Chapter 3
Legal Framework for
Financing Public Education
Federal Role in Education
• The federal government has a
long precedent of providing
education programs, funds, &
initiatives to the states
• Without federal intervention,
many initiatives may not have
been started, and many
injustices would have continued
longer
Federal Role in Education,
cont.
• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
•
•
•
•
•
•
(ended desegregation)
Brown II (ended more desegregation)
Serrano v. Priest (finance equity)
The Kentucky Education Reform Act
(more finance equity)
Title IX (ended gender discrimination),
Title VII (Civil Rights Act)
Public Law 94-142 (Special ed. rights)
Limited Federal Role
in Education
• The Tenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution says that the
powers not delegated to the federal
government by the Constitution or
are not prohibited by it are reserved
for the states
• Since the first ten Amendments do
not mention education, it became a
state function by default
The Tension Continues Today
• The 10th
Amendment
compromise
balanced interests
of those who
wanted a strong
federal
government and
those who wanted
to preserve states’
rights
• The states are not
willing to
surrender control
of education and
the federal
government can’t
afford to pay its
promised share
10th Amendment Compromise:
Plenary Power
• Each state is responsible for setting up an
educational system and may pass laws it
considers desirable towards that end as long as
those laws are not in conflict with its own
State Constitution or Federal Constitution
• The courts, however, can only intervene if there
is a challenge based on a legitimate
controversy brought by a party with legal
standing concerning the state’s practice and the
State or Federal Constitution or its application
10th Amendment Compromise:
Plenary Power, cont.
Over the past decades, the federal
powers have somewhat reduced the
plenary nature of the states’ control of
education.
State Control of Education
• Each state’s
constitution has
language that
forms the legal
framework for the
organization of
the state’s
education
function
• All states except Hawaii
(and the District of
Columbia) delegate much of
the authority for education to
local school boards to be
coordinated through the
State Department of
Education – also known as
the State Education Agency
(SEA)
State Control of Education,
cont.
•
• The state
constitution & the
state’s department
of education
regulations control
the parameters
under which each
local school district
operates
School Finance & The Law
• Finance is perhaps
the most critical
issue facing
states as it affects
the federal role in
education
• Increasingly, federal
courts are ruling
against states in
cases involving
state’s education
funding formulae,
challenging equity
and adequacy
School Finance & The Law,
cont.
•
•
•
•
•
•
A Historical & Legal perspective and Guiding
principles regarding
Taxation
Equal protection
State & Federal Constitutional language
Adequacy
Vouchers and charter schools
Tuition tax credits
Taxing to Fund Schools
• The federal level has a long history of taxing
& spending to pay for education
services
• The first public school laws
involved taxation in the Massachusetts Bay
Colony to raise the necessary funds for
education services – the 1647 Ye Olde
Deluder Satan laws
Taxing to Fund Schools, cont.
• Section 8, Article 1 of the U.S.
Constitution gives the Congress
the right to tax and spend
• The article, in part, reads, “The
Congress shall have Power to lay and
collect Taxes, Duties, and Imports and
Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
for the common Defense and General
Welfare of the United States…”
“General Welfare” Clause
• Originally controversial, the “General
Welfare” clause conferred on Congress
broad powers to tax and spend for
the general welfare of the United
States.[1]
•
[1] United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S. Ct. 312 (1936).
Taxing to Fund Schools
• At the state level, the Supreme Court has
ruled that states have taxing power “ to
resort to all reasonable forms of taxation in
order to defray the government expenses”.
• Further, the court said, “Unless restrained by
provisions of the Federal Constitution, the
power of the state as to the mode, form, and
extent of taxation is unlimited” .
• Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.s. 37 (1970).
Federal Involvement in
Education ONLY When
• (1) States agree in accepting federal grants
that are provided under the authority given
the Congress by the General Welfare Clause
• (2) Standards or regulations that the
Congress has authorized within the
Commerce clause
• (3) Court actions that constrain states by
enforcing federal constitutional provisions
protecting individual rights and freedoms
Federal Involvement in
Education ONLY When…
1. When the state has accepted a federal grant
(NCLB, Drug Free Schools, etc.) and grant
provisions require the state to comply with
certain federal guidelines.
If states and localities do not comply, the
federal government can force the state to
comply.
