Alamo Whites

Norton Grubb argues that inequality and inadequate outcomes from schools cannot be explained by inadequate revenues and financing, contrary to the opinions of many. More money to schools will not solve problems of inequality. Grubb points out that the link between spending per pupil and outcomes has always been weak, so more money should not be seen as the only solution for improving schools.

I find this philosophy interesting given my education experience and background before college. I went to school in one of the wealthiest school districts in San Antonio, known for its lack of racial/ethnic diversity and overall pretentiousness. Students at other schools in San Antonio express a general disdain for this district (Alamo Heights) and refer to it as "Alamo Whites." Most of the students come from upper-middle class families and over 90% attend college upon graduation. Although it has a wide range of accolades and favorable student outcomes, I believe this is largely because of the families/backgrounds of the students who attend this school, rather than because the district itself has money. Most of my friends’ parents were doctors, lawyers, or CEOs with large incomes and many resources to support and encourage their children.

Throughout my time in this school district, many legal practices and policies over the years required my school district to redistribute some of its money to the other schools in San Antonio. While I do think it is important for all schools to have enough money to provide quality curriculum and services to students, I think (and I think this is in line with Grubb’s thinking) that more focus should have been given to other factors. Money alone is not the reason for the success of students who come through this district. Family background, a tight-knit community, and other social factors likely contribute significantly to outcomes. While money is the easy difference to observe and measure, it is not the most significant factor.

Freedom and Equality

As discussed in class, the ideas of freedom/liberty and equality are present in most arguments and are directly derived from the capability approach. After realizing that these ideas are fundamental to the argument for gay rights, I have been on the look-out for other contexts where they arise.

I realized that these ideas have emerged in many issues surrounding global health and health inequalities. In my global health class, we have been reading and discussing Dr. Paul Farmer, a physician and anthropologist known for his humanitarian work providing “first world” health care to the world’s poor and marginalized people. Farmer believes that the poor not only deserve to receive the same medical care as wealthier patients, but should even be prioritized. People should not suffer and die when medication or treatment exists in the world. He argues that we are morally responsible for the poor, vulnerable, and marginalized populations. There is a collective responsibility for the “haves” to provide for the “have nots”.

This stance falls in line with many of the ideas of the capability approach. The poor and vulnerable should have the freedom to reach their full potential and live the life they wish to live. Health care should be equitable: the poor and the rich should be treated the same. People should not go untreated and die from AIDS, malaria, TB, etc. when treatments exist for those who can pay. The capability approach also provided a foundation for the idea that the community is responsible for the development and well-being of the individual. 

I think these same issues also arise in the current health care debate in the United States. Proponents of universal health care believe that we have a collective responsibility to make sure everybody receives health care. If health care is a human right, then all populations should have access. Opponents don’t want universal health care because they don’t want their tax money to cover health care for those who can’t pay, because they don’t feel a sense of responsibility. Regardless of responsibility, equality in access to health care and freedom surrounding health care are fundamental ideas surrounding the debate