Essay for class (July 12, 2011)

-Make this our current event discussion tomorrow:
-I read this and found it interesting....
   In Financing Education in a Climate of Change (Chapter 9), as well as the Legal Issues and Finance Part 1 power point, it occurred to me that maybe we are not following the Equal Protection and Taxation Clause. In the opening sentence the book (p. 211) cites, “Without judicial action equal educational opportunity will never exist”. I remembered seeing a You Tube video during my school law class about Brown v BOE Topeka Kansas and included the link below.

   It is such a fine line however, as local taxes in depressed areas, which usually include many African-Americans have a very limited tax base, or the rate of collection is very sparse. In addition, they suffer the most from tax cuts.

   The Serrano decision in 1971 found the school finance system to be unconstitutional. This ruling occurred in California Supreme Court and a precedent was set and other states also complied. But two years later in the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Texas school finance plan against an equal protection challenge. As cited on page 212, “Though education is one of the most important services performed by the State, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” according to Justice Lewis Powell and the 5-4 vote in his court room.

   The book explains three waves of school finance litigation. I see a “fourth wave” emerging from the first three, the voucher, and or school choice system. The first wave dealt with challenges of inequitable and unfair state funding schemes under the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The second wave claimed inequitable finance systems were unconstitutional under both the Equal Protection Clause, as well as educational articles of the state constitution. The third wave came about due to claims of inadequate funding, hence being unconstitutional.

   I see it as very interesting that it appears that these waves laid the foundation for the voucher and school choice programs. Needless to say, NEA and PSEA are against both! While I will continue to challenge the credibility of most charter schools, and allowing school choice, I am beginning to develop a better picture of the, “Everything happens for a reason”, statement.

   Through the budget cuts, accountability of all schools and teachers has raised dramatically. If they pass the bill allowing furloughs of teachers despite their seniority that would be another step in the right direction. But, they would need to go a step further and give schools the right to replace certain teachers, instead of being forced to call them back if an opening exists.

   The problem does still exist and I am still puzzled about “equal and equitable” funding. What if every district across the Commonwealth had the same per pupil dollar amount to educate children?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daHYY1d9W4s&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1

Tuesday's Discussion

10 Critical Legal Issues (PPT)

•Search & Seizure – TLO at Threat!

•Schools & Religion – Establishment of What?

•Superintendent/Private Counsel Relations

•Athletics and Athlete & Other Student Advisement – Liability

•Electronically Stored Information Retention

•Bullying – Recent Developments

•Plyler at Risk – Immigration Laws

•Student Discipline

•Employment

•Supreme Court - Certiorari

Also: Policy v Procedures for School leaders, Tort Liability, Freedom of Expression, Merit Pay, IDEA
VISIT- School Law/Code Websites

School Law (7-5 through 7-8)

Ed 575 School Law For Principals

-KWL Document

State Law, Federal Law & Function of the Judicial System in Education
School Attendance and Instructional Issues
Students’ Rights in Noninstructional Matters
NCLB, Proficiency Testing, RtII, FAPE
Rights of Students with Disabilities
Student Discipline
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Teachers’ Substantive Constitutional Rights
Termination of Employment
Tort Liability

2009 Turner v. Clayton

Education Department Files Motion on Turner v. Clayton

Court ruling could have ripple effects throughout the state

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education filed an amicus brief this week in Turner v. School District of Clayton to address key issues relating to a ruling handed down last month by the Missouri Supreme Court.

The Court's original ruling overturned a lower court's summary judgment in Clayton's favor and remanded the case back to the lower court. It was not a final resolution of the matter.
The families of six students who live in the Saint Louis Public School District brought the original lawsuit. The students were previously enrolled as tuition students in the Clayton schools prior to the St. Louis Public Schools losing its accreditation in 2007. The families sought billing and payment by the respective schools for their students’ tuition.
The July 16 Supreme Court ruling calls for unaccredited public schools to pay tuition payments for students who transfer to accredited school districts in the same or neighboring counties. The ruling also states that receiving school districts must accept all those students who wish to transfer.
The Department is not a party to the suit, yet the ruling raises many questions for public school districts, state officials said. The Department filed a motion to stay implementation of the order due to the short time before the start of school.
Commissioner of Education Chris L. Nicastro told school administrators at a meeting this week that the court decision raises important questions for many school districts in Missouri. She hopes the implementation of the court ruling can be delayed until the 2011-12 school year to allow the state legislature to intervene.
“The decision could have a major impact on student enrollment, so we are hoping for the opportunity for a review of the law in this area by the General Assembly,” Nicastro said. “In implementing the decision, it would be important to find some way for a receiving school to determine and balance capacity of taking on new students without jeopardizing instructional programs within a district.”

The state currently has two unaccredited school districts. The other district is Riverview Gardens in St. Louis County, which lost its accreditation in July 2009.

Quote by Marva Collins

"Don't try to fix the students, fix ourselves first. The good teacher makes the poor student good and the good student superior. When our students fail, we, as teachers, too, have failed."

Gov. Tom Corbett links state budget to school tax decisions

Published: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 2:49 PM     Updated: Tuesday, June 28, 2011, 3:03 PM

 By The Associated Press 
Follow

ShareEmailPrint

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said today that passage of a bill to limit the ability of school boards to raise property taxes was "crucial" to the state budget under consideration in the Legislature.

Corbett's rare public comments about the budget, made during a news conference in the Capitol Rotunda, came hours before the state Senate was expected to approve a $27.15 billion spending plan for the fiscal year starting Friday.

The budget bill, agreed to by Corbett and his fellow Republicans who control both chambers of the Legislature, still requires a vote in the House before it can go Corbett's desk.

View full sizeAP Photo/Matt Rourke, fileGov. Tom Corbett, left, delivers his budget address for the fiscal year 2011-2012 to a joint session of the Pennsylvania House and Senate in Harrisburg, Pa., Tuesday, March 8, 2011. Seated center is Speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Rep. Sam Smith, R-Jefferson, and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley.

"Until there is a budget, until I get the opportunity to sign one, there is no budget, we understand that," Corbett said. "This process does not just include the numbers. It requires other laws that will make the budget work."

Corbett said taxpayers deserved to see action on a bill that would eliminate exceptions that allow school boards to get around a state law that gives voters the right to veto or approve school property tax increases above the rate of inflation. The 2006 Taxpayer Relief Act included the referendum language, but in a state with 500 school districts, just 14 such votes have been held, and 13 failed.

He also said his staff has been working behind the scenes on a proposal to make it easier for parents to take their children out of the public schools they currently attend and send them to private or other public schools. "We'd like to see this bill passed before we adjourn for the summer," he told reporters, shortly after signing a bill that changed how liability is apportioned in civil negligence lawsuits.

The budget would reduce state spending by about 3 percent, thanks largely to more than $1.1 billion in cuts in aid to public schools and 18 state-supported universities, as Republicans look to avoid raising taxes while coping with a fall-off in state tax revenues and the disappearance of temporary federal budget aid.

The budget would tap $50 million from the Legislature's reserve fund. It also would lower business taxes and keep about $500 million in reserve — elements that Democrats say are forcing universities to raise tuition and school boards to lay off thousands of employees and raise taxes.

The governor also took aim at Democratic votes late Monday that have stalled funding for several universities, including Penn State, Temple and Pitt. "This is not the time to play chicken with the future of our students and our families," Corbett said. "Democrats will have to answer to the people of Pennsylvania" unless something changes in the coming days, he added.

Related topics: pennsylvania budget, tom corbett