Federal Involvement in
Education ONLY When…
2. A state action impacts the Commerce Clause
(as in the case of United States v. Lopez).
In this case, the U.S. Congress made it a crime
to have a gun within a school zone. A student
brought a loaded pistol to school and was sent
to jail under the Gun Free School Zone.
•
United States v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995).
Federal Involvement in
Education ONLY When…
3. U.S. Constitutional rights are involved (as in
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District).
The school suspended students for wearing black
arm bands to protest the Vietnam war. The
Supreme Court ruled that a school policy cannot
outweigh freedom of expression (speech) without
reasonable knowledge that such an act of
expression would have foreseeably substantially
disrupted the school process.
Federal $$$ to Schools
• In 2003, the total
federal
contribution to
national
education
expenditures was
approximately
10%
Federal $$$ to Schools Includes
• Department of Health
and Human Services'
Head Start program
• Department of
Agriculture's School
Lunch program
• Department of
Education pays only
6% of total education
spending
Federal $$$ to Schools
The US Department of
Education’s annual
$63.2 billion appropriation
is only 2.9 % of the
Federal Government's
nearly $2.2 trillion budget
in fiscal year 2003.
The remaining dollars are
divided almost equally
between state and local
revenues.
Federal Education
Funds Over Time
State Prerogatives
• States may tax what they wish as long
as it does not conflict with federal
provisions or with the state’s
constitution
State Prerogatives, cont.
• Taxing authority is not considered to be
inherent in school districts unless the
state constitution language permits such
taxing authority
State Prerogatives, cont.
• There is strong legal precedent for state
constitution language to be strong and clear
regarding authority for school boards to tax
• In Marion and McPherson Railway Co. v.
Alexander, 64 P. 978 (Kan. 1901), the Kansas
Supreme Court ruled that the authority to levy
taxes is …extraordinary... and should never be left
to implication
• Contested again: Florida Department of Education
v. Glasser, 622 So.2d 944 (Florida, 1993)
State Prerogatives, cont.
• This has been contested again in 1993
• The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the School
Board of Sarasota County required authorization
of law by the state legislature to levy taxes for
schools. Absent the specific authorization, the
school board could not direct the County tax
collector to collect and remit school taxes
• Florida Department of Education v. Glasser, 622 So.2d
944 (Florida, 1993)
State Prerogatives, cont.
• Some school districts have the legal authority to
levy taxes for schools
• Others must wait for a governing body to approve
a school budget as one part of a city or county
budget. That governing body must then set the tax
rate
• In spite of the states’ prerogative in taxing, virtually
all states rely on one primary revenue source to
finance public schools – property taxes
Property Taxes
• Property taxes date back
to ancient Greece
• In Athens, land and
houses were taxed
• Later, in Rome, people
and property were taxed
• In Europe, land, homes,
and livestock were taxed
Property Taxes in the
th
19 Century
• Taxing property became
the accepted means for
funding schools
• Land was taxed at different
rates if it were cleared,
uncleared, or cultivated
• Later, livestock and
equipment was seen as a
source of taxable property
Property Taxes in the
th
19 Century, cont.
• Taxing property &
equipment at
different rates
became increasingly
complex for localities
Property Taxes in the
th
19 Century, cont.
• States developed a uniform general
property tax based on a percentage of the
value (or millage) of the land
• If Farmer Brown’s land were worth more
than Farmer Jones’ land, Farmer Brown
would pay more in property taxes
• The tax rate, however, would be uniform
throughout the state or locality
“Equal Protection” & Taxation
The Fourteenth Amendment,
ratified in 1868:
• Once states
establish a
revenue
source, they
must decide
how to
distribute that
revenue to
school districts
•
No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor
shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.
“Equal Protection” & Taxation,
cont.
• The Civil War had ended
three years earlier and
the country was trying to
decide how to treat the
newly-freed slaves
• The 14th Amendment
was clearly an attempt to
legislate civil rights
after the war
“Equal Protection” & Taxation,
cont.
• Supreme Court took a role in defining “equal
protection” of state taxation
• The court determined that the equal
protection clause established a minimum
standard of uniformity to which that state
legislation must adhere
“Test” of States’ Taxation
Constitutionality, 1890
Equal protection does not require
identical treatment. It only requires:
1. The classification rest on real & not feigned
differences
2. The distinction have relevance to the purpose for
which the classification is made
3. The different treatment be not so disparate,
relative to the difference in classification, as to
be wholly arbitrary
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Contained groundbreaking language
regarding race and
discrimination under
the language of
equal protection.
