The document summarizes the Serrano v. Priest case which challenged California's school funding system on equal protection grounds. It discusses key precedents like Brown v. Board of Education which found segregated schools unconstitutional. California relied heavily on local property taxes to fund schools, resulting in disparities between wealthy and poor districts. Serrano v. Priest argued this violated equal protection by providing unequal educational opportunities. The California Supreme Court agreed and found the system unconstitutional in Serrano I, requiring the state to equalize school funding.
BAKER DONELSON & BUTLER SNOW - MISSISSIPPI CHARTER SCHOOL SCAMSVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
Since Vogel Denise Newsome and/or Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome has been BANNED from using the United States’ DESPOTISM Government Regime’s Courts, documentation such as this will be used in EXPOSING the United States of America and/or State of Mississippi Lawyers’ (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada) and their CO-Conspirators’ (Page Kruger & Holland and Phelps Dunbar) roles in the CONSPIRACIES to TAKEOVER the Mississippi Public School System. Since the ISSUANCE of the CEASE and DESIST, it appears that in efforts to get around such LEGAL and LAWFUL actions taken to PROTECT the Children of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color, Baker Donelson/Butler Snow, etc. – i.e. WHITE Jewish/Zionist/Supremacist Law Firms - have made a WILLFUL, DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS decision to move forward with their TERRORIST and HOSTILE attacks against these PROTECTED Group of SOVEREIGN Citizens; therefore, such attacks may be DEEMED TERRORIST Acts as well as HOSTILE Attacks led by Baker Donelson – i.e. the TERRORIST Regime that PLANNED, ORCHESTRATED and CARRIED OUT the September 11, 2001, BOMBINGS of the World Trade Center Towers, etc.!
The WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists IMPLEMENTED “Integration” and “Desegregation” for purposes of DESTROYING the Communities, Businesses, Schools, Hospitals, etc. of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color!
Here we are in the 21st Century and there SEGREGATION is STILL “ALIVE” and “THRIVING” within the Lands/Territories known as the United States of America as well as in States as Mississippi where WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists have PLACED their Members/People in Legislative positions and BUILT UP Law Firms for the purposes of PROMOTING “WHITE SUPREMACY” and DESTROYING the LIVELIHOOD, CULTURE, etc. of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negros/African-Americans/People-Of-Color. White Jews/Zionists/Supremacists are seeking the EDUCATIONAL Institutions of these PROTECTED Sovereign Citizens for purposes of BUILDING UP the PRISON INDUSTRY and ENSLAVEMENT, etc.
We look forward to exercising our RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as Sovereign Citizens to Legally and Lawfully LIBERATE ourselves from the WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists and their United States’ DESPOTISM Government Regime/Empire. . .
Utica International Embassy
c/o Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome
Post Office Box 31265
Jackson, Mississippi 39286
(888) 700-5056 – (601) 885-3358 - (513) 680-2922
Website: www.vogeldenisenewsome.com
Public schools, by law, must serve all children. The education of undocumented students is guaranteed by the Plyler vs. Doe decision, and certain procedures must be followed when registering immigrant children in school to avoid violation of their civil rights. This eBook describes students' rights and resources for families and school personnel.
University of New Mexico School of Law, Albuquerque, NM LawCrossing
Article With Information About New Mexico School Of Law And Its Unique Career Opportunities And About District Attorney Conference, Private Law Firms, Public Interest Legal Institutions, Natural Resources Law And More.
BAKER DONELSON & BUTLER SNOW - MISSISSIPPI CHARTER SCHOOL SCAMSVogelDenise
17 USC § 107 Limitations on Exclusive Rights – FAIR USE
Since Vogel Denise Newsome and/or Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome has been BANNED from using the United States’ DESPOTISM Government Regime’s Courts, documentation such as this will be used in EXPOSING the United States of America and/or State of Mississippi Lawyers’ (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada) and their CO-Conspirators’ (Page Kruger & Holland and Phelps Dunbar) roles in the CONSPIRACIES to TAKEOVER the Mississippi Public School System. Since the ISSUANCE of the CEASE and DESIST, it appears that in efforts to get around such LEGAL and LAWFUL actions taken to PROTECT the Children of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color, Baker Donelson/Butler Snow, etc. – i.e. WHITE Jewish/Zionist/Supremacist Law Firms - have made a WILLFUL, DELIBERATE and MALICIOUS decision to move forward with their TERRORIST and HOSTILE attacks against these PROTECTED Group of SOVEREIGN Citizens; therefore, such attacks may be DEEMED TERRORIST Acts as well as HOSTILE Attacks led by Baker Donelson – i.e. the TERRORIST Regime that PLANNED, ORCHESTRATED and CARRIED OUT the September 11, 2001, BOMBINGS of the World Trade Center Towers, etc.!
The WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists IMPLEMENTED “Integration” and “Desegregation” for purposes of DESTROYING the Communities, Businesses, Schools, Hospitals, etc. of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negroes/African-Americans/People-Of-Color!
Here we are in the 21st Century and there SEGREGATION is STILL “ALIVE” and “THRIVING” within the Lands/Territories known as the United States of America as well as in States as Mississippi where WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists have PLACED their Members/People in Legislative positions and BUILT UP Law Firms for the purposes of PROMOTING “WHITE SUPREMACY” and DESTROYING the LIVELIHOOD, CULTURE, etc. of Natives, Native Americans and Blacks/Negros/African-Americans/People-Of-Color. White Jews/Zionists/Supremacists are seeking the EDUCATIONAL Institutions of these PROTECTED Sovereign Citizens for purposes of BUILDING UP the PRISON INDUSTRY and ENSLAVEMENT, etc.
We look forward to exercising our RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES as Sovereign Citizens to Legally and Lawfully LIBERATE ourselves from the WHITE Jews/Zionists/Supremacists and their United States’ DESPOTISM Government Regime/Empire. . .
Utica International Embassy
c/o Interim Prime Minister Vogel Denise Newsome
Post Office Box 31265
Jackson, Mississippi 39286
(888) 700-5056 – (601) 885-3358 - (513) 680-2922
Website: www.vogeldenisenewsome.com
Public schools, by law, must serve all children. The education of undocumented students is guaranteed by the Plyler vs. Doe decision, and certain procedures must be followed when registering immigrant children in school to avoid violation of their civil rights. This eBook describes students' rights and resources for families and school personnel.
University of New Mexico School of Law, Albuquerque, NM LawCrossing
Article With Information About New Mexico School Of Law And Its Unique Career Opportunities And About District Attorney Conference, Private Law Firms, Public Interest Legal Institutions, Natural Resources Law And More.
Does privacy outweigh the First Amendment on Campus?
