accountability and the persistence of school segregation. Written by James Noonan and Peter Piazza.
In this new NCSD fact sheet, we summarize several recent studies and reports that further underscore the importance of K-12 school integration, including:
Via NCSD’s April 2022 newsletter.
“The Board is aware of no decision of any appellate court — and the Coalition has cited none — holding that public education authorities violate the Equal Protection Clause by adopting race-neutral student admissions criteria in order to promote increased socioeconomic and racial diversity.”
–Donald Verrilli, Jr.
Representing the Fairfax County School Board attorney(and former U.S. Solicitor General) in response to an emergency request from the Coalition for TJ et al to ask the Supreme Court to put a stay on the 4th Circuit’s ruling
“Every student has a right to a fair shot at receiving an excellent education, regardless of their income, where they grew up, or their racial and ethnic background. But for well over a decade, the TJ admission process failed to identify all Black, Latino, and underserved Asian American students with the aptitude to excel. It would have been a serious mistake — and, as the court’s order notes, contrary to Supreme Court precedent — to allow this fairer system to be enjoined.”
—Statement by NAACP Legal Defense Fund,
Asian Americans Advancing Justice, and Latino Justice PRLDEF in response to 4th Circuit ruling
On April 25th, the Supreme Court rejected a request for emergency relief from the Coalition for TJ to stop Thomas Jefferson High School administrators from using a new admissions policy for TJ’s Class of 2026. The request had been joined by Virginia Attorney General Jason S. Miyares and Republican attorneys general from 15 states.
Background
As described in the New York Times, the most well-known case currently challenging admissions changes at competitive schools is Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board. The plaintiffs in the case claim that non-race-based criteria (such as reducing reliance on test scores) at Thomas Jefferson High School, intended to achieve greater racial diversity in the student body, are subject to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment because of a foreseeable reduction in the percentage of students in one or more racial/ethnic groups (in this case, Asian-American students).
Previously, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the Fairfax County School Board acted with discriminatory intent in its efforts to increase the representation of Black and Latino students at Thomas Jefferson. As a result, the judge enjoined school administrators from using the policy. On appeal, a Fourth Circuit panel granted a stay of the ruling, allowing implementation of the new admissions policy to go forward.
Why Does It Matter?
The original decision from the Eastern District of Virginia federal court is very troubling since the school district was following the Supreme Court’s 2007 majority opinion from the Parents Involved case in its efforts to increase racial diversity at the school (for example, allocating a significant number of seats to the highest-ranking students at each feeder middle school in the region and eliminating test scores as the deciding factor in awarding seats to the remaining applicants).
The Supreme Court’s refusal to stop the enactment of the policy while this case is under appeal is promising. However, the Supreme Court might eventually hear the case and issue a new standard for how public schools go about achieving racial and socioeconomic diversity. The Supreme Court is preparing to consider challenges to the holistic affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A decision in those cases, though governed by a different set of legal precedents, could have an effect on diversity efforts in K-12 schools.
Related News:
- Divided Supreme Court Allows Selective High School’s Diversity Policy by Greg Stohr (Bloomberg, April 25) – “’This court has long recognized that seeking to improve diversity — including geographic, socioeconomic, and racial diversity — is not the same as pursuing racial balancing, and that the former goal may be pursued through race-neutral methods,’ the school board argued.”
Via NCSD’s March 2022 newsletter.
The new Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP) funding notice was released in the Federal Register, and it includes some important diversity-related provisions – a strong focus on supporting voluntary or mandatory desegregation plans, encouraging inter-district and whole school magnets, and coordination with housing and transportation agencies (including HUD’s public housing redevelopment programs).
NCSD’s newest research brief, authored by Casey Cobb, summarizes research about the effects of school choice programs and their differential designs on school diversity.
Main takeaway: “[T]he evidence shows that if school choice programs cannot or do not pay attention to social class and race, they generally increase segregation among schools. That is, racially and ethnically diverse schools become less diverse under unregulated choice plans. Parents who enjoy social and economic advantages manage to maintain those advantages, especially in unregulated school choice programs. School choice policies consistently provide an advantage to the dominant cultural group (Cobb & Irizarry, 2020).”
Via NCSD’s February 2022 newsletter.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider challenges to the holistic affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC, the Pacific Legal Foundation continues to wage an aggressive attack on school integration in the lower courts, including challenging efforts to promote racial diversity at selective high schools.
As described recently in the New York Times, the most well-known of these cases challenge admissions changes at the competitive Thomas Jefferson High School in Alexandria, VA. The case claims that non-race-based criteria (such as reducing reliance on test scores) intended to achieve greater racial diversity in the student body are subject to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment, because of a foreseeable reduction in the percentage of students in one or more racial/ethnic groups (in this case, Asian-American students).
Last week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Virginia agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the Fairfax County School Board acted with discriminatory intent in its efforts to increase the representation of Black and Latino students at Thomas Jefferson.
The decision is very troubling since the school district was following the Supreme Court’s 2007 majority opinion from the Parents Involved case in its efforts to increase racial diversity at the school (for example, allocating a significant number of seats to the highest-ranking students at each feeder middle school in the region and eliminating test scores as the deciding factor in awarding seats to the remaining applicants).
REGRESSIVE LEGISLATION PROPOSED
The recently-elected governor of Virginia has also supported proposed legislation that would potentially prevent VA school districts from using the measures specifically endorsed by Justice Kennedy in the Parents Involved decision (zoning, recruitment, school construction, etc.) if they can be shown to be pretextual for considerations of race. Read the bill here.
REACTIONS
NCSD member organization NAACP LDF joined Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Virginia NAACP, Hamkae Center, Asian American LEAD (AALEAD), CASA Virginia, Hispanic Federation, and the TJ Alumni for Racial Justice to release a statement in reaction to the recent developments in the case (excerpt below):
“Contrary to binding precedent, today’s erroneous decision by the Court uses the Equal Protection clause to cement pre-existing inequalities and hinder school districts from removing unfair barriers to opportunity for many Black, Latinx, and underserved Asian American students in direct conflict with the very purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. Such measures are not anti-Asian, and, in fact, benefit Asian American students. Indeed, all students benefit from a system that promotes fair opportunities for all. The court’s decision will harm underprivileged students of color. It also essentially stymies school districts from addressing known problems of equal educational access with race-neutral efforts. As racial justice advocates, we will continue to support race-neutral policies that better ensure equal educational opportunities consistent with the Equal Protection Clause.”
We will be watching these developments closely.
Equity Assistance Centers
The Department of Education (ED) issued a notice inviting applications for FY 2022 for the Equity Assistance Centers. Funded by the U.S. Department of Education under Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Equity Assistance Centers (EACs) provide assistance in the areas of race, gender, national origin, and religion to public school districts to promote equal educational opportunities.
- Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: May 16, 2022
- Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 15, 2022
Magnet Schools Assistance Programs
The Department also issued a notice inviting applications for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). MSAP funds the development of magnet schools with special curricula that are capable of attracting diverse groups of students. Projects must be designed to provide innovative educational practices, increased choices for families, equitable access for all students to academic knowledge and skills, and reduced levels of isolation among minority groups within schools, among other features. ED expects to award 35-40 grants of up to $15 million over a five-year period.
- Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: April 25, 2022
- Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: July 7, 2022
|
|