This time the
equal protection
clause was
linked to federal
spending.
Civil Rights Act of 1965
• Education was a
constitutionallyprotected right
of all citizens
and that right
should be
provided to all
citizens on equal
terms
• Any state that
provided fewer
dollars for poor
school districts
denied those
children equal
protection under
the law
Since the Supreme Court had already
ruled that classifying people on the
basis of poverty, occupation, homesite,
or the like was unreasonable, it held
that the quality of education could not
be based on a state or local taxing
system where the level of education is
determined by the locality’s wealth.
Two Court Cases Litigated
Under Equal Protection Clause
• Both cases cited that large
disparities in ability to fund
education within their
respective states (Illinois &
Virginia) resulted in wealthy
school districts spending
more to meet student needs
than in poorer districts where
educational needs may be
much greater
Two Court Cases Litigated
Under Equal Protection Clause
• The Supreme Court
affirmed the lower courts’
rulings against the parents
and for the existing
funding practice in Illinois
and Virginia, saying that
equal expenditures were
not required under the
Fourteenth Amendment
Two Court Cases Litigated
Under Equal Protection Clause
• Plaintiffs could not define a
court-requested reasonable
standard to assess and
measure educational need
• Since the ideas could not
then be addressed with
research or consensus, the
Court refused to declare the
finance systems
unconstitutional
1977 California Supreme
Court Case
• Challenged The Court determined:
the
California
funding
formula –
Serrano v.
Priest (1971)
1. Education was a
fundamental interest
2. The basic state aid
did tend to equalize
among the disparate
school districts
1977 California Supreme
Court Case, cont.
The Court determined:
3. The state funding model
generated state & local funds
that created substantial
disparities in revenue to school
revenue – proportional to the
wealth of the individual school
4. Declared: Unconstitutional
1973 Rodriguez Case
• A group of Mexican-American parents from
the Edgewood Independent School District
sued the Texas system of education funding
• The plaintiffs argued that education funding
model in Texas makes the quality of
education a function of the local property tax
base and that the state funding is insufficient
to correct the inherent inequalities
1973 Rodriguez Case, cont.
• A Texas three-judge panel stated that since education
is a state function, the quality of education should not
be determined by the locality’s
wealth, but by the state’s overall wealth
• On appeal, the United States Supreme Court heard
the arguments & decided that the wide disparities in
the Texas funding formula do not violate the equal
protection clause of the 14th Amendment
Litigating Equal Protection
& School Finance
After Rodriguez, for all intents and
purposes, litigation for school finance
reform under the umbrella of the equal
protection clause ended.
Standards of Equal Protection
The courts use 3 tests to decide if
government actions that treat
individuals differently for any reason
violates the equal protection clause:
1. Rational relationship test
2. Intermediate test
3. Strict scrutiny test
Test 1: The Rational
Relationship Test
• Does the
government have
a rational reason
for the differential
treatment of
individuals that
does not violate
the Constitution?
• The court is not
looking for scientific
data to substantiate
the claim -- only for
a rational
relationship
Test 2: The Intermediate Test
• Instead of asking that
there be a reasonable
basis for the
treatment based on a
rational relationship,
the court will ask for
evidence of some
substantial
government interest
Test 2: The Intermediate Test,
cont.
• This test has generally
been applied to sex
discrimination cases
and many policies that
treated women
differently than men
were overturned using
this test
Test 2: The Intermediate Test,
cont.
• The intermediate test
examines the state’s
action more closely than
in the rational relationship
test
• For the state’s action to
be upheld requires a
greater level of
government interest in the
outcome
Test 3: Strict Scrutiny
• At this level, the
government
bears the
greatest
burden for
treating
individuals
differently
• At this highest level of
reasoning, the government
must show a compelling
or overriding state
interest in the differential
treatment of individuals,
and no less
discriminatory manner
exists for the government
in accomplishing this
overriding interest
Test 3: Strict Scrutiny, cont.
• Only two
circumstances
where courts
invoke strict
scrutiny:
• (a) When a
fundamental right is
affected
• (b) When the action
taken by the
government creates a
suspect classification
of individuals
Test 3: Strict Scrutiny, cont.
