Edgewood ISD v. Kirby

Edgewood ISD v. Kirby
Supreme Court of Texas, 1989
777 S.W.2d. 391.

In a Nut Shell:
The State of Texas Financing System is in violation of the “efficient” provision of the Education Clause of the Texas Constitution.

Basic Case Information:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that education is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution, so school finance lawsuits must take place in a state court. In 1984, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) filed suit against William Kirby, the Commissioner of Education, on behalf of Edgewood ISD (and others). MALDEF stated that the state funding methods were in violation of at least four parts of the Texas Constitution that requires the state to provide an “efficient” and free public education.
MALDEF stated that Edgewood ISD and many others in the state were unable to provide that same quality education to their student due to lack of funds. The differences in the wealthy districts and the poor districts produced such a gap in the ability to (1) hire good teachers/staff, (2) build appropriate facilities, (3) offer quality curriculum, and (4) purchase important equipment, such as computers/technology items. MALDEF stated that the gaps denied the equal opportunity of an “efficient” education.

Ruling:
In April, 1987, State District Judge Harley Clark ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. He found that the state’s public school financing structure was unconstitutional and ordered the Texas Legislature to formulate a more equitable funding system. In June, 1990, the Legislature was still unable to come up with a plan, so an alternative plan was implemented. The ‘Robin Hood’ plan called for a transfer of money from property wealthy school districts to property-poor districts in order to equalize each school district spent on educating students.

My Comments:
I agree with the court and its decision. I do think that unequal education is a violation of our right to an 'efficient' public education. I don’t think that the ‘Robin Hood’ plan is working. According to research at the Texas Center for Education Research and Texas Association of School Boards, about 90 percent of students in Texas are in school districts with roughly the same wealth. I simply do not agree with the ‘research’. ‘Robin Hood’ is still not allowing all students, across the state the same educational rights. It has helped…it is a step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go.

As an administrator, I need try to ensure that budget money is spent on education for teachers, in order to positively impact student learning and things (technology, software, etc.) that will have a greater impact on student learning/knolwedge. I think this case covers Domains 1.2, 3.8, and 3.9

by: kido5150

Edgewood ISD v. Kirby

Edgewood v. Kirby
fnb84

You may remember Edgewood ISD from San Antonio v. Rodriguez Supreme Court case. They came back in the late 1980’s to determine whether the Texas system for financing the education of public school students was constitutional. This district among sixty-seven others claimed that the Teas finance system violates the Texas constitution.

The plaintiffs in this case presented data that suggested that there was a huge disparity among the dollars spent per students in different districts among the state. It also claimed that poorer districts had to tax at higher rates than wealthier districts.

The decision was made by the Texas Supreme Court and it found in favor off the plaintiff. Many attempts were made before to even the playing field among all of the districts, but all were found to be unconstitutional.

As a result of the court findings, the legislation passed what was then known as Senate Bill 7, now called the Robin Hood plan. The Texas Supreme Court found this constitutional and it passed in 1993 to become law by the Texas legislature. As the name implies funds from wealthier districts are distributed among poorer districts. In essence this levels the monetary playing fields among districts.
Where do you stand on this decision? That of course depends on what side of the fence you are standing on. Are you giving or receiving? Even though I come from a giving district, I feel that it is necessary to provide an even financial foothold for all districts. Children do not choose where they live. They should not have to suffer educationally as a result of those geographics.

Civil Order 5281

United States v. Texas, otherwise known as Civil Order 5281 deals with Texas violating civil rights laws in regards to segregation within its public schools. In Nov. of 1970, the U.S. district court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered TEA to take responsibility for the desegregation of Texas public schools.
The case was brought to light after investigations completed by the United States Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare proved that there were numerous infractions regarding discriminatory practices in a number of small town schools. Texas was required by the U.S. to develop and submit a plan of action to eliminate segregation within the schools. Once Texas filed their plan, the U. S. objected and set their own guidelines in what must be done. Texas received specific orders in regards to transfers of students. Transfers of students that lent itself to look like segregation was stopped. Justice William Wayne ordered consolidation of all black districts with the connecting white districts. TEA was ordered to prohibit the assignment of schools based on race, discrimination in regards to extracurricular activities, personnel practices, and segregated bus routes. If the ruling was not followed districts could lose their accreditation with the state.
Texas has always marched to the beat of its own drum and tends to lend itself to the rebellious side. I typically don't mind this, however I believe in fairness and equality of all men. I am in complete agreement with the outcome of this case. Texas was in complete defiance of the 14th amendment and of the civil rights laws. A slap on the hand would not be enough in this matter. I believe that the U.S. had a right to get involved and enforce orders upon Texas in order to stop segregation.
The whole case applies to Domain 1.3 of our student learning outcomes. As educators, we need to be aware of what may or may not be happening in our district or the districts surrounding us, when it comes to dealing with student transfers and school assignments. Although, we don't see as much of segregation in schools, I am sure there are cases in which a student has been sent to another campus for reasons other than those deemed legally okay.

