U.S. Supreme Court finds a way in 1973 Rodriguez decision on school funding?

Well, maybe they could have found another way to agree with the District Court and say that school funding had to be a damn sight more equal that it was in Texas in the 1970s.

Humphrey wins in 1968 and appoints liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. Even if Humphrey loses in 1972, in this ATL 1973 a more liberal Court would probably decide the case the other way. In OTL it was only a 5-4 decision.
 
. . . In OTL it was only a 5-4 decision.
Yes, and by not finding a remedy to really unequal funding, well, you have upper-middle-class families with both parents working 50 hours or more a week, stretched thin. All to afford a mortgage in a neighborhood in a “good” school district. And politically, mainly focusing on taxes which they believe are helping someone else.

All in all, this case sounds like a pretty significant factor in American inequality.
 
51fVZ45OaxL.jpg

If the case goes the other way . . .

Well, things like the above book will be viewed as outlandish Alternate History, which we will criticize as borderline ASB! :p
 
Last edited:
Yes, and by not finding a remedy to really unequal funding, well, you have upper-middle-class families with both parents working 50 hours or more a week, stretched thin. All to afford a mortgage in a neighborhood in a “good” school district. And politically, mainly focusing on taxes which they believe are helping someone else.

All in all, this case sounds like a pretty significant factor in American inequality.

Had the Supreme Court decided differently, it could have helped create a political movement for education reform. Expanding education funding could become an important part of the 1976 Democratic platform, and possibly a major policy goal of a 1980s Democratic President. The Department of Education is likely still founded at some point, albiet later if the Republicans are in charge during the late 1970s.
 
. . . it could have helped create a political movement for education reform. . .
I think it could have changed things a lot.

Regardless of what kind of Dept. of Education we get, just the idea that we’re going to have an equally good education for all students, rich and poor alike.

Which a lot of people think we already have!
 
Well, maybe they could have found another way to agree with the District Court and say that school funding had to be a damn sight more equal that it was in Texas in the 1970s.

Well, the result would require taking funding power out of the hands of local school boards and move them to (presumably) the Federal Department of Education, which likely comes with greater transfer of state liscencing requirements and ciriculem as a result.Theres going to be alot of local backlash to that and court cases about conflicting State and Federal Constiutions and divisions of power in that reguard.
 
I think it could have changed things a lot.

Regardless of what kind of Dept. of Education we get, just the idea that we’re going to have an equally good education for all students, rich and poor alike.

Which a lot of people think we already have!

If Reagan still gets elected President (either in 1972 after defeating Humphrey, or in 1976) there'd be more political push back against his cuts to education.
 
If Reagan still gets elected President (either in 1972 after defeating Humphrey, or in 1976) there'd be more political push back against his cuts to education.
I just question how much federal funding there was really, as compared to per capita student, in late ‘70s, all though ‘80s, 90s, etc.

And I question how much effect there was till George W.’s “No Child Left Behind,” which I’ve heard argued is an unfunded mandate.
 
I think the Supremes usually send it back to the District Court to address the issue of a remedy.

The issue is that once you establish the legal precident that the Federal government is responsible for insuring students receive equitable education, that the logical conclusion is that this should apply just as much to schools in different states as within a state. I have no doubt within a few years you'll be seeing suits out of poor districts being sent up against schools for not providing quality education to students, the administration will plead poverty (lack of high property values and abilities to pass levees) and the issue will reach a district court that concludes that based on Rodriguez, the district has a legal obligation to provide the services, while others might not, which will create the general "Divide between Districts" problems that put huge pressure for a Supreme Court Ruling. In order to insure truely equal systems (Not just "Seperate but Equal") for all children, the Fed would have to adopt more control in order to meet what has now been established as their obligation, rather than shuffling it back down to the States which they can no longer do.

I just question how much federal funding there was really, as compared to per capita student, in late ‘70s, all though ‘80s, 90s, etc.

And I question how much effect there was till George W.’s “No Child Left Behind,” which I’ve heard argued is an unfunded mandate.

It was fairly low, precisely because the various court ruling had define education as a State responsability. No Child Left Behind (And later, Common Core and the dollars attached to it) did offically change things, and what I'm claiming is CC or something like it is liable to come earlier if you establish the idea that insuring education opportunities are distributed fairly is a Federal responsability, with districts have wildly varying tax bases and no unilaterial revenue raising authority in most states.
 