• In this test, unlike
the rational
relationship test,
the courts will not
defer to the ability
or understanding of
the legislative body
writing the action
Test 3: Strict Scrutiny, cont.
• For example, the Court• could rule that hiring
unlicensed minority teachers achieves a
compelling state interest if licensing
requirements can be shown to discriminate
against minorities. In this case, the Court
would examine the data and make an
independent determination of the degree of
relationship and the differential treatment that
promotes the state’s compelling interest.
Strict Scrutiny:
“Fundamental Rights”
• Fundamental rights are those rights
identified in the U.S. Constitution and/or
State Constitutions as guaranteed
under the equal protection clause
• These rights include those in the Bill of
Rights, (i.e., freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, the right to not
only substantive & procedural due
process)
Strict Scrutiny:
“Suspect Classification”
• The Constitution prohibits unequal
treatment of individuals under the law
based on different classifications
• One of these classifications, for
example, is religion
• The Constitution is silent on some other
classifications
Strict Scrutiny:
“Suspect Classification”, cont.
• For example, the 1954 U.S. Supreme
Court decision involving Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka, Kansas, made
race a suspect classification
• The Brown ruling on school segregation
– separate but equal – made race a
suspect classification because the
states had laws which denied a group of
people equal protection under the law
Strict Scrutiny:
“Suspect Classification”, cont.
• Unequal protection under the law based
on race became illegal
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 added
other classifications
Strict Scrutiny & School
Finance Cases
Serrano v. Priest:
1. The state supreme court determined that
education was a fundamental right based
on language in the Brown v. Board of
Education case from 1954
2. The California Supreme Court also decided
that property wealth created a suspect
classification of individuals
Based on the strict scrutiny standard, the
court found the finance model to be
unconstitutional.
Strict Scrutiny & School
Finance Cases, cont.
San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez :
The Texas Judges said that since
education is a state function, the quality
of education should not be determined
by the locality’s wealth, but by the
state’s overall wealth.
The U.S. Supreme Court REVERSED
this decision.
Strict Scrutiny & School
Finance Cases, cont.
San Antonio Independent School District v.
Rodriguez :
Justice Powell, writing for the U.S. Supreme
Court majority, maintained that education
was not a fundamental right afforded by
the Constitution under the equal
protection clause.
The US Supreme Court then reverted to a
lower standard for examining the case – the
rational relationship test instead of strict
scrutiny.
State and Federal
Constitutional Language
• Each state has
language in its
Constitution that
frames how it will
treat education
• The state’s
“education clause”
• State education
clauses have been
the basis for many
legal challenges to
state finance models
over the past 20
years
Equity and Adequacy
• Equity provides for what people need
• Adequacy provides a sufficient quantity
of what people need
• People with equal needs should receive
equal treatment, to be sure. Treating
unequals equally, however, is a most
unfair thing to do.
Vouchers, Charter Schools, &
Tuition Tax Credits
• Interest in vouchers & charter schools
reflect dissatisfaction with the current
public school system and a desire to
have the state pay for an alternative
form of education
• Dissatisfaction with the public schools’
and attempts to fund alternative
schools is part of our history
Vouchers, Charter Schools, &
Tuition Tax Credits, cont.
Basically, these
issues involve
the concept of
increased
parental choice
in public
schooling.
Charter Schools
• Alternative, generally specialty schools that
operate with fewer state restrictions &
restraints than regular public schools
• The state constitution defines their operation
• The state charter, or contract, stipulates how
the school will operate and what
accountability measures will gauge student
achievement
• If the charter’s measures are not kept, the
state may revoke the charter
Public Schools –
Religious or Secular?
“By 1750, …new secular interests began to
take the place of religion as the chief topic of
thought and conversation. Secular books
began to dispute the earlier monopoly of the
Bible…These changes manifested themselves
…many ways in education. New textbooks,
containing less of the gloomily religious than
the New England Primer, and secular rather
than religious matter, appeared and began
to be used in the schools.”
Battle for
Free State Schools…
By 1820, education had moved from
private schools (run by individuals,
churches, incorporated school societies)
and state schools for the poor to a
loosely organized public school system of
secular interest.
A conflict loomed: The Battle for
Free State Schools.
The Battle for
Free State Schools, cont.