posted by doglover

Brown vs Board of Education

Friday June 27th

Brown vs Board of Education Topeka 

Supreme Court of the United States  1954

Background

Most schools are currently segregated based on the doctrine of "separate but equal" established by Plessy v Ferguson in 1896. As long as the facilities are equal white children and black children will attend separate schools.  This is an established practice.  In 1954 four states all had similar cases move to the supreme court for judgment in this matter. All claimed that even though the facilities were similar or even equal the level of education in the black schools were inferior to the level of education being given to the white students. The black students should be allowed to attend a school in their district if it offers a better level of education and they should not be turned away because of their color. In all four states ( Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware) black students were denied admission to a local school under laws which require or permitted the segregation of students according to race. 

Note:  The Separate but Equal doctrine developed from the Plessy Vs Ferguson case was in regard to a transportation question.  It was not argued as a case for education. Yet separate but equal was the standard of the day in 1954.

Ruling

The schools in question do in-fact appear to be equal in respect to buildings, curricula, qualification of teachers and other tangle factors.  So the question presented is this: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other tangible factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?  We the court believe it does.  We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of "Separate but Equal" has no place. 

Comment

ALright, lets shake the bucket on this one!!!!

I disagree with the courts ruling

I think they deprived the schools of the natural abilities to develop into quality learning facilities in their own regard.  

I understand the domino effect ... I know there can not be out standing scholars with out basic education programs in place. In 1954 it probably did seem more like an impossible dream than a just a matter of time for many segregated schools to develop into world class teaching facilities.  That does not mean there were not black teachers doing outstanding works. That does not mean that there were not outstanding schools within the segregated communities.  To lump the entire group of american society together and say "Black schools are not as good as White schools" is a real slap in the face to those who strive for academic excellence within there own schools where ever they may be.  I think the separate but equal status of schools was more opinion than reality. I find it had to believe that the segregated schools did in fact get equal facilities, equal pay for teachers, equal budgets from the state and alike. I think the schools were being punished for the color of their students. 

The US was moving in a direction of a much more integrated social structure during the 1950-1960s and integration at all levels of society was going to evolve. The school system would be a natural part of that evolution as was the work place, public transportation and alike. I think a blanket statement from the court that says:"White schools are good/Black schools are bad" is a slap in the face to an entire group of our society.

Rumrunner

Fort Worth Cohort

San Antonio V. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of the United States, 1973
411 U.S. 1,93 S. Ct. 1278, rehearing denied

Background:
In San Antonio, TX a group of Mexican American parents whose children attended Edgewood Independent School District, an urban school district on the west side of San Antonio, filed a suit against attacking the poorly structure public school financing process in Texas. Their complaint was that schoolchildren across the state who were of a minority class or who were poor and reside in school districts having a low property tax base did not have access to an education equal to that of children in districts with high property tax rates.

Ruling

The high court ruled that children in a district with a low property tax rate cannot be considered a suspect class. They were not being discriminated against according to the Supreme Court because poor families do not all reside in poor school districts. Therefore because no suspect class was recognized there was no need to apply strict scrutiny. The court also ruled that contrary to parent's assertion that education was a fundamental right guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, education is not listed anywhere, explicitly or implicitly as a Constitutional right. The court believed this to be an issue best handled by the State of Texas. Thus, the court reversed the ruling of the appeals court.

