Court Cases: SAISD vs. Rodriguez (1973) & Kirby vs. Edgewood (1993) La%n@s in Educa%on Today’s Objec%ves •  Ques%ons? –  Please resend your PowerPoint presenta%ons to me via email. –  Mid-­‐Term examina%on next Thursday •
•
•
•
SAISD vs. Rodriguez (1973) Kirby v Edgewood (1993) Funding discussion Rodriguez 3 ques%ons due Wednesday by 10 p.m. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez •  Federal court declared school-­‐finance system of Texas uncons%tu%onal •  First %me since passage of Gilmer-­‐Alken Laws (1949) that Texas addressed school-­‐
finance reform SAISD v. Rodriguez: Background •  May 16, 1968: –  Student Protests •  400 Students at Edgewood High School walked out •  Protes%ng of lack of qualified teachers, supplies –  Forma%on of Edgewood District Concerned Parents Associa5on (EDCPA) •  Parents including Demetrio Rodriguez –  Unsuccessful appeal to Mexican American Legal Defense and Educa5on Fund SAISD v. Rodriguez: Lawsuit Filed •  July 10, 1968 –  Rodriguez and other parents file lawsuit: •  Claim: – Their school district has amongst highest tax rate, but raised only $37/student – Compared to Alamo Heights (in wealthiest county): raised $413/student •  Defendants: –  Texas Board of Educa%on, Commissioner of Educa%on, State Aeorney General, Bexar County Board of Trustees SAISD v. Rodriguez: Study Findings •  In Bexar county: –  Tax rate (per $100 of property value) necessary to equalize funding for educa%on •  Alamo Heights à $0.68 •  Edgewood à $5.67 SAISD v. Rodriguez: Case Development •  January 1969 –  Impaneling of 3-­‐judge federal court –  Plain5ff lawyer argues: •  14th cons%tu%onal amendment made educa%on a “fundamental right” •  Poor/ Mexican-­‐American families were being treated as a “suspect class” –  State countered: •  Texas legislature authoriza%on of school finance study SAISD v. Rodriguez: Case Ruling •  March 21, 1973 –  Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 against Rodriguez •  Equal Protec%on Clause of the US cons%tu%on was not violated by school finance system •  State not required to subsidize poorer school districts –  * Legal Barriers to equaliza%on * SAISD v. Rodriguez: Conclusions •  April 23, 1973 –  Court denied rehearing of case •  Plain5ff Rodriguez: “The poor people have lost again” •  Jus5ce Thurgood Marshall: court decisions was a “retreat from our historic commitment to equality of educa%onal opportuni%es” Edgewood victorious -­‐ Edgewood I.S.D. students in San Antonio celebrate at John F. Kennedy High School aHer the Texas Supreme Court ruled the state's public educaOonal funding system unconsOtuOonal. The decision came aHer 21 years of liOgaOon by MALDEF and other groups. Photo by Tom Lanks. Courtesy of AusOn American-­‐Statesmen. Kirby v. Edgewood •  Plain%ff: Mexican American Legal Defense and Educa%on Fund (MALDEF) –  On behalf of: Edgewood Independent School District (EISD) •  Defendant: Commissioner of Educa%on, William Kirby Kirby v. Edgewood: Plain%ff Charges •  Plain%ffs charged: –  Texas’ method of funding public schools violated mul%ple state cons%tu%on principles •  Plain%ffs Contested: –  State’s dependence on property taxes to fund school system is unequal •  Property values vary district to district •  Unequal funds available to students throughout state Kirby v. Edgewood (1990): District Disparity in Funding •  Property worth disparity –  Edgewood district: $38,854 property worth/ student –  Alamo Heights district: $70,109 property worth/
student •  Tax rate disparity –  Property poor district: Tax rate $0.74/$100 value à $2,987 per student –  Property rich district: Tax rate is half –  à $7233 per student Kirby v. Edgewood (1990): District Disparity in Funding •  MALDEF declares these gaps as a denial of equal educa5onal opportuni5es Kirby v. Edgewood: Ini%al Legisla%on •  June 30, 1984 –  Legislature passed: increase in state aid to poor schools •  1985 –  MALDEF challenges legisla%on, calling it “intolerably illegal” •  Seeks addi%onal funding reform Kirby v. Edgewood: Case Ruling •  January 20 – April 18, 1987 –  Edgewood case heard in Aus%n –  State district judge: Harley Clark •  April 29, 1987 –  Judge rules in favor of plain%ffs •  Texas public school funding: uncons5tu5onal •  Orders for new legisla%on (more equitable system) –  State appeals Kirby v. Edgewood: Ruling Reversed •  December 14, 1988 –  Appeals court jus%ces reverse decision (2-­‐1 decision) •  Grounds: Educa7on is not a basic right •  Present public educa%on funding system = cons5tu5onal –  July 5, 1989 •  Plain%ffs appeal –  Take case to Supreme Court Kirby v. Edgewood: Supreme Court Ruling •  October 2, 1989 –  Supreme Court ruling: •  Unanimous 9-­‐0 decision •  Sided with plain%ff •  Orders for state to implement legisla%on for equitable system (by 1990-­‐1991 academic year) Kirby v. Edgewood: The “Robin Hood” Plan •  June 1, 1990 –  Legisla%on s%ll unable to pass bill –  Supreme Court: alterna%ve plan •  “Robin Hood” Plan –  Sends money from property wealthy districts to property poor districts –  Intent: equalize money spent in each district on educa%on Kirby v. Edgewood: New Legisla%on •  June 6, 1990 –  Legislature consensus: Increased state support for public schools ($528 million) –  Plain%ffs, dissa%sfied, request new hearing –  Judge Scoe McCown •  Legisla%on did not offer “substan%ally equal” funding •  Requests new financing system –  Case sent back to Supreme Court Kirby v. Edgewood: Back to Supreme Court •  January 22, 1991 –  Court decision: •  Public school funding system in uncons5tu5onal •  Legislature did not sufficiently alter unfair tax system –  Legislature approves reform bill •  Consolida%on: 1,058 school districts à188 county educa5on districts •  Assures public funding per student is equal Kirby v. Edgewood: Resistance from Wealthy Districts •  June 1991 –  Lawyers for wealthy district argue legality of new consolida%on system –  Judge upheld legisla%on •  Con%nued resistance from wealthy districts –  Supreme Court decision, 7-­‐2: plan was illegal •  County Educa%on Districts are “unlawful taxing units” Kirby v. Edgewood: Mul%-­‐Op%on Plan •  Legislature passed “mul%-­‐op%on plan” –  Districts reform/equalize school funding through: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Merging tax base with poorer district Sending money to state (help pay for poorer districts) Contrac%ng to educate students (from other districts) Voluntarily consolida%ng with other district(s) Transferring of taxable property to other district taxes Kirby v. Edgewood Conclusion: Signed into Law •  May 31, 1993 –  Mul%-­‐op%on plan signed into law •  January 1995 –  Texas Supreme Court: •  Mul%-­‐op%ons plan is cons5tu5onal •  More legisla%on needed to further equalize school systems Implica%ons for La%nos in Educa%on •  hep://www.npr.org/programs/la%no-­‐usa/
315300761/report-­‐card?
showDate=2014-­‐05-­‐23 What are the implica%ons of these court cases for La%n@s in US schools?