Lessons learned from AP v. NCAA was presented by Carol LoCicero during a panel on "Confidential Public Information. When FERPA and the First Amendment Clash on Campus" at Media and the Law's 24th Annual Seminar on May 6, 2011.
Running head ACTIVITY RATIOS1ACTIVITY RATIOS2.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ACTIVITY RATIOS 1
ACTIVITY RATIOS 2
Activity Ratios
Name
Institution
Activity Ratios for Columbus Regional Hospital
Columbus Regional Hospital is one of the established healthcare facilities in Indiana State. Since its establishment, the hospital has been committed to the delivery of high quality, efficient and satisfactory healthcare services to all its clients. However, to provide world-class services, the facility has had to heavily invest in and properly manage its human and non-human resources. This justifies why he hospital has managed to survive for quite a long time. When it comes to financial management, the hospital’s management has demonstrated a commitment in usage. The records from the hospital’s activity ratios prove that the Columbus Regional Hospital is progressive.
One of the most important indicators in the determination of the hospital’s progress is the asset turnover ratio. This is an activity ratio derived by comparing the company’s net sales to its total assets. From its financial statements, Columbus Regional Hospital has had an impressive result. The total assets for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years stood at $ 345,782,576 and
$331,609,111 respectively against a total revenue of $195.4 million in 2011 and $232.9 million from $195.4 in 2012. This is a clear proof that the hospital is performing well. The management has been efficiently utilizing the allocated resources to help in improving the hospital’s revenue.
The other important activity ratio used in measuring the performance of Columbus Regional Hospital is fixed asset turnover ratio. As its name suggests, fixed asset ratio simply compares net sales to the fixed assets. During the 2011 and 2012 financial periods, Columbus Regional Hospital had a fixed assets were valued at $130,958,392 in 2011 and $ 130,538,382 in 2012. On the other hand, the hospital garnered total revenue of $195,403,003 in 2011 and
$ 233,046,391 in 2012. This is clear evidence that the hospital is efficient in the use of its resources. It is for this reason that the facility increased the number of its patients from 241,774 in 2011 to 246,130 in 2012. This was a 19.2% increment in the number of admissions. It represented an increase in revenues from the Medicare, Medicaid, managed care plans and other programs.
Last, but not least, the performance of Columbus Regional Hospital can be done using the age of plant ration. Age of plant ratio is a type of ratio that is used in the measurement of the age of a healthcare facility’s equipments by assessing the rate of depreciation of the said equipments. A thorough analysis of Columbus Regional Hospital shows that the facility is ahead of its plant age benchmark. An evaluation of the physical and technological threatening depreciation rate in the company because the life expectancy shows that there is no depreciation of the equipments. Meaning, the hospital has heavily invested in the equipments. However, to be on the ...
Chapter 1 Notes - School Law - Dr. William Allan KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, School Law Power Point Presentation, Educational Laws & Policies, Due Process, Employment Law, Personnel Law, Equal Rights, Discrimination, Diversity, Teacher Rights, Termination of Employment
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docxedwardmarivel
DEBATE
22
EDUCATION POLICY
ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE:
Justified or Unacceptable? ADVOCATE: National Education Association, et al.
JUSTIFIED
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) UNACCEPTABLE
ADVOCATE: Asian American Legal Foundation
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
The intersection between education and race has long sparked emotional debate. Prior to the Civil War it was uncommon and in some places illegal to educate children who were not white. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) requiring equal protection of the law for all citizens made it illegal to overtly deny children of color an education or to give them an expressly inferior one. However, the changes were more cosmetic that substantive. In many places, Jim Crow laws legalized accommo- dations that were supposedly “separate but equal,” but in reality were highly unequal. Blacks were the most numerous victims, but Asian Americans, Hispanics, and others also were relegated to second-class facilities and services. The Supreme Court upheld this fictitious equality in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that involved railroad car accommodations but also applied to schools and many other points of segregation. That decision stood until the Supreme Court overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that in “public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Over the years, the application Brown v. Board of Education slowly eliminated the overtly intentional school segregation, but, like the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a large gap between theoretical importance and practical impact. Two factors lim- ited Brown. One was that some school districts build schools or drew district lines in ways that maintained or created schools that were de facto racially segregated. The second factor involved living patterns. Whites fled cities to the suburbs or sent their children to private schools to avoid racially integrated schools, and urban schools became more and more minority dominated. These population shifts also left cities with diminished tax bases, and the schools declined for want of adequate funding.
In response, the courts moved to a more proactive stance. In a case involving the region centered on Charlotte, North Carolina, where schools remained very segre- gated and the school board resisted moving to desegregate, a federal judge in 1965 found that the segregation was intentional, ordered that all 105 schools integrate, and specified that children be bussed between schools in necessary. The Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) unanimously backed
2
John T. Rourke, You Decide! 2012 Copy.
76 Kappan December 2015January 2016is required in .docxblondellchancy
76 Kappan December 2015/January 2016
is required in the perfor-
mance of our most basic
public responsibilities, even
service in the armed forces.
It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it
is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cul-
tural values, in preparing
him for later professional
training, and in helping him
to adjust normally to his en-
vironment. In these days, it is
doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to
succeed in life if he is de-
nied the opportunity of an
education.
But in 1973, in San Antonio
Independent School District v.
Rodriguez, the Supreme Court
held that access to public
education was not a consti-
tutional right under the U.S.
Constitution.
In another case, Chinese-
American students with
limited English language
profi ciency claimed the San
Francisco school district’s
failure to provide language
accommodation and support
for them violated the U.S.
Constitution and Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act. Find-
ing in favor of the students,
in Lau v. Nichols (1974), the
Supreme Court focused not
on the constitutional question
but on the Civil Rights Act.
Congress codifi ed much of
the decision shortly thereafter
by passing the Equal Educa-
tion Opportunities Act.
Denying children an
education because
of the actions of their
parents is not legal.
The right to a public educa-
tion for those who are not
U.S. citizens, legal residents,
or living with their parents is
not a clear and stable issue.
Children who enter the U.S.
illegally with or without their
parents are at the heart of this
question.
Let’s begin with the 1954
U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Brown v. Board of Education,
where the court declared state
laws denying access to public
schools based on race to be
unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection clause:
Today education is per-
haps the most important
function of state and local
governments. Compulsory
school attendance laws and
the great expenditures for
education both demon-
strate our recognition of the
importance of education to
our democratic society. It
cratic system of government
and . . . the primary vehicle
for transmitting the values on
which our society rests. . . . In
sum, education has a funda-
mental role in maintaining
the fabric of our society.”
The Court noted that, if
the state intends to deny such
a benefi t, it should have a
suffi ciently valid reason. The
Court found that denying
children an education, not
due to their own actions, but
the actions of their parents,
was not suffi ciently compel-
ling to deny children this
important public benefi t.