• People who did not want to pay taxes to
support public schools AND
• Conservative Protestant ministers who
argued that public schools would hurt
religious schools’ attendance (& reduce
their influence)
VS.
• Civic government & more progressive
legislators
The Battle for
Free State Schools, cont.
With conflict about the mission of the
public schools, conflict about funding
could be far behind.
Massachusetts Act of 1827
• Declared that
school committees
should never
require schools to
buy any books
which were
calculated to favor
the tenets of any
particular Christian
sect
Massachusetts Act of 1827,
cont.
• As a result of this
Act, for the first
time in American
public school
history, the public
schools were
called “Godless
schools”
Massachusetts Act of 1827,
cont.
• The change in public school mission
from religious to secular led to attacks
on Massachusetts’ Secretary of Board
of Education, Horace Mann, asserting
that the “increase in intemperance,
crime, and juvenile depravity in the
State was due to the ‘Godless schools
they were supporting”
Massachusetts Act of 1827,
cont.
• In response to this initial
school secularization, some said
that if people did not agree with how
the public schools were run, taxpayers
should be allowed to have that
portion of school taxes returned so
those funds could be used to provide
an education more closely
resembling parents’ wishes
Vouchers, Charter Schools,
and Tuition Tax Credits
Taking their stock of public funds and
using the monies to establish schools
more to their liking is essentially what
today’s vouchers, charter schools, and
tuition tax credits advocates try to do.
Vouchers
• “Vouchers” are receipts or documents
issued by the state that can be used to
pay tuition at a public or private school
• Parents can use a voucher to pay the
tuition to send their child to an
alternative school that the child would
attend
Vouchers, cont.
• In 2002, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled
that vouchers could be used to pay
tuition at private, religious schools
Vouchers Are Not New
• In 1869, Vermont adopted a tuition
statute attempting to ensure that
students in urban and rural school
districts could receive a quality
secondary education
• In towns too small to support a school,
the state paid the tuition to attend
another public school or a private,
non-sectarian school
Vouchers Are Not New, cont.
• This 1869 provision included vouchers
for public schools outside Vermont
• In 1961 the state legislature banned
religious schools from this voucher
provision
What’s “Legal” Depends on the
State Constitution’s Language
• School finance cases – such as
involving paying public monies to
support private sectarian or parochial
schools – often depend on the exact
language the state’s constitution uses
rather than judicial approval of the
concept, itself
Maine & Vouchers
• In 1903, Maine legislation provided all
students a high school education with the
state paying tuition to any school of the
parent’s choice, including paying tuition to
schools outside of Maine
• In 1980, however, the Maine Department of
Education enacted provisions to end tuition
payments to attend parochial schools in
towns where public high schools exist
Maine & Vouchers, cont.
• In 1999, the Maine Supreme Court
ruled in the Bagley v. Raymond case
that the 1980 ban on religious schools
receiving state monies is not
unconstitutional
• As written, Maine’s constitutional
language did not prevent public monies
from going to religious schools
Maine & Vouchers, cont.
• At the same time that the state
court was hearing the Bagley case, Strout v.
Albanese raised the same funding issue in
federal court
• Both courts delivered the same opinion – the
state could ban religious schools from
receiving voucher money BUT the
constitutional language – not judicial approval
of the concept – determined the outcome
Wisconsin & Vouchers
• In 1990, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, enacted
the Parental Choice program
• This legislation provided for up to 1% of the
economically-disadvantaged Milwaukee
Public School students to obtain a voucher for
the state’s share of public school costs to
attend a participating non-sectarian private
school
Wisconsin & Vouchers, cont.
• Five years later, the program expanded for
Milwaukee students to include participating
religious schools
• Jackson v. Benton challenged this action
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not allow
the program’s expansion into religious
schools, but allowed the program
to include non-sectarian schools
Wisconsin & Vouchers, cont.
• In 1997, the Wisconsin legislature expanded
the school choice voucher program to include
religious schools. On remand, a district court
ruled it unconstitutional
• Appealed in 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme
Court upheld publicly-funded vouchers used
to fund students in private religious schools,
stating it did not violate the Establishment
Clause
• On appeal, the U. S. Supreme Court
declined to hear the case
Ohio & Vouchers
• In 1995, the Ohio state legislature enacted
two educational assistance programs for
parents of children in the struggling Cleveland
Public Schools – tuition scholarships and
tuition assistance grants to pay tuition at
eligible private schools in the Cleveland
Public School District area or at participating
public schools in adjacent districts
• In 1999, the Ohio State Supreme Court
overturned the program on a technicality
Ohio & Vouchers, cont.
