EDAD 730Education FinanceEric Knight

This PowerPoint talks about four court cases that deal with school finance. The first one, DeRolph vs. State of Ohio deals with public funding. Williams vs. California deals with denying student rights to an education. The third court case talk about Bradford vs. Maryland State Board of Education which again deals with providing an education to students. The final case San Antonio Independent School District vs. Rodriguez dealt with minorities and the poor part of San Antonio getting a good education. Each case I presented the argument for the case along with the verdict and my reaction to the court case.

Ohio’s current approach to funding public education is unconstitutional.

Case started in 1991.

Named after Nathan DeRolph

500 school districts in Ohio filed suit.

The districts claimed that the state failed to provide an efficient educational system by relying heavily upon local property taxes to fund schools

School systems in areas with higher property values could meet the needs of and provide more opportunities for their students while students in poorer areas suffer.

In 1994 Judge Linton Lewis Jr. ruled that the public education is a fundamental right in the state of Ohio and the legislature had to provide a better way to finance education.

State government appealed the decision stating Lewis did not have the power to overturn an Ohio Supreme Court.

School districts filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court in 1996.

Supreme Court ruled that the current way of funding education violated the Ohio Constitution and the government had to come up with a proper way to fund education.

The plan must have these 5 things to be considered constitutional:

1. Centralize school finance so that the state has the primary responsibility for funding schools.

2. Base school funding on an explicit assessment of the actual cost of educating a child.

3. Provide sufficient funds to ensure school facilities are maintained and in compliance with all local, state and federal mandates.

4. Provide funding to meet the $10 billion estimated shortfall in school construction and renovation.

5. Can not rely on local property taxes as primary source for funding education.

I think this was a good court case. It gives all students no matter where they live if it’s in area with high property value or low property value that each school will be adequately funded. The courts made the verdict pretty open so the states could work on a few plans to make sure it was constitutional.

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=2055

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2001/2001-ohio-1896.pdf

State and their agencies are denying thousands of students their fundamental right to an education.

Failing to give basic tools necessary for that education.

Filed May 17, 2000

Not all students were getting educational resources that were in good condition. Some of the books were used, ripped, or wrote on.

Schools were in bad condition with rats running around the school. The rest of the school was substandard.

On August 13, 2004 there was a settlement between the parties and the state.

On September 29, 2004 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law 5 bills implementing the legislative proposals set forth in the settlement agreement

1. SB 550 Established minimum standards regarding school facilities, teacher quality, and instructional materials

2. AB 2727- An accountability system to enforce the above standards.

3. AB 1550- Phasing out the use of the Concept 6 multi-track, year-round school calendar and setting benchmarks for districts to reach this goal.

4. AB 3001- Encouraging placement of qualified teachers in low performing schools and streamlining the process for highly qualified teachers from out of state to teach in California schools.

5. SB 6- Providing up to $800 million beginning in 05-06 to repair facility conditions that threatens health and safety & about $25 million for a one time facilities needs assessment for the 3 bottom schools.

I think this is a very good court ruling. There is no way students should have to go to school where there are rats running around. Every student should have the right to use new books, have a good facility to learn in , and have qualified teachers. Students will have a much better chance at succeeding in school with these three things.

http://www.decentschools.org/

http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/ce/wc/wmslawsuit.asp

This case is about the failure to provide an adequate education to Baltimore City students as required by the Maryland Constitution

Filed in 1994

American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland was also filing suit with Bradford

The ACLU and Baltimore City students were complaining of not receiving an adequate education.

Courts agreed with the plaintiffs.

The city, state, and ACLU entered a "Partnership Agreement" which required increased funding from the state and management reform of the city school system.

In 2000 the courts declared that the state of Maryland is still not providing the city of Baltimore a “constitutionally adequate education.”

The state needs to add additional funding of $2,000-$2,600 per pupil.

The state of Baltimore and the city came up with a plan to add the Thornton Commission .

Thornton Commission was a way to study statewide funding formulas to come up with an adequate formula for Baltimore.

This was a case that kept going back to the courtroom. In fact this case was again talked about in 2004. Plans to increase class sizes, cut summer school for at-risk children, eliminate guidance counselors, and encourage the retirement teachers are some of the problems Baltimore is facing. It sounds like the state of Maryland does not have the students high on their priority list.

http://www.aclu-md.org/aTop%20Issues/Bradfordhistory.html

http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/md/lit_md.php3

Texas method of school financing violated the equal protection clause of the 14th

Filed suit on June 30, 1968

Parents sued San Antonio ISD, Alamo Heights ISD, and 5 other schools.

The chief complaint of this case was that education was a fundamental right to everyone.

Parents claimed that school districts in the wealthy part of town or the areas that are primarily white were able to contribute a much higher amount per child than schools like Edgewood which was in a poor minority area.

Since Edgewood was in a poor district with a low tax base, the school district could not afford to have qualified teachers, provide adequate books and supplies, and have a descent facility.

The courts decided in a vote of 5-4 that the education in Edgewood was “neither explicitly or implicitly protected in the Constitution.

It was also decided that Texas did not create a suspected class related to poverty. The state could continue their education funding as long as it was in the states best interest and in accordance to the Constitution.

This case really surprised me. I thought the state would do something about the school and conditions. But in the long run since Edgewood happens to be in a poor area with low tax base that unfortunately affects the school too. It is tough to fault the state when they are doing everything in accordance to the state constitution.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_1332/

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/jrrht.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio_Independent_School_District_v._Rodriguez