In Martinez v. Bynum, 461
U.S. 321 (1983), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled (8 -1)
on another Texas statute
intended to close the school-
house doors to nonresident
children. The student was
a U.S. citizen by birth. But,
when he was a young child,
he and his parents moved to
Mexico, where his parents
were citiz ...
Chapter 10· Page 241Using public funds for private schools hasEstelaJeffery653
Chapter 10
· Page 241
Using public funds for private schools has a major impact on the overall aspects of school finance. Although the public, in general, supports its local public schools, forces continue to promote using taxpayer dollars to assist in providing revenues for nonpublic schools. Legislators, private entrepreneurs, and some citizens are questioning the ability of personnel in the public sector to operate the schools efficiently and to offer enough options to meet the needs of students. Privately sponsored schools have been encouraged for those groups and individuals who are willing to support them financially in addition to participating in financing the public school system. However, such groups have become more vocal, stressing that because the states have a responsibility to provide a free education for the school-age population, they should provide for students in both private and public schools. The use of public funds for educating children in private schools was essentially a non-issue for more than a century. The interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights (1791), as well as established state codes, was that an interrelationship between church and state was prohibited, and that direct government support for private or parochial schools was illegal. In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant called for a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the use of public funds for private “sectarian schools.” Motivated by Grant’s speech, Congressman James G. Blaine proposed the following amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives: No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted therein, shall ever by under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.1 Blaine’s proposal passed the House but did not pass by two-thirds vote in the Senate. The proposal had a great impact on states; however, as many as 37 states included laws with similar criteria with some included in state constitutions.2 The State Blaine influence has been felt in several court cases as late as 2015. The first court case that opened a door for those who advocated using public funds for church-related schools was Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510, 1925). In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “The fundamental theory of liberty under which all governments in this union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers.”3 From this decision to the present day, many changes have occurred that have had and will have a great effect on financing public schools during the next decade. The arguments for and against the use of ...
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docxgidmanmary
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years. Here are 10 Supreme Court cases related to education that impacted both constitutional law and the public school experience.
10. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Arguably the most well-known ruling of the 20th century, Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergusonand established that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Warren Court’s unanimous decision explained that the separate-but-equal doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ordered an end to legally mandated race-segregated schools. While the Brown decision marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle to achieve actual integration, its impact cannot be understated.
9. Engel v. Vitale(1962) and 8. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
This pair of cases shaped the modern understanding of how the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment constrains prayer in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. The Court decided that these prayers amounted to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violated the Establishment Clause.
The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
7. Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
This case adjudicated a different sort of Establishment Clause challenge, where the controversy dealt with a statute providing financial support for teacher salaries and textbooks in parochial schools. The Burger Court unanimously decided that this financial aid scheme violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court held that this scheme violated the third prong of the Lemon test.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Among the litany of public school cases from the Warren and Burger eras is the landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Yoder. Wisconsin mandated that all children attend public school until age 16, but Jonas Yoder, a devoutly religious Amish man, refused to send his children to school past eighth grade. He argued that his children didn’t need to be in school that long t ...
Does privacy outweigh the First Amendment on Campus?
Lessons learned from AP v. NCAA was presented by Carol LoCicero during a panel on "Confidential Public Information. When FERPA and the First Amendment Clash on Campus" at Media and the Law's 24th Annual Seminar on May 6, 2011.
Running head ACTIVITY RATIOS1ACTIVITY RATIOS2.docxSUBHI7
Running head: ACTIVITY RATIOS 1
ACTIVITY RATIOS 2
Activity Ratios
Name
Institution
Activity Ratios for Columbus Regional Hospital
Columbus Regional Hospital is one of the established healthcare facilities in Indiana State. Since its establishment, the hospital has been committed to the delivery of high quality, efficient and satisfactory healthcare services to all its clients. However, to provide world-class services, the facility has had to heavily invest in and properly manage its human and non-human resources. This justifies why he hospital has managed to survive for quite a long time. When it comes to financial management, the hospital’s management has demonstrated a commitment in usage. The records from the hospital’s activity ratios prove that the Columbus Regional Hospital is progressive.
One of the most important indicators in the determination of the hospital’s progress is the asset turnover ratio. This is an activity ratio derived by comparing the company’s net sales to its total assets. From its financial statements, Columbus Regional Hospital has had an impressive result. The total assets for the 2011 and 2012 fiscal years stood at $ 345,782,576 and
$331,609,111 respectively against a total revenue of $195.4 million in 2011 and $232.9 million from $195.4 in 2012. This is a clear proof that the hospital is performing well. The management has been efficiently utilizing the allocated resources to help in improving the hospital’s revenue.
The other important activity ratio used in measuring the performance of Columbus Regional Hospital is fixed asset turnover ratio. As its name suggests, fixed asset ratio simply compares net sales to the fixed assets. During the 2011 and 2012 financial periods, Columbus Regional Hospital had a fixed assets were valued at $130,958,392 in 2011 and $ 130,538,382 in 2012. On the other hand, the hospital garnered total revenue of $195,403,003 in 2011 and
$ 233,046,391 in 2012. This is clear evidence that the hospital is efficient in the use of its resources. It is for this reason that the facility increased the number of its patients from 241,774 in 2011 to 246,130 in 2012. This was a 19.2% increment in the number of admissions. It represented an increase in revenues from the Medicare, Medicaid, managed care plans and other programs.
Last, but not least, the performance of Columbus Regional Hospital can be done using the age of plant ration. Age of plant ratio is a type of ratio that is used in the measurement of the age of a healthcare facility’s equipments by assessing the rate of depreciation of the said equipments. A thorough analysis of Columbus Regional Hospital shows that the facility is ahead of its plant age benchmark. An evaluation of the physical and technological threatening depreciation rate in the company because the life expectancy shows that there is no depreciation of the equipments. Meaning, the hospital has heavily invested in the equipments. However, to be on the ...
Chapter 1 Notes - School Law - Dr. William Allan KritsonisWilliam Kritsonis
Dr. William Allan Kritsonis, School Law Power Point Presentation, Educational Laws & Policies, Due Process, Employment Law, Personnel Law, Equal Rights, Discrimination, Diversity, Teacher Rights, Termination of Employment
DEBATE 22 EDUCATION POLICYASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BA.docxedwardmarivel
DEBATE
22
EDUCATION POLICY
ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE:
Justified or Unacceptable? ADVOCATE: National Education Association, et al.
