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

https://www.wemu.org/post/why-americas-schools-have-money-problem-0

‘ . . . Rodriguez's sons attended an elementary school where the third floor had been condemned. It lacked books, and many teachers weren't certified. . . ’
This is the ‘73 San Antonio case. So, we are talking about glaring differences.

Although in all honesty, as a 10-year-old kid I would have loved having a condemned third floor, and I would have tried really hard to sneak up there. But I can see why parents would be royally pissed.
 
FT_18.09.05_Middle-Income_2.png


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/

And as even a bigger goal . . .

I want this to be part of a timeline in which there is NOT a slow erosion of the American middle class. And this is a tough one for even having a better education system, doesn’t guarantee jobs on the back end (especially when the overall economy is losing a large number of good-paying jobs in manufacturing).

————————-

Later edit:



http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/
 
Last edited:
FT_18.09.05_Middle-Income_2.png


https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...-ground-financially-to-upper-income-families/

And as even a bigger goal . . .

I want this to be part of a timeline in which there is NOT a slow erosion of the American middle class. And this is a tough one for even having a better education system, doesn’t guarantee jobs on the back end (especially when the overall economy is losing a large number of good-paying jobs in manufacturing).

... please look at your chart again. You'll notice that one of the reasons the Middle Class is declining is that a greater share of the population are in the upper income tier, just as much of the population going down. If that's the case, it's arguable the decline is not in and of itself a bad thing.

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.

Legally speaking this would require some big double-think to manage to survive. You can't say people are federally entitled to equal education if you don't establish they're federally entitled to a basic quality of education first. The former is a derivative of the later.
 
. . . 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? . . .
It certainly could work out this way. But it didn’t work out this way with men’s college sports when women’s sports started getting more equality due to Title IX.

For example, regarding men’s college basketball, there’s March Madness at 6 pm eastern tonight and some more tomorrow afternoon!

And there’s women’s March Madness on TV pretty much right now!, and more tomorrow. Truly a case in which equality has led to more for all of us.
 
It certainly could work out this way. But it didn’t work out this way with men’s college sports when women’s sports started getting more equality due to Title IX.

For example, regarding men’s college basketball, there’s March Madness at 6 pm eastern tonight and some more tomorrow afternoon!

And there’s women’s March Madness on TV pretty much right now!, and more tomorrow. Truly a case in which equality has led to more for all of us.

What you’re saying is true....but where does the money come from?

Men’s march madness pretty much pays for everything else the NCAA does...

Football is the main moneymaker for Division 1 schools...
 
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.


That’s unfortunately a reasonable bet to make though how would that be addressed? National standards are one way, but how else?
 
That’s unfortunately a reasonable bet to make though how would that be addressed? National standards are one way, but how else?

But if you insist that it has to be levelling up rather than down, how do you do tat without raising taxes? If it does require that, the reform will fly like a lead balloon.
 
What you’re saying is true....but where does the money come from?

Men’s march madness pretty much pays for everything else the NCAA does...

Football is the main moneymaker for Division 1 schools...

Indeed. Cutting down on a profitable enterprise makes no sense, especially if that's your source of funding. Education dosen't work the same way; revenues come (mostly) from how much your surrounding property is worth and expenses don't correspond with that value much at all, or in the opposite direction if anything (IE: Low values housing equals poor families, which generally means higher needs students)
 
But if you insist that it has to be levelling up rather than down, how do you do tat without raising taxes? If it does require that, the reform will fly like a lead balloon.

Well, this was before Reagan’s tax cuts on the super rich, so probably maintain high taxes in the rich and not invest so much on the military
 
... please look at your chart again. You'll notice that one of the reasons the Middle Class is declining is that a greater share of the population are in the upper income tier, just as much of the population going down. If that's the case, it's arguable the decline is not in and of itself a bad thing.
I’m glad you brought that up. :)

Yes, in the graph second from the top, 5% move from middle income to upper income, and 4% move from middle to lower.

But no, I do not consider this splitting of society to be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
I’m glad you brought that up. :)

Yes, in the graph second from the top, 5% move from middle income to upper income, and 4% move from middle to lower.

But no, I don’t consider the slow splitting of society to be a void thing.