How could the debate on California's Proposition 13 turn TTL?

OTL, one of the main imperus for this proposition were the 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings in Serrano v. Priest, which did pretty much what was wanted in the OP.

Well, the result would require taking funding power out of the hands of local school boards and move them to (presumably) the Federal Department of Education, which likely comes with greater transfer of state liscencing requirements and ciriculem as a result.Theres going to be alot of local backlash to that and court cases about conflicting State and Federal Constiutions and divisions of power in that reguard.

Especially when managing conflicts between State and Federal laws on education was still an ongoing enterprise because of Brown and Alexander.

It was fairly low, precisely because the various court ruling had define education as a State responsability. No Child Left Behind (And later, Common Core and the dollars attached to it) did offically change things, and what I'm claiming is CC or something like it is liable to come earlier if you establish the idea that insuring education opportunities are distributed fairly is a Federal responsability, with districts have wildly varying tax bases and no unilaterial revenue raising authority in most states.

I think it would be limited to equality inside a State.
 
. . . the Fed would have to adopt more control in order to meet what has now been established as their obligation, . . .
Not necessarily.

Jan. 20 - April 8, 1987. Judge Clark hears Edgewood I.​

April 29, 1987. Trial court rules for plaintiffs, ordering the Texas legislature to correct funding inequities by 8/89. Defendants appeal.​
And another case from the 1980s in which the trial court gives the Texas legislature two years to fix the problem. (The Texas legislature meets the beginning of odd-number years for about five months.)

In this timeline, I’m looking for the top 30% of things working out relatively well.
 
Last edited:
Especially when managing conflicts between State and Federal laws on education was still an ongoing enterprise because of Brown and Alexander.
I’m glad you brought up the Alexander case. This was the 1969 case in which SCOTUS ruled that the time for “all deliberate speed” had come and gone. That it was time to go ahead and desegregate.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1969/632

And between that and the case which is the theme of this thread, a pretty short window :frown: for effective desegregation.
 
Not necessarily.

Here’s a later case in which the trial court gives the Texas legislature two years to fix the problem. (The Texas legislature meets the beginning of odd-number years for about five months.)

In this timeline, I’m looking for the top 30% of things working out relatively well.

Ok. If you're looking for a specific result that's a different question. Though, in that case I question what exactly you're asking about
 
@GeographyDude Here is an outline you might be interested in:

1968: Humphrey reveals that Nixon illegally interfered with the Paris Peace Talks. A shocked nation narrowly elects Humphrey as the 37th President.

1969-1972: Humphrey withdraws troops from Vietnam and appoints liberal Justices to the Supreme Court. A conservative backlash against Humphrey, as well as party fatigue and discontent over a mild recession, help elect Reagan president in 1972.

1973: Reagan slashes the federal education budget. Soon afterwards, the Supreme Court rules that education is a right. This creates political pushback against Reagan's conservative policies.

1976: The Democratic Party platform calls for education to be made fair and accessible to everyone regardless of class, race, gender, etc. Although Reagan is narrowly re-elected, the Democrats succeed in making education reform a major political issue.

1980-81: New York Governor Hugh Carey is elected President and creates the Department of Education to address inequalities in the American school system.
 
I want kids from low-income neighborhoods to have the same good schools these kids probably have.

... then you do have to take the funding responsibility (and with it a great deal of authority) from local school districts and likely even states (theres lots of very poor states) to the Federal government, if your goal is to insure equal funding per student and a consistent curriculum, which will likely end up resembling a Common Core style system. There needs to be the standards and mechanisms on which to insure accountability, and many areas flat out cant afford to match the quality of others
 
1973: Reagan slashes the federal education budget. Soon afterwards, the Supreme Court rules that education is a right. This creates political pushback against Reagan's conservative policies.
I’d rather the Supremes find a different way and basically say, you can’t treat citizens this differently even if education isn’t a right.

That said, I do like different possibilities dancing in the same thread. :)

* although even today, I think federal education spending is only about 10% of the average school’s budget
 
The "sixtifor" is whether the schools are evened up or down.

What's the betting that you end up with schools being publicly financed at the level of the poorest ones, while schools in wealthier neighbourhoods start asking parents to help out by donating books and equipment? So inequality continues in another form.
 
Top