JUSTIFIED
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) UNACCEPTABLE
ADVOCATE: Asian American Legal Foundation
SOURCE: Amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
The intersection between education and race has long sparked emotional debate. Prior to the Civil War it was uncommon and in some places illegal to educate children who were not white. The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) requiring equal protection of the law for all citizens made it illegal to overtly deny children of color an education or to give them an expressly inferior one. However, the changes were more cosmetic that substantive. In many places, Jim Crow laws legalized accommo- dations that were supposedly “separate but equal,” but in reality were highly unequal. Blacks were the most numerous victims, but Asian Americans, Hispanics, and others also were relegated to second-class facilities and services. The Supreme Court upheld this fictitious equality in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), a case that involved railroad car accommodations but also applied to schools and many other points of segregation. That decision stood until the Supreme Court overturned it in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Writing for the unanimous court, Chief Justice Earl Warren opined that in “public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
Over the years, the application Brown v. Board of Education slowly eliminated the overtly intentional school segregation, but, like the Fourteenth Amendment, there was a large gap between theoretical importance and practical impact. Two factors lim- ited Brown. One was that some school districts build schools or drew district lines in ways that maintained or created schools that were de facto racially segregated. The second factor involved living patterns. Whites fled cities to the suburbs or sent their children to private schools to avoid racially integrated schools, and urban schools became more and more minority dominated. These population shifts also left cities with diminished tax bases, and the schools declined for want of adequate funding.
In response, the courts moved to a more proactive stance. In a case involving the region centered on Charlotte, North Carolina, where schools remained very segre- gated and the school board resisted moving to desegregate, a federal judge in 1965 found that the segregation was intentional, ordered that all 105 schools integrate, and specified that children be bussed between schools in necessary. The Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) unanimously backed
2
John T. Rourke, You Decide! 2012 Copy.
76 Kappan December 2015January 2016is required in .docxblondellchancy
76 Kappan December 2015/January 2016
is required in the perfor-
mance of our most basic
public responsibilities, even
service in the armed forces.
It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it
is a principal instrument in
awakening the child to cul-
tural values, in preparing
him for later professional
training, and in helping him
to adjust normally to his en-
vironment. In these days, it is
doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to
succeed in life if he is de-
nied the opportunity of an
education.
But in 1973, in San Antonio
Independent School District v.
Rodriguez, the Supreme Court
held that access to public
education was not a consti-
tutional right under the U.S.
Constitution.
In another case, Chinese-
American students with
limited English language
profi ciency claimed the San
Francisco school district’s
failure to provide language
accommodation and support
for them violated the U.S.
Constitution and Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act. Find-
ing in favor of the students,
in Lau v. Nichols (1974), the
Supreme Court focused not
on the constitutional question
but on the Civil Rights Act.
Congress codifi ed much of
the decision shortly thereafter
by passing the Equal Educa-
tion Opportunities Act.
Denying children an
education because
of the actions of their
parents is not legal.
The right to a public educa-
tion for those who are not
U.S. citizens, legal residents,
or living with their parents is
not a clear and stable issue.
Children who enter the U.S.
illegally with or without their
parents are at the heart of this
question.
Let’s begin with the 1954
U.S. Supreme Court decision
in Brown v. Board of Education,
where the court declared state
laws denying access to public
schools based on race to be
unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection clause:
Today education is per-
haps the most important
function of state and local
governments. Compulsory
school attendance laws and
the great expenditures for
education both demon-
strate our recognition of the
importance of education to
our democratic society. It
cratic system of government
and . . . the primary vehicle
for transmitting the values on
which our society rests. . . . In
sum, education has a funda-
mental role in maintaining
the fabric of our society.”
The Court noted that, if
the state intends to deny such
a benefi t, it should have a
suffi ciently valid reason. The
Court found that denying
children an education, not
due to their own actions, but
the actions of their parents,
was not suffi ciently compel-
ling to deny children this
important public benefi t.
In Martinez v. Bynum, 461
U.S. 321 (1983), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled (8 -1)
on another Texas statute
intended to close the school-
house doors to nonresident
children. The student was
a U.S. citizen by birth. But,
when he was a young child,
he and his parents moved to
Mexico, where his parents
were citiz ...
Chapter 10· Page 241Using public funds for private schools hasEstelaJeffery653
Chapter 10
· Page 241
Using public funds for private schools has a major impact on the overall aspects of school finance. Although the public, in general, supports its local public schools, forces continue to promote using taxpayer dollars to assist in providing revenues for nonpublic schools. Legislators, private entrepreneurs, and some citizens are questioning the ability of personnel in the public sector to operate the schools efficiently and to offer enough options to meet the needs of students. Privately sponsored schools have been encouraged for those groups and individuals who are willing to support them financially in addition to participating in financing the public school system. However, such groups have become more vocal, stressing that because the states have a responsibility to provide a free education for the school-age population, they should provide for students in both private and public schools. The use of public funds for educating children in private schools was essentially a non-issue for more than a century. The interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights (1791), as well as established state codes, was that an interrelationship between church and state was prohibited, and that direct government support for private or parochial schools was illegal. In 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant called for a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the use of public funds for private “sectarian schools.” Motivated by Grant’s speech, Congressman James G. Blaine proposed the following amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives: No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted therein, shall ever by under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.1 Blaine’s proposal passed the House but did not pass by two-thirds vote in the Senate. The proposal had a great impact on states; however, as many as 37 states included laws with similar criteria with some included in state constitutions.2 The State Blaine influence has been felt in several court cases as late as 2015. The first court case that opened a door for those who advocated using public funds for church-related schools was Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510, 1925). In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “The fundamental theory of liberty under which all governments in this union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers.”3 From this decision to the present day, many changes have occurred that have had and will have a great effect on financing public schools during the next decade. The arguments for and against the use of ...
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surpr.docxgidmanmary
Education is a hallmark of civic life in America, so it’s no surprise that it’s been at the center of many landmark controversies over the years. Here are 10 Supreme Court cases related to education that impacted both constitutional law and the public school experience.
10. Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Arguably the most well-known ruling of the 20th century, Brown overturned Plessy v. Fergusonand established that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The Warren Court’s unanimous decision explained that the separate-but-equal doctrine violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ordered an end to legally mandated race-segregated schools. While the Brown decision marked only the beginning of a prolonged struggle to achieve actual integration, its impact cannot be understated.
9. Engel v. Vitale(1962) and 8. Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
This pair of cases shaped the modern understanding of how the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment constrains prayer in public schools. In Engel, the Court struck down a New York State rule that allowed public schools to hold a short, nondenominational prayer at the beginning of the school day. The Court decided that these prayers amounted to an “official stamp of approval” upon one particular kind of prayer and religious service, and said that, since teachers are agents of the federal government, the scheme violated the Establishment Clause.