Well, to be fare than you're probably going to need to change some other things than primary education. That can't help save the underlying decline in the number of skilled crafts jobs, outsourcing, and a strong shift in immigration patterns towards undereducated Latin American populations.
 
Well, this was before Reagan’s tax cuts on the super rich, so probably maintain high taxes in the rich and not invest so much on the military
Yes, this would leave more money for discretionary spending, including education.

As far as when the center of gravity of American conservatism shifted, I place that with Bush, Sr., with some of it happening when he felt compelled to make the promise “Read my lips, No more taxes” during the ‘88 election. And some of it when he compromised with a Democratic Congress regarding a deficit-reduction package around June ‘90, which really raised the hackles of some conservatives who felt he was compromising before he had to.
 
Last edited:
Yes, this would leave more money for discretionary spending, including education.

As far as when the center of gravity of American conservatism shifted, I place that with Bush, Sr., with some of it happening when he felt compelled to make the promise “Read my lips, No more taxes” during the ‘88 election. And some of it when he compromised with a Democratic Congress regarding a deficit-reduction package around June ‘90, which really raised the hackles of some conservatives who felt he was compromising before he had to.

It was before Bush Sr. It was because of Reagan and the rise of the Neo-Conservatives.

The Humphrey thing to get the case ruled is good, but to maintain it, Reagan would have to be elected in 1976 so that poisoned chalice would damage he neocons and leave a more lefty Dem like Mo Udall or such do well in the 1980s
 
9780700614844.jpg

2006 book.

https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1483-7.html

‘ . . . Justice Lewis Powell argued that education was not a constitutionally protected right and that the Equal Protection Clause does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages, . . .
The facts are about as far as from “absolute equality” as one could imagine.

I thought the Court was into waiting for judicial ripeness? And so, with this San Antonio case, they could have oh-so easily ruled that it was not even close to being equal enough. And they leave for another day the question of whether or not “precisely equal” is good enough.

But no.

The Supremes seem to come up with an interesting legal principle, and then do about as clumsy a job of applying it as one can imagine! :openedeyewink:
 
Last edited:
I think I first started hearing the term “neo-con” around 2002.

It was first coined in 1973 in Europe apparently with Goldwater and his ilk being the first. At the core, it's about having a greater active military presence in the world and the focus of national security, hence Reagan's massive gifts to the military at the expense of everything else along with cutting marginal taxes. This helped define the 80s after all with Bush Sr afterwards.

If Reagan were to win in 1976, instead he and the GOP would be left holding the bag for Iran and so on happening, which could be more troublesome because of the foreign policy and result in them being out of office and having the Democrats in the 80s where they could further push for greater education
 
It was first coined in 1973 in Europe apparently with Goldwater and his ilk being the first. . .
Yes, I can see how conservative thinkers would want to move away from isolationism and come up with a more active military presence and policy during the cold war days.

Don’t agree with it, but can kind of see what they want to do.
 
. . . and having the Democrats in the 80s where they could further push for greater education
Maybe as a side thread.

However, in my main ATL, I want the Supreme Court to tell the States, you’ve got to have equal education within your state. In most cases, the Court could give the state legislature a chance to act. If the state doesn’t play ball, the appropriate District Court might appoint a special master or something of that sort.

And this might be the system for about twenty years, say, from the mid-‘70s to the mid-‘90s.

And then we might see how different New York is from Arkansas is from California is from New Mexico is from New Hampshire is from Hawaii, etc.
 
Yes, I can see how conservative thinkers would want to move away from isolationism and come up with a more active military presence and policy during the cold war days.

Don’t agree with it, but can kind of see what they want to do.

Well, Wikipedia goes into it, but it does seem to be a mix of liberal economic principles along with the interventionalist mindset that comes from thinking the USA is usually right along with wanting to play hard-ball with "difficult nations." It's why Reagan shot the military budget up the wazoo and why we went to war with Iraq despite having little real reason to do so.

Granted, if Reagan was voted in 1976, it'd be interesting to see how that mindset would affect Iran. Even if things did turn out good, I am thinking that the gas crisis and so on would keep Reagan from reelection in 1980. That and he'd have to deal with compromising with Democrats.
 
Top