My Side:
I completely agree with the court in that there was no suspect class here because funding for education is based on property tax bases within districts which fall across class and race. Poor families live in rich districts, middle class districts and poor districts. I also agree with the courts that the system must be fixed to equitably share the responsibility of educating the children of Texas. The court also said that they are in no position to rule on something that is reserved for the Texas State Legislature. They send this back to the state to fix which set in motion a myriad of school finance cases which developed several solutions only to end up with a future shortfall in excess of $9 billion in 2009.

Something will have to be done. Either a state income tax will be passed or the Texas State Constitution will have to be amended to permit statewide ad velorem taxes to be paid to the state and then redistributed on a per pupil basis statewide in order for all districts, rich or poor, to begin down road to educational equality.

This case would fall under Domain 1.2 because of the social, political and economic implications affecting public education in Texas.

Lemon v.Kurtzman
US Supreme Court, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)

The states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island had actions brought against them by citizens and taxpayers of the states. The appellees clamed the states statutes for supplementing secular nonpublic schools violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both states had adopted statutory programs that would provide financial support to nonpublic elementary and secondary school.

Pennsylvania’s statute would reimburse schools for moneys spent on books, teacher salaries, and instructional materials. These funds could only be used for classes, teachers and materials that were “presented in the curricula of the public schools.” It was limited “solely” to courses in the following “secular” subjects: mathematics, modern foreign languages, physical science, and physical education. The schools seeking aid had to keep separate financial books on moneys spent. This act went into effect on July, 1968

Under the Rhode Island statute, the state would pay directly to the teachers in nonpublic schools a supplement not more than 15% of their salary and no more than that of a public school teacher’s yearly pay. To be eligible for the supplement the teacher must teach in a nonpublic school that has a less than average per-pupil expenditure of the public school. The teacher must only teach the subjects that were taught in the public school, nothing religious. This act was enacted in 1969.

The court in this case developed a three-step test for laws dealing with religion, The Lemon Test. In this three-step process the courts look at the states statutes: 1) the statute must have a secular legislative purpose, 2) its principle or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and 3) the statute must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion. The Supreme Court found that the states of Pennsylvania and Rhode Island statutes passed the first two questions but not the third. They determined that to aid the nonpublic religious school furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the surveillance necessary to enforce the laws of the statues would cause entanglement of the states and the religious affiliations. With this the court found that the statues did in-fact violate the First Amendment.

I believe the Supreme Court did file correctly in this case. They also set precedence to use in later court cases that had religious relations. I understand and applaud the states for their actions. They believed they took all precautions to help aid in education of students both at public and private schools. However, these were still private-religious schools, and their foundations are instilled throughout the buildings and grounds on which they set. For the state to say they would have no dealings with the religious portion of the schools is very juvenile thinking on their part.

I believe this case falls under Domain 1 which is to respond to pertinent political, social, and economic issues in the internal and external environment. These case forces me to think about the statutes and laws we produce whether be at a state level or at a campus level. Even though the law is to protect or support for positive outcome, there may be others they are offended by the act.

jagem

Morse v. Frederick

At a school sponsored event, the principal saw students holding a banner that said "Bong hits 4 Jesus", which she thought promoted illegal drug use. Morse (the principal) directed the student to take it down, and he refused. Morse took the banner away and suspended the student. Superintendent agreed, as did the school board. Frederick (the student) filed suit alleging the school board and Morse violated his first amendment rights. The district court sided with the principal, but the decision was later overturned by the 9th Circuit Court. They held that the school punished Frederick without proving that his speech was truly disruptive. They also stated that Morse was not entitled to qualified immunity because Frederick's rights to display the banner were established, and that Morse should have known that what she was doing was unconstitutional.

Supreme court overturned the ruling and held that schools must take care to safeguard students from speech with encourages illegal drug use, and that school officials did not violate Frederick's first amendment. They stated that Frederick was in fact "at school" and that a principal may restrict student speech at school events that can be reasonably viewed as promoting drug use.

I completely agree with the actions of the principal, and if I had been in the same situation as the principal, I would have acted in the same manner. I am thankful that the Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the Circuit Court because it would have been a devastating blow to a principal's power in a school had they not. It will be our duty as principals to do what we think is the best for ALL students, even it it means one student doesn't get to say everything he or she wants to say. If this one student had gotten away with it, where would the next banner have said?? With the responsibility of principal must come some liberty to stop behaviors that are not conducive to a safe learning enviornment.

Posted by Kiska