Case Analysis Essay on San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez: Funding & Taxation Inequality

Introduction

The "San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez" was a case that involved the "San Antonio Independent School District where there were complaints regarding the way that the taxation and funding that was being carried out in the district of San Antonio and other districts. The Edgewood Concerned Parent Association argued that the initiatives of the financial department of the defendant did not ensure equality in the education sector based on the low income that was related to the local people who struggle to pay the taxes to the same District.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

At this time, financing of schools was a function left to the states governments; the governments involved the locals in ensuring they raised enough money to finance education properly. The use of "ad valorem tax" was one of the means that the districts had adopted to help in collecting finances to ensure that the necessary facilities in schools are made available in schools. This initiative was to help the poor children in the Districts of the United States who depended on district funds that were acquired from taxes (Sutton, 1963).

The Edgewood Concerned Parent Association was a group of parents who stood in for their children in defending their rights, according to their perspective, they saw it unconstitutional that the education sector did not offer equal education to their children and this led to the case. This observation made them move to court on the thirtieth day of June during the year 1968 to seek justice. The case was filled at the West District in Texas; the District Court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution was used support to the arguments.

The case contained evidence of poorly constructed classrooms, which were so crowded and the students strained to learn. There was no good ration that existed between pupils in classes and the teachers. The teachers were less compared to the higher numbers of children that went to schools (Sutton, 1964). There were not enough resources such as books to help in the learning process. This made the children and parents feel not served by the state government; hence the case was submitted to seek more of what was provided.

The schools were then later removed from the case and it was left to the Texas State as the only party to defend the taxation and finance processes. The Commissioner of the department of education was included in the case to defend the initiatives that had been decided earlier on. The decision to remove schools was because the judges saw that there was no need for a single school to spend in fighting for things that affected the whole state. It was, therefore, better to include the state officials.

Before the case began in the year 1969, the court did not allow the defendants to have their say in the case, so they used the opportunity to get familiarized with the financial problem that was at hand (Sutton, 1963). The trials of this case were organized in the year 1971. This time was good for the complainant to illustrate properly that there was discrimination that had prevailed the District. Disregard of the poor people was an issue that needed to be confirmed to make the arguments substantial.

Joel S. Berke who was a professor at the University of Syracuse conducted research on the issue through a collection of data of allocations from schools. He used the data to explain that schools which were located near highly paid people were allocated enough money in relation to the money that was collected as tax. On the other hand, schools from low-income people had a collection of the same amount of income as the rich places' schools but did not get enough allocation for sustaining developments.

The lawyers during the trial were so influential in their arguments. They argued that the states had no efforts towards considering equality among the citizens who were poor and still paid taxes (Sutton, 1967). They claimed that it would be better to have the states compelled to prove that indeed they meant well for the people, they saw no evidence in showing that. The states have a role of ensuring proper distribution of the resources to ensure equity among the people. The arguments they made were clear and to the point, this gave them the confidence of winning.

On 29th of December, it was ruled that the states were guilty in doing things that were not as per the Fourteenth Amendment. This meant that the schools had won the war. The state was blamed for the steps taken in violation of the fourteenth amendment. All the required tests which are provided in the fourteenth amendment were not used in the implementation of the initiative or scheme that had been implemented. The judges, therefore, gave the state a period of two years to correct the situation in the financial education sector.

This decision led to many reactions from all sectors. The public was among the people who claimed that the federal courts were not in the right position to handle issues that were about schools in their local regions. Some of the officials in the education sector who worked under finance even threatened never to be involved in the correction processes. Many people were made to think that this decision was aimed at removing quality from the education sector. The political sector also experienced much in terms of reactions. There was research conducted in response to the decision to determine the allocation evidence.

The case was appealed in the Supreme Court and during the year 1972, it had started being heard. This time in the court case involved more of the scholars and responsible parties from other states. The state did much to prove that the decision was not constitutional, this included the invitation of African law representatives to the case. The state lawyers argued that the lower court had failed to check on the proof that the scheme had affected the locals directly. According to them, the kind of discrimination that was seen to exist among the poor Districts did not mean it was aiming the poor people.

Conclusion

The majority of the judges voted to unconstitutionality on the first decision claiming that the processes followed including tests were constitutional against the earlier ruling. They claimed that the state of Texas had done enough to make sure equality is included in the plans for the education sector. This is a case that made many people in the state of Texas to understand the scheme; they learnt to differentiate between the school taxes and schemes that were in place to finance the schools (Sutton, 1971). This case, therefore, can be seen to have brought about awareness on matters that dealt with financial allocation to local schools.

Work Cited

Sutton, Jeffrey S. "San Antonio Independent School District V. Rodriguez and Its Aftermath." Virginia Law Review, vol. 94, no. 8, 2008, pp. 1963-1986. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25470608.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1288385b81410cc66310e646c7eda49c