A Nice Video on Overcoming Bullying

I am a sucker for this kind of stuff. Passion. Art. Poetry. Combined into a beautiful message for kids that are facing challenges. There should be more of this. 

h/t Jayson Richardson

Eyes on Kansas School Finance Cases

A most unusual wave in the story of school finance litigation is washing upon Kansas at the moment.  In January, a trial court in Kansas ruled that the state’s current education budget – adopted following a very large income tax cut that diminished state revenue – did not meet the Kansas constitution’s mandate to provide “suitable provisions for finance of the educational interests of the state.”  Nothing terribly new there – for decades, state courts and state legislatures across the country have been engaged in ping pong matches over whether state school finance schemes comply with state constitutional mandates.  Indeed, the Kansas Supreme Court had recently been in such a back-and-forth with the legislature, ultimately approving of the legislative action taken in 2006 as discharging the legislature’s constitutional duties.  However, the most recent decision – Gannon v. State – criticized the legislature for cuts since that ruling and concluded “that the Legislature could not have possibly considered the actual costs of providing [a] suitable education in making its appropriations” between 2008 and 2012.  Governor Sam Brownback, whose zeal for small government and minimal tax burden helped (along with revenue shortfalls due to the economic downturn) create the cuts to education funding, was critical of the decision; the state has already appealed, but an affirmance would force the Governor to reluctantly find the revenue to return to public education.

However, the unusual part of this story comes from another lawsuit, Petrella v. Brownback, in which members of the suburban Kansas City Shawnee Mission school district have challenged the state’s cap on local taxes for education as unconstitutional under the federal constitution.  In essence, the plaintiffs desire to tax themselves at a higher rate than is permissible under state law.  According to the complaint, the cap “strips Plaintiffs and local citizens fo their fundamental freedom to use their own money to improve the public educaiton of their children.”  Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe is part of the plaintiffs’ legal team.  It is a fascinating legal theory on its own and, if successful, could undermine school finance schemes elsewhere, many of which rely upon similar caps or expenditure limits to ensure some measure of equity in school funding between property-rich and property-poor school districts.  The federal district court dismissed the case last year for lack of standing, but the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded in October for a determination on the constitutional questions.  

Interestingly (though not surprisingly), parties who support the Gannon case and the push for more overall funding have opposed the Petrella plaintiffs’ claim - indeed, this is true of the Gannons themselves.  In the Gannon case, they are the named plaintiffs pushing the state to increase its funding, but they have also intervened on the state’s behalf in Petrella, claiming that the effect of allowing local taxation above the cap would lead to inequitable educational opportunities within the state.  (Of course, while they are named parties, the Gannons are not the primary movers here - rather, a conglomeration of school districts, Schools for Fair Funding, and their lawyers appear to be leading the charge)

Both suits, however, have as their underlying premise the idea that the state is not doing enough to fund public education.  In Gannon, the plaintiffs are looking to the state to provide more money directly; in Petrella, the plaintiffs are simply asking for the liberty to provide the increased money themselves.

Stay tuned as these two cases develop.  Gannon is up on appeal, while Petrella is back to the district court on remand.   The outcomes will affect not only the future of school financing, but also the viability of attempts like Governor Brownback’s to shrink government and lower taxes in the face of constitutional mandates to provide for education.

Legal Obligation or Moral Imperative?

I am not completely certain the following thoughts perfectly align with a blog devoted to school law topics (probably better suited in a school finance blog – but, then again, there is a degree of overlap between the two disciplines). I recently received the following thought from Dr. Dan Maas, the chief information officer for a school district in the Denver area:

If you restrict the fuel into an engine, you should not be surprised when the car seems to struggle and under perform.

Dr. Maas used that fact as a metaphor to explain what is occurring in a vast majority of school districts across the nation. As a result of the 2008 recession, state funding for public education has declined over the last four years. These cuts have come with a cost. Public school officials are being asked to do more to ensure that the organization provides the same services at a reduced expense. However, there are not more hours in the day and educational leaders put in additional effort and time to the point of overwhelming fatigue. Eventually these overworked educators will either say “no” to additional work, and the work will not get done, or they will burn out. Neither option is ideal.

The question that Dr. Maas wanted answered was how do educators effectively communicate the current plight of public education to state legislators? This question has generated a few thoughts in my mind that I would like to share here.

As the nation’s economy slowly recovers from the recession there is a danger that some elected officials will be hesitant to provide public education with the requisite dollars to return to pre-recession funding levels since public education has functioned sufficiently well on the reduced budget over the last four years. State legislatures must work to restore pre-recession funding levels for public education and such efforts should garner widespread popular support. So, once again, how do those who are committed to ensuring that all students receive access to an adequate educational experience inform policymakers on the needs of public education?

The overly simplistic answer focuses on helping the community understand the fiscal realities of the current budget. Programs and services could be cut due to budget constraints. The problem with cutting programs or services is that it goes contrary to the core beliefs of most educators – to do no harm to