This article discusses how many state courts, using the "judicially manageable" tools provided by state academic standards, are meeting the challenges set by "San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez" in 1973. A generation ago this decision was regarded as a major setback to education reform because, faced with stark inequities in the funding of education for poor and minority children in Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to order relief and declared education not a "fundamental interest" under the federal Constitution and that poor children did not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to special judicial scrutiny. One reason the Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the "Rodriguez" plaintiffs was that there were not "judicially manageable standards" for developing effective solutions to the problems. The search for judicially manageable standards has provided a potent legal initiative to ensure educational adequacy. The fact that legislatures and state education departments have developed clear criteria regarding the skills children will need to function productively as citizens in contemporary society has allowed courts to perceive more easily the core adequacy goals in the state constitution education clauses. In recent years a synergy has developed between education reform initiatives and judicial formulations of adequacy requirements that is resulting in the development of a concept of adequate education that may provide genuine opportunity for all students. (SLD)