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