• Appealed, the federal court ruled the
Simmons-Harris v. Goff case unconstitutional
• Appealed again, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals rejected the Ohio voucher plan as it
violated the First Amendment’s separation of
church and state provision
• Appealed again, the U. S. Supreme Court,
found the Cleveland voucher program was
constitutional and did not infringe on the
separation of church and state
Vouchers & Religious Schools
The 5-4 U.S.
Supreme Court
decision finally
cleared a thick fog
of legal opinion
regarding vouchers
to private religious
schools.
Public Funds & Private or
Religious Schools
The legal conflict between the Massachusetts
parents who believed that the schools had
failed by becoming more secular in curriculum
& pedagogy & the more progressive legal and
educational writers of the early to mid 1800s
has been resolved. Public monies can fund
private or parochial education.
The philosophical discussion will continue.
Tuition Tax Credits
• Instead of receiving a “chit” for tuition at an
alternative school, a tax credit is offered to
parents who send their school-aged children to
non-public schools, thereby reducing the
parent’s tax liability
• Tuition tax credits were first issued at the
national level by Senators Moynihan (NY) and
Packwood (OR)
• The Reagan and first Bush presidential
administrations advocated tuition tax credits
repeatedly & unsuccessfully
Minnesota &
Tuition Tax Credits
• In 1955, Minnesota passed a law (amended
in 1976 and 1978) allowing state taxpayers to
deduct certain expenses incurred in
educating their children – regardless of the
type of school attended
• The deduction was limited to $500 per
student in grades K through 6 and $700 per
student in grades 7 through 12
Charter Schools
• Gained popularity during the 1990s as
example of school choice
• The charter, or contract with the state,
stipulates how the school will operate and the
accountability measures that will be used to
gauge student achievement
• Operate with fewer state restrictions and
constraints than regular public schools
• If the charter’s measures are not kept, the
state may revoke the charter
Charter Schools &
Mueller v. Allen, 1983
• The U.S. Supreme Court found
that the loan of textbooks to
parochial school students did
not violate the First
Amendment’s Establishment
Clause, saying that parochial
schools provided “acceptable”
secular education
Charter Schools &
Mueller v. Allen, 1983, cont.
• Local school boards were
required to purchase
textbooks and lend them
without charge to students
residing within that district
who attended private schools
in grades 7 through 12 that
complied with compulsory
attendance laws
Charter Schools &
Mueller v. Allen, 1983, cont.
• Charter school advocates believed that it
was easier to evade the constitutional
proscription against the use of public funds
to support religious education by suggesting
that the secular aspects of parochial schools
was so substantial that they justified
receiving public funds
Charter Schools
in the 1990’s
• Under the Clinton administration, the
idea of charter schools changed
dramatically
• Proposed that charter schools should
exist as public schools and not in
private or parochial schools
Redefined
Charter Schools, 1990’s
• Exempted from state & • Non-sectarian in
local regulations that
programs,
inhibit flexible
admissions, policies,
management
& employment
• Operated under public
practices
supervision &
• Not affiliated with a
direction
sectarian
school
or
• Designed with specific
religious institution
educational
objectives
Redefined
Charter Schools, 1990’s, cont.
• Free of tuition or fees
• In compliance with
federal civil rights
legislation
• Students admitted by
lottery
• Operated in
compliance with
state law
• In compliance with
federal and state
financial audit
requirements
• In compliance with
federal, state, &
local health &
safety
requirements
Michigan Challenge
to Charter Schools
• Michigan adopted a Charter Schools Act that
had provisions similar to the 1994 federal
legislation
• The Michigan State Supreme Court had to
decide if the charter schools act were
constitutional and if charter schools
constituted parochial aid to religious schools
• In 1994, the trial court determined that
Michigan’s charter school act was
unconstitutional
Michigan Challenge
to Charter Schools, cont.
The State Supreme Court held that since the
legislature declared the charter schools to be
public schools,
• Charter schools must comply with all
applicable State Bd. Of Education laws
• The State Board authorizes funding for some
Charter Schools and not others
• The Michigan Charter School Act did not
constitute state aid to religious schools