The reasoning in Engel was also applied in Schempp, in which the Court struck down a Pennsylvania policy that required all students to read 10 Bible verses and say the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of each day. While a student could get an exemption with a parent’s note, the Warren Court decided that this still amounted to an unconstitutional government endorsement of a particular religious tradition.
7. Lemon v. Kurtzman(1971)
This case adjudicated a different sort of Establishment Clause challenge, where the controversy dealt with a statute providing financial support for teacher salaries and textbooks in parochial schools. The Burger Court unanimously decided that this financial aid scheme violated the Establishment Clause and delineated the governing precedent for Establishment Clause cases known as the Lemon test. Under Lemon, statutes (1) must have a secular legislative purpose; (2) must have primary effects that neither inhibit nor advance religion; and (3) cannot foster an “excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court held that this scheme violated the third prong of the Lemon test.
6. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Among the litany of public school cases from the Warren and Burger eras is the landmark Free Exercise Clause decision in Yoder. Wisconsin mandated that all children attend public school until age 16, but Jonas Yoder, a devoutly religious Amish man, refused to send his children to school past eighth grade. He argued that his children didn’t need to be in school that long t ...
Learning Multicast Part 8 Securing MulticastDavid Hedley
This lesson covers how to secure your multicast implementation. You may want to take a victory lap after getting things working, but a lot can happen if you don't take the time to secure what you built.
Learning Multicast Part 7 Bringing ClarityDavid Hedley
We'll review all the concepts we've discussed so far, and try an tie all the concepts together. You'll need to watch the videos to see the answers to the quizzes.
Learning Multicast Part 5 How routers know where the RP isDavid Hedley
We talk briefly about Sources Specific Multicast before moving on to discuss how the routers know where the RP is located, and go to talk about boundaries, MSDP, and anycast RP's.
David Hedley's Tuesday Tech Talks Multicast Part 6 TroubleshootingDavid Hedley
We'll start with a bit on HSRP and PIM, then we'll move on to troubleshooting. We'll close with your to-do list for building your multicast standards. You've learned how it works, seen the commands you'll need, and now you'll see how you can troubleshoot.
On our next #TuesdayTechTalk on #FacebookLive, I want to spend time talking about Quality in Networking. Catch me on Facebook Live on Tuesday, July 3rd at 8:30 PM Pacific Time.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Honest Reviews of Tim Han LMA Course Program.pptxtimhan337
Personal development courses are widely available today, with each one promising life-changing outcomes. Tim Han’s Life Mastery Achievers (LMA) Course has drawn a lot of interest. In addition to offering my frank assessment of Success Insider’s LMA Course, this piece examines the course’s effects via a variety of Tim Han LMA course reviews and Success Insider comments.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Model Attribute Check Company Auto PropertyCeline George
In Odoo, the multi-company feature allows you to manage multiple companies within a single Odoo database instance. Each company can have its own configurations while still sharing common resources such as products, customers, and suppliers.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
A Strategic Approach: GenAI in EducationPeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Serrano V. Priest and Educational Equalization in California
1. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 1 of 14
Serrano v. Priest
and
Educational Equalization in California
David M. Hedley
Educ. 401
K. Collins
Chapman University
September 25, 2002
2. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 2 of 14
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2
Equal Protection Cases prior to Serrano............................................................................. 3
California and Serrano I...................................................................................................... 4
Between Serrano I and Serrano II....................................................................................... 6
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez., 411 U.S. 1 (1973)...................................... 6
Senate Bill 90 and Assembly Bill 1267.......................................................................... 8
Serrano II ............................................................................................................................ 8
Post Serrano II..................................................................................................................... 9
Taxes............................................................................................................................... 9
Private Schools................................................................................................................ 9
Equalization .................................................................................................................. 10
Other methods of funding............................................................................................. 10
Conclusions....................................................................................................................... 10
Works Cited ...................................................................................................................... 12
3. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 3 of 14
Equal Protection Cases prior to Serrano
In the infamous decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), Justice
Brown, writing from the majority, sites the case of Roberts vs. City of Boston, 5 Cush.
198. In that case, the Massachusetts supreme court “held that the general school
committee of Boston had the power to make provision for the instruction of colored
children in separate schools established exclusively for then, and to prohibit their
attendance upon other schools.” Roberts was decided before the adoption of the XIV
amendment to the United States Constitution but the court, in Plessy, explicitly rejected
the equal protection argument put forth by Plessy. The doctrine of “separate, but equal”
was firmly cemented in American jurisprudence from the next 60 years.
A very different court in 1950 decided Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950). In
that case, the court explicitly avoided reexamining Plessy. Yet, the court in a unanimous
decision author by then Chief Justice Vinson, found that an effort by Texas to create a
public law school for Negroes could not be equal to the University of Texas Law School,
and therefore violated the equal protection clause of the XIV amendment. The court
looked at “those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but make for
greatness in a law school. Such qualities, to name but a few, include reputation of the
faculty, experience of the administration, position and influence of the alumni, traditions
and prestige.” Clearly this was a break in the judicial wall, which had kept an unequal
system functioning for so long.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was an amalgamation of a
number of similar cases. Those cases all argued that the school for black children were,
by their very nature, inferior and, therefore, violated the equal protection clause. Chief
Justice Warren spoke clearly on the court’s opinion of the “fundamental” right of
education:
“Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local
governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for
education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our
democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good
citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural
values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to
adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may
reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an
education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a
right which must be made available to all on equal terms. (Emphasis added)
The Supreme Court found that segregated schools by their very nature violated the equal
protection clause.
4. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 4 of 14
The court that had decided Painter was made up of five Associate Justices
appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, and three Associate Justices and the Chief
Justice appointed by President Truman. The court that decided Brown had only one
change and that was the appointment of Earl Warren as Chief Justice, by President
Eisenhower. The Brown decision did not de-segregate schools by itself. It merely found
segregated schools unconstitutional and forced the states to reconstitute their schools in a
manner that would not discriminate by race.
California and Serrano I
The next major issue for educational equity was based in the very foundations of
the educational system. The equity of the State School Finance system was challenged in
the courts.
California like many other states depended heavily on local property taxes for the
primary financing of public schools. Each district could tax at its own rate. Because each
district contained a different tax base dependant on the assessed value of taxable
property, some districts could raise a great deal of revenue with a low tax rate while
others could raise very little with a high tax rate. The State of California provided
addition funds from two sources,
“The state contribution is supplied in two principal forms. "Basic state aid"
consists of a flat grant to each district of $125 per pupil per year, regardless of the
relative wealth of the district. (Cal. Const., art. IX, § 6, par. 4; Ed. Code, §§
17751, 17801.) "Equalization aid" is distributed in inverse proportion to the
wealth of the district.” (Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, hereafter Serrano I)
Equalization depended on the concept of a “foundation level”. The “foundation level”
was an arbitrary amount of revenue per student for which the State guaranteed to provide
aid to each school district which could not raise that much revenue from the combination
of “basic state aid” and property tax revenue which was calculated at a standard (low)
rate for all districts. The amount was only $355 per year for an elementary student and
$488 for each high school student. Since districts could raise the property tax rate, some
poor districts could exceed that “foundation level” by assessing themselves at a higher
rate while still receiving the “equalization aid.” There were statutory limits to tax rate,
voters could approve an override and “nearly all districts” had “voted to override the
statutory limits.” Districts such as Beverly Hills Unified chose to spend $1,231.72 per
student in 1968-69, Pasadena Unified chose to spend $840.19 per student, and Baldwin
Park chose, or was able to spend, only $577.49.
In 1968 (Ed-Data, “A Primer on School Finance”) John Serrano, Jr. sued the Los
Angeles Unified School District asking the Court for
“(1) a declaration that the present financing system is unconstitutional; (2) an
order directing defendants to reallocate school funds in order to remedy this
invalidity; and (3) an adjudication that the trial court retain jurisdiction of the
5. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 5 of 14
action so that it may restructure the system if defendants and the state Legislature
fail to act within a reasonable time.” (Serrano I)
The Court had to decide
“As a direct result of the financing scheme ... substantial disparities in the quality
and extent of availability of educational opportunities exist and are perpetuated
among the several school districts of the State.... [Par.] The educational
opportunities made available to children attending public schools in the Districts,
including plaintiff children, are substantially inferior to the educational
opportunities made available to children attending public schools in many other
districts of the State...." (Serrano I)
and whether this constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the XIV
Amendment and under the California Constitution.
The trial court dismissed the original case. The first Serrano ruling, 5 Cal. 3d 592
(1971), was an appeal based on the trial court’s dismissal.
In Equal Protection cases the U.S. Supreme Court had adopted a standard for the
application which was:
“The United States Supreme Court has employed a two-level test for measuring
legislative classifications against the equal protection clause. "In the area of
economic regulation, the high court has exercised restraint, investing legislation
with a presumption of constitutionality and requiring merely that distinctions
drawn by a challenged statute bear some rational relationship to a conceivable
legitimate state purpose. …
“On the other hand, in cases involving `suspect classifications' or touching on
`fundamental interests,' … the court has adopted an attitude of active and critical
analysis, subjecting the classification to strict scrutiny. … Under the strict
standard applied in such cases, the state bears the burden of establishing not only
that it has a compelling interest which justifies the law but that the distinctions
drawn by the law are necessary to further its purpose.” (Serrano I)
The California Supreme Court believed that the tax base of a district was directly
related to wealth. The defendants vigorously asserted that this was not the case; and even
if it was that it was not purposeful or intentional discrimination. The Court argued that
the wealth of a district is very much “shaped and hardened by zoning ordinances and
other governmental land-use controls.” The Court’s majority saw that rich districts could
taxes at rates much lower than poor districts at the same time providing significantly
more for their children’s education.
The Court quoted Brown in recognizing the “Fundamental Interest” in education.
They also cited California cases which recognized the influence of education on future
employment prospects and, therefore, income. The California Constitution was also cited,
specifically Article IX. Sec. 1 states:
6. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 6 of 14
“A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the
preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the Legislature shall
encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral,
and agricultural improvement.”
The final question was whether the financing system was necessary to accomplish
a compelling state interest. The defendant argued that local control of education was a
compelling state interest. The plaintiff’s argument was that poor districts had no local
control because they could not choose to provide a better education than provided by the
state “foundation levels” since they could not afford to tax themselves sufficiently to
make a difference. A specific example was that of Baldwin Park provided half the
revenue of Beverley Hills while taxing themselves at two and a half times the rate.
In the end, the Court found “the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint legally
sufficient” and returned “the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.”
By remanding the case to the trial court, the California Supreme Court had given
the California Legislature the opportunity to act with regards to the concerns raised in
their decision. Yet, the fact that the case was remanded meant that the funding system
was not immediately affected. The trial court would get a chance to hear out the
arguments in more detail.
Between Serrano I and Serrano II
The Trial commenced on December 26, 1972. The trial lasted for 60 days. It was
not until April 10, 1974 that the trial court issue its “Memorandum Opinion RE Intended
Decision” and the final findings of law and of fact were not issued until August 30,1974.
The trial court’s decision was appealed.
The Courts decision in Serrano was followed by two important events which
affected this appeal. The first was the U.S. Supreme Court decision in San Antonio
School District v. Rodriguez., 411 U.S. 1 (1973). The second was the passage of Senate
Bill No. 90 (S.B. 90) and Assembly Bill No. 1267 (A.B. 1267) by the California
Legislature.
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez., 411 U.S. 1 (1973)
The Rodriguez case had implications for cases through out the U.S. that had
challenged state school financing schemes based on the Equal Protection Clause. The
makeup of the Court had changed greatly since Brown. President Nixon in his first three
years in office had been able to name four Justices to the Court including a new Chief
Justice, Warren Burger. Nixon had been clear that his nominations must share his view of
“strict-construction.” The four Nixon appointees, along with the one remaining
Eisenhower appointee, Justice Potter Stewart, formed the majority in the Rodriguez
decision.
7. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 7 of 14
In Rodriquez, the majority could find no “suspect class” and found that education
was not a “fundamental” right or liberty. Therefore, the standard that they applied was
only that the funding system had to have a “rational relationship to a legitimate state
purpose.” An important part of the argument was:
‘The argument here is not that the children in districts having relatively low
assessable property values are receiving no public education; rather, it is that they
are receiving a poorer quality education than that available to children in districts
having more assessable wealth. Apart from the unsettled and disputed
question whether the quality of education may be determined by the amount
of money [411 U.S. 1, 24] expended for it, a sufficient answer to appellees'
argument is that, at least where wealth is involved, the Equal Protection Clause
does not require absolute equality or precisely equal advantages.” (emphasis
added) (San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez., 411 U.S. 1 (1973) hereafter
Rodriguez)
The philosophical change by the court was clear. “It is not the province of this
Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal
protection of the laws.” The majority also showed great concern when they
“acknowledge that the Justices of this Court lack both the expertise and the familiarity
with local problems so necessary to the making of wise decisions with respect to the
raising and disposition of public revenues.” Yet, the court was not asked to change the
system of funding. It was asked whether, in the face of extreme differences in the ability
of some districts to raise revenue for education, while others could provide amply for
students at a very low rate of taxation, these systems of financing violated the equal
protection clause of the XIV Amendment.
