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.
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
by: kido5150
4 comments:
cdedad:
I agree with the blogger's agreement with the court. I also agree with the blogger's statement that the Robin Hood plan may not be working as well as it should be. Unfortunately, there are too many people making the decisions about which school get which amounts of money that may not necessarily have the experience to understand why the schools need the amount of money that they do. At the time, though, the ruling was at tleast a start in the right direction of trying to balance the funding. In the end, the schools that were not getting as much funding, were not able to give their students as many educational opportunities as some of the other richer schools. This hurts the students more than anyone else, and it's not like the children have a huge choice over where their parents choose to live, so they should not be penalized. Like I said, at least this court decision and the Robin Hood plan was a start, so maybe things will continue to improve.
I do not necessary agree with the court’s ruling. I understand that the educational funding system is not working, however taking from school s that have “extra” funds may not be the correct route to proceed. I grew up in a Texas community that was miles from anywhere. It required additional funds to support itself in the isolated location it was in. The majority of the students and community economically challenged. The money came from oil and ranching large pieces of property. The school tax base was well off and when the “Robin Hood” Act went into effect it hurt the school system and the ability for it to provide the adequate education that it had been providing to its students. Is this not violating those communities’ students of the fair and adequate education that it is required to? When a school district is able to fund educational trips, programs and curriculum that is above and beyond the norm, why then should it be penalized by removing the funds that allow this type of education.
Ft. Worth Cohort
Jagem
I'm split on how I feel about the Court/Blogger's opinion on this decision. While I agree that there are a number of districts that need financial help and that some sort of aid needs to be available to these districts, I'm not certain that the money should be taken from "rich" districts. Financing education is expensive and necessary but I have a hard time with the fact that some districts are esentially punished because they are rich. Before the government takes money from one place to fund another I think that it would be more responsible on their part for them to take a look at where the government itself is spending its education dollars.
posted by 1995frog
I agree with the court's decision in this particular case. Students were not getting an equal education due to the lack of funds. However, I do not agree with the subsequent "Robin Hood" plan. Jagem's comments about taking money from rural districts with a rich tax base is unfair to the students in those districts as well is completely correct. I f a rich district is rural and the state takes money from them, does anyone take into consideration that those districts may have added expenses based on location. For example, rural districts shell out much more money for transportation than urban districts.
Again, this case was not about "Robin Hood", but rather, whether the state's funding methods at the time (1984) were efficient. I believe that they were not.......they still are not!
~Tiffany~
Post a Comment