In an era marked by intense scrutiny of initiatives that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion, I’d like to provocatively redefine DEI as the Drivers of Exclusion and Inequity (DEI), advocating for an anti-DEI (as defined here) stance.

San Antonio, Texas, is the seventh largest city in the United States, with a population of 1.5 million residents. Greater San Antonio, an eight-county metropolitan area, is home to 2.6 million residents. Despite its status as the cultural and political hub of South Texas, and economic growth in sectors such as healthcare, tourism, and military operations, the city faces significant economic challenges [4]. In 2022, San Antonio’s poverty rate was reported at 14.2%, notably higher than the national average of 12.6% and the second highest among the 25 largest US metropolitan areas [3]. This elevated poverty rate has been influenced by systemic inequalities, limited access to quality education, and generational economic disadvantages.

Research shows that obtaining a college degree substantially enhances earning potential and reduces the likelihood of unemployment, making higher education a critical pathway for individuals seeking to overcome poverty [6]. In San Antonio, and by extension in South Texas, increasing access to and completion of higher education is essential for addressing economic disparities and promoting social mobility. San Antonio hosts 31 institutions of higher education, of which The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) is the only research-intensive R1 institution.

College attrition is a fundamental obstacle to social mobility. Academic challenges, particularly in the freshman year, are a leading cause of attrition. Institutional shortcomings, including limited counseling and ineffective probationary measures, exacerbate the problem, especially for students facing financial hardships or extensive work commitments. Misaligned expectations about college life and poorly chosen academic or vocational paths further increase withdrawal likelihood. These interconnected factors highlight the complexity of attrition and the need for targeted interventions [12, 8, 15].

Under-performance in first-year mathematics courses (College Algebra, Precalculus, Calculus I, or Calculus II) is the strongest academic predictor of leaving STEM or dropping out of college at UTSA during the period 2012–2019 [9]. Approximately three-quarters of new UTSA students must complete a mathematics course to satisfy quantitative requisites, making the Department of Mathematics a significant filter for student progression.

Under-performance in first-year college mathematics is strongly linked to uneven access to foundational K-12 courses. Algebra I and Algebra II, in particular, play a critical role in preparing students for college- level mathematics. The 2020-21 Civil Rights Data Collection [14] reports that 39% of middle schools do not offer Algebra I, a critical gateway course. This disproportionately affects minority and low-income students, delaying their exposure to essential concepts. Algebra II availability is widespread, but disparities in enrollment and completion persist, particularly in underfunded districts. The cascading effects of inequitable access to Algebra I and II lead to condensed timelines for advanced mathematics, limiting readiness for college coursework. Algebra II, critical for developing skills in functions, problem-solving, and quantitative reasoning, remains a cornerstone for success in STEM. The systemic underpreparation creates barriers to success in first-year mathematics courses, which are essential for retention and degree completion.

A significant contributor in Texas to under-performance in first-year college courses in mathematics is the Texas House Bill 5 (HB 5) of 2013 [10], which introduced significant changes to Texas’ high school curriculum and graduation requirements, aiming to enhance college and career readiness among students but falling short of its intended goals. The bill introduced the Foundation High School Program, which offers students the flexibility to pursue endorsements in specific areas of study. The five endorsement options are: Arts and Humanities, Business and Industry, Public Services, Multidisciplinary Studies, and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics); only the STEM endorsement requires Algebra II as part of its course requirements [5]. The shift in graduation requirements affected college enrollment patterns. Students graduating under the Foundation High School Program were slightly more likely to enroll in two-year colleges but less likely to attend four-year institutions. For instance, 27% of Foundation graduates enrolled in two- year colleges compared to 24% under other programs, but only 9% enrolled in four-year colleges compared to 12% of their peers [1, p. 10].

I had the misfortune of engaging in conversation with an ardent proponent of HB 5. The main argument in its favor was “not everyone needs a college degree,” a statement to which one could superficially subscribe… until we ask whose children get the opportunity to access Algebra II in high school. The answer is painfully clear.

Just like most of Texas, affluent Independent School Districts (ISDs) in San Antonio, such as Alamo Heights, show significantly higher Algebra II participation rates (17%) compared to underfunded districts like Floresville ISD (2%). As shown in Figure 1, the highest completion rates of Algebra II occur in wealth- ier districts, correlating directly with income distribution [7, 13]. This inequity reflects systemic patterns that perpetuate disparities in educational attainment and economic outcomes. The highest percentages of participation of Algebra II correspond to Schertz and Alamo Heights, both affluent.

Alamo Heights, particularly, is an incorporated city inside the City of San Antonio. It was at the center of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) [11], a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed disparities in school funding. The case was brought by parents of students in the Edge- wood Independent School District, a predominantly low-income and Mexican-American community in San Antonio. They argued that the state’s reliance on local property taxes to fund public schools created substan- tial inequities between wealthy and poor districts, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled against the plaintiffs, holding that education is not a funda- mental right under the U.S. Constitution and that disparities in funding do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The decision reinforced the legality of funding public schools through local property taxes, effectively leaving issues of educational inequity to state legislatures rather than federal courts. Thus, HB 5 seems to be a worthy successor to this mode of thinking, preserving historical trends in distribution of resources.

References

1. Texas Education Agency. Hb 5 final comprehensive executive summary, 2018. Accessed: November 3, 2024.
2. Richelle M. Blair, Ellen E. Kirkman, and James W. Maxwell. Statistical Abstract of Undergraduate Pro- grams in the Mathematical Sciences in the United States: 2015 CBMS Survey. American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 2018. Supported by the National Science Foundation under grant #DUE-1441478.
3. U.S. Census Bureau. Poverty in states and metropolitan areas: 2022, 2023. Accessed: December 13, 2024.
4. U.S. Census Bureau. Quickfacts: San antonio city, texas, 2023. Accessed: December 13, 2024.
5. Region 19 Education Service Center. Hb 5 overview, 2013. Accessed: November 3, 2024.
6. Ban Cheah, Anthony P Carnevale, and Emma Wenzinger. The college payoff more education doesn’t always mean more earnings. 2021.
7. Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hendren, Maggie R. Jones, and Sonya R. Porter. The oppor- tunity atlas: Mapping the childhood roots of social mobility. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, (25147), 2018. Accessed: January 3, 2025.
8. Vanessa Gonzalez. The cost of academic dismissal and attrition from students on academic probation. New Directions for Higher Education, 2022(198):75–85, 2022.
9. Juan B. Gutiérrez. Correlates of Student Success at UTSA. Department of mathematics, University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, 2019. Access requires institutional approval.
10. Texas Legislature. House Bill 5, 83rd Texas legislature, regular session, 2013. Accessed: January 2, 2025.
11. Jr. Powell, Lewis F. and Supreme Court of the United States. U.s. reports: San Antonio school district v. Rodriguez, 411 u.s. 1 (1973), 1972. U.S. Reports Volume 411; October Term, 1972; San Antonio Independent School District et al. v. Rodriguez et al.
12. Virginia Staudt Sexton. Factors contributing to attrition in college populations: Twenty-five years of research. The Journal of General Psychology, 72(2):301–326, 1965.
13. Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education. 2017-18 civil rights data collection (crdc), 2021. Accessed: April 13, 2024.
14. Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education. Student access to and enrollment in mathematics, science, and computer science courses and academic programs in u.s. public schools: 2020-21 civil rights data collection, May 2024. Accessed: November 3, 2024.