The Court by applying the lesser standard found that the local control of
education was a legitimate state purpose and that the funding system had a rational
relationship to that purpose. Therefore, the case was overturned. Yet, the Court also
recognized:
“It cannot be questioned that the constitutional judgment reached by the District
Court and approved by our dissenting Brothers today would occasion in Texas
and elsewhere an unprecedented upheaval in public education. Some
commentators have concluded that, whatever the contours of the alternative
financing programs that might be devised and approved, the result could not avoid
being a beneficial one. But, just as there is nothing simple about the constitutional
issues involved in these cases, there is nothing simple or certain about predicting
the consequences of massive change in the financing and control of public
education.” (Rodriguez)
Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote a stinging dissent. His finding very much
followed the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in Serrano. He also makes some
telling observations:
“Authorities concerned with educational quality no doubt disagree as to the
significance of variations in per-pupil spending. … We sit, however, not to
8. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 8 of 14
resolve disputes over educational theory but to enforce our Constitution. It is an
inescapable fact that if one district has more funds available per pupil than
another district, the [411 U.S. 1, 84] former will have greater choice in
educational planning than will the latter. In this regard, I believe the question of
discrimination in educational quality must be deemed to be an objective one
that looks to what the State provides its children, not to what the children are
able to do with what they receive. That a child forced to attend an underfunded
school with poorer physical facilities, less experienced teachers, larger classes,
and a narrower range of courses than a school with substantially more funds - and
thus with greater choice in educational planning - may nevertheless excel is to the
credit of the child, not the State….” (Rodriguez)
Rodriquez put in doubt the California Court’s prior decision as the Federal Court
had then excluded the XIV Amendment argument from consideration.
Senate Bill 90 and Assembly Bill 1267
In the mean time, the California Legislature had made some changes to the school
finance system. S.B. 90 and A.B. 1267 raised the “foundation” levels to $765 for
elementary students and to $959 for high school students. There were also limitations
placed on the growth in spending of high spending districts while districts below the
foundation level could raise much more revenue. The concept was that districts would
converge their spending levels over time. Yet, districts could vote overrides of these
limits.
Serrano II
The California Supreme Court ruled again in Serrano II 18 Cal.3d 728 on
December 30,1976. Following the Rodriquez decision, the trial court had relied on the
equal protection provisions of the California Constitution rather than the XIV
Amendment. The trial courts finding were in line with Serrano I other than no longer
citing the XIV Amendment argument mentioned above.
The trial court also had to decide if A.B. 1267 and S.B. 90 had so altered the
system as to bring it to “fiscal neutrality.” The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court
that these measures were unlikely to achieve the stated goals due to the ability for
districts to vote overrides.
The trial court further went on to describe the compelling state interest “to be
chimerical from the standpoint of those districts which are less favored in terms of
taxable wealth per pupil, and we ourselves, after a thorough examination of the record,
are in wholehearted agreement with this assessment.”
9. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 9 of 14
The California School finance system was, therefore, found to deny plaintiff the equal
protection of the law and, therefore, was Unconstitutional. The state was then required to
reform the system with the goal of “fiscal neutrality.” This did not mean fiscal equality.
Post Serrano II
Taxes
In 1978, California voter’s approved Proposition 13. This was the infamous
“taxpayer revolt” which rolled back property tax assessments, capped the property tax
rate, and limited the rate of increase. The effect on California Schools was dramatic, as a
primary source of funding was reduced in half and had to be made up from General Fund
Revenues of the state. Some authors argue that Serrano caused Proposition 13 because of
the decoupling of the connection between property taxes and local schools. (Fischel, npn)
Professor Fischel of Dartmouth College argues that “district power equalization
eliminates much of the fiscal incentive that any local district has to improve educational
quality.” The argument is that better schools increase property values even for
homeowners without children. If schools are equalized then voters are less likely to
support higher taxes for schools because they will likely not receive the full benefit of
any increase. Poor district might see a decrease in state aid and rich districts will have
more money redirected.
Spending on Education in California has declined relative to the rest of the nation
since Serrano. California was ranked 11th
in statewide spending per student in 1970 and,
by 1990, California had fallen to 30th
.
Fabio Silva and Jon Sonstelie use a statistical analysis to argue that Serrano is
culpable for only part of the decline in state spending for Education. California had seen a
growing student population during the period of study. Silva and Sonstelie argue that
growth in student population will tend to decrease spending per student in the short run as
class sizes increase, and there is normally a lag between the authority to build new
facilities, the availability of those facilities, and finally, the hiring of teachers for those
new classrooms. Their model asserts that $1,066 per student was due to growth in the
number of students while $1,354 was due to equalization. (Silva and Sonstelie)
Private Schools
Eric Brunner of San Diego State University and Jon Sonstelie of U.C. Santa
Barbara, show that California has seen a growth in Private School enrollment as a result
of Serrano. For the period from 1972 to 1992, California has had a higher percentage of
students enrolled in private schools than the national average. They quote a study by
Downes and Schoeman (1993) which attributes 75% of the growth to Serrano. (Brunner
et al., p.10)
10. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 10 of 14
Equalization
Under the “Serrano Ban” certain types of funding are limited and the variation
between funding must be kept within court mandated limit. California has been very
successful in equalizing funding. In 1972, California was ranked 45th
and had moved to
the 5th
most equalized state by 1987. By 1992, Categorical aid to address differences in
needs and costs had moved California to 27th
place. (Brunner, et al., p.7) They argue that
California remains one of the most equalized states when considering non-categorical
funding.
Other methods of funding
Prior to 1971, there were 6 educational foundations in the state. By 1978, there
were 22 educational foundations, and, by 1995 there were over 500. (Brunner, et al.,
p.14) These foundations are able to funnel money into schools and by-pass the Serrano
ban revenue limits. These foundations can include booster clubs, parent-teacher
organizations, and the PTA. (ibid, p.15) In their study, Brunner and Sonstelie could not
identify all the organizations, as only those with revenue in excess of $25,000 are
required to report to the IRS. Yet, of those foundations that could be identified to a
particular school or district, those, which support the most “constrained” districts, “were
the most successful in raising private contribution.” (ibid, p.17) Those districts, which
had a negative revenue growth due to equalization, had an average infusion of $148 per
student, while districts, which showed a 0 to 20% growth, only averaged $59 per student.
(ibid.) It is even more striking when looking at Average Family Income for a district.
Those districts with an AFI of $70,000 and above, received on average $244 per student
with 79% of those district having Non-profits reporting revenues. Those with an AFI of
$30,000 to $49,999 received only $25 per student and only 25% of the districts had non-
profits reporting revenue. (ibid, p.20) It is clear parents want the best education possible
and will use whatever means they can to insure it. Those with the most meager means
simply cannot support their schools in the same way.
