School Finance & Law Flashcards
Federal Case
McInnis Cases, Illinois (1968 & 1969) (McInnis = M = money)
Wide variations in expenditures in per-pupil
- decided apportions were fair and constitutional HOWEVER, court cannot decide amount because:
1. ) ill-equipped to make equitable school funding plan
2. ) Lack of empirical data
3. ) Lack of consensus over schooling goals
Are state cases mostly successful or not successful?
Most are not successful in persuading state courts to allocate more funds from wealthy to poor school districts.
Favorable but Unusual State Cases
Serrano v. Priest (1971) (Fr. Serra - gave up wealth and tried to educate the CA Indians)
revenue disparaties between different districts
Rulings: 1.) Education is fundamental right
2.) Wealth or lack there of is a “suspect class”
3.) Unequal revenue violates Equal Protection Clause
Conclusion: Set a cap on per student funding
In Serrano v. Priest, what two ideas was the cap on per student funding based on?
- ) Fiscal Neutrality - quality of Education should be based on wealth of State - not wealth of local school district.
- ) Municipal Overburden - high property tax for gov. services/ wealthier districts can repair buildings and fund raise/ poorer districts cannot.
Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989) State Case (Rose - Kentucky Derby)
Kentucky Constitution mandated that the state provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the state - 66 poorer districts sued the state that claimed each district was responsible for school funding through property tax. Court ruled it was the state’s responsibility not “local Gov’t” to provide substantial equality of financial resources.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973) (San - S - Strict scrutiny Test)
Unfavorable Federal Case
First Federal level case to deal with the disparities caused by local property taxes to finance education based on alleged Equal Protection violations - 14th Amendment -
1. court looked at whether education was a fundamental right (strict scrutiny test) or not a fundamental right (rational basis test). - No!
2.) Wealth is not a suspect classification.
Conclusion - funding model in Texas upheld
*Federal Court system closed as route to challenge in equities in school finance.
School Choice Plans
- Open enrollment - Inter/Intra district (between/within)
- Charter Schools - public funded school/ 5 year contract
- Voucher plans - ADA funding
- Single sex public school/ tuition tax credits
- Increased Accountability
Williams v. State of CA settlement
Provides parents with rights and hearing if not resolved. Parents have a right to:
- complain about instructional materials/ one text per student
- complain about facility conditions
- credentialed teacher
- receive intensive instruction if CAHSEE not passed.
Anticipated Litigation of Choice/Impacts of Privatization in Public Education
- ) Equal Protection on due process lawsuit: $
- ) Separation of Church and State
- ) Race Discrimination
- ) Disparity of funding issues
- ) Accountability for the Private Schools - standards/ breach of contract
- ) Misc. - athletic issues/ transportation
Zelman v. Simmons- Harris (2002) (Zealous plan for every man)
Cleveland gave voucher to all families and told them that Public School would take it as full payment but they could use it for Private School.
Ruling: Does not violate Lemon Law.
Hartzell v. Connell (1984) (Hearts on sleeves, everythings free)
Public school wanted to charge fees for extra curricular activities.
Ruling: prohibited. Violates the “free school” guarantee of CA constitution and CCR/ aka AC (CA Code of Regulation and Administrative Code)
*Constitutional defect in such fees cannot be corrected by:
1.) providing waivers to indigent students (stigma)
2.) schools pleading financial hardship - Education must be free.
Salazer v. Honig (1988) (honig = honey = sticky bus)
CA statute allowed schools to assess fees for students who ride school bus
Ruling: CA violated equal protection clause and free school guarantee in CA constitution.
-Now overturned