Conclusions
By 1997, all but 6 states had filed some sort of challenge to their school financing
systems. 15 states had their systems declared unconstitutional by their state supreme
courts, including California. Many states have taken decades to enact reform. The New
Jersey court first handed down a decision (Robinson v. Cahill) in 1973, but the more
recent case of Abbot v. Burke was decided in 1985, 1990, and 1994. (Hickrod, et al.)
In California, after Serrano the state has changed greatly. Serrano combined with
Proposition 13 have changed the basic way in which schools have been funded.
California has seen its position as a leader in educational spending fall, as well as a
decline in relative spending.
Yet, there are some winners. In comparing Baldwin Park and Beverly Hills, the
ethnic difference is still pronounced. Dropout rates still favor Beverly Hills as do SAT-I
11. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 11 of 14
scores and AP Test results. (Educational Demographics Unit, various) Yet Beverly Hills
was spending well over twice as much per student in 1969 as Baldwin Park and is now
only spending just over one-third more. (Educational Data Partnership, District Finance
Statement) It is clear that Baldwin Park has been able to offer a variety of Advanced
Placement Courses.
There is still so much more to equalization. Beverly Hills has teachers who are on
average more experienced than the L.A. Unified Average, and are more likely to be fully
credentialed. Baldwin Park students are offered a rich array of AP classes yet less than
half of the test takers pass the exam while over 85% pass in Beverly Hills. (Educational
Demographics Unit, various)
Serrano was the first case to succeed in forcing a change in school finance. The
California Supreme Court has unequivocally declared education to be a fundamental
constitutional right. By 1997, 15 other states had followed California in successfully
challenging existing financing systems. 21 other states had either failed or no case had
been brought forward, while 14 had not yet been decided. (Hickrod, et al.) The Federal
Court is unlikely to change its position with regards to the position of education as a
fundamental constitution right, until the make up of the court is altered.
Clearly equalization has many pitfalls. However, Equalization did achieve one
goal which was to provide a more equal financial playing field for school districts to offer
similar opportunities to students across the state. There is a great deal to be done before
we can provide equal opportunity for all students. The California Court has recognized
the essential place education holds for the future of our democracy. Let us hope that we
continue to try and improve the educational equity for all of our students.
12. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 12 of 14
Works Cited
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brunner, Eric, and Sonstelie, Jon. “Coping with Serrano: Voluntary Contributions to
California’s Local Public Schools.” Proceedings of the 89th
Annual Conference on
Taxation. National Tax Association, 1997. 21 Aug 2002. <http://www-
rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/ebrunner/research/Coping.PDF>
Educational Data Partnership. California Department of Education. “A Primer on School
Finance” 21 Aug. 2002. <http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Finance/chronology.asp>
“District Financial Statement: Baldwin Park Unified: Fiscal Year 2000-01” 3
Sept. 2002. <http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D06
%26reportNumber%3D16>
“District Financial Statement: Beverly Hills Unified: Fiscal Year 2000-01” 3
Sept. 2002. <http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Easp%3Flevel%3D06
%26reportNumber%3D16>
Educational Demographics Unit, California Department of Education. “Advance
Placement Test Results: Baldwin Park Unified, 2000-01” 3 Sept. 2002. <
http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AP-3a.asp?cYear=2000-01&cSelect=1964287 --
BALDWIN^PARK^UNIFIED&cChoice=AP3>
“Advance Placement Test Results: Beverly Hills Unified, 2000-01” 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/AP-3a.asp?cYear=2000-01&cSelect=1964311 --
BEVERLY^HILLS^UNIFIED&cChoice=AP3>
“Classroom Teacher Credential and Experience Report by District by School for
the year 2001-02: 1964287 – Baldwin Park Unified.” 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/NumTchDst.asp?cSelect=1964287%A0--
%A0BALDWIN+PARK+UNIFIED&Radio2=T&cChoice=DstTchExp2&cYear=2001-
02&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
“Classroom Teacher Credential and Experience Report by District by School for
the year 2001-02: 1964311 – Beverly Hills Unified.” 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/NumTchDst.asp?cSelect=1964311%A0--
%A0BEVERLY+HILLS+UNIFIED&Radio2=T&cChoice=DstTchExp2&cYear=2001-
02&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
“Course Enrollment by District for the year 2000-01: 1964287 – Baldwin Park
Unified.” 24 Sept. 2002.
13. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 13 of 14
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/crselist3.asp?cSelect=1964287%A0--
%A0BALDWIN+PARK+UNIFIED&AP=on&cYear=2001-
02&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
“Course Enrollment by District for the year 2000-01: 1964311 – Beverly Hills
Unified.” 24 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/crselist3.asp?cSelect=1964311%A0--
%A0BEVERLY+HILLS+UNIFIED&AP=on&cYear=2001-
02&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
“1 Year Dropout Rate (Grades 9-12) in California Public Schools-Baldwin Park
Unified”. 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ASPGraph3.asp?Level=District&cName=BALDWIN
^PARK^UNIFIED&cCode=1964287>
“1 Year Dropout Rate (Grades 9-12) in California Public Schools-Beverly Hills
Unified”. 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/ASPGraph3.asp?Level=District&cName=BEVERLY^
HILLS^UNIFIED&cCode=1964311>
“SAT-I Report: Baldwin Park Unified, 2000-01” 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SAT-I3.asp?cSelect=1964287%A0--
%A0BALDWIN+PARK+UNIFIED&cChoice=SAT3&cYear=2000-
01&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
“SAT-I Report: Beverly Hills Unified, 2000-01” 3 Sept. 2002.
<http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/SAT-I3.asp?cSelect=1964311%A0--
%A0BEVERLY+HILLS+UNIFIED&cChoice=SAT3&cYear=2000-
01&cLevel=District&submit1=Submit>
Fischel, William A. “How Judges Are Making Public Schools Worse.” City Journal,
Volume 8, Summer 1998, Pages 30-42 11 Sept. 2002.
<http://www.act60.org/fischel2.htm>
Hickrod, G. Alan, McNeal, Larry, Lenz, Robert, Minorini, Paul, and Grady, Linda.
“Status of School Finance Constitutional Litigation: The Boxscore” April 1997. College
of Education, Illinois State University, Normal, IL. 21 Aug. 2002.
<http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/boxscore.htm>
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584. (1971) (Serrano I)
Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) (Serrano II)
14. Hedley, “Serrano v. Priest and Educational Equalization in California”
Page 14 of 14
Silva, Fabio, and Sonstelie, Jon. “Did Serrano cause a decline in school spending?”
National Tax Journal Vo. 48 June 1995. Wilson Select Plus. Chapman University
Library. 21 Aug. 2002. <http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org>
Supreme Court of the United States, “Members of the Supreme Court of the United
States.” 30 Aug. 2002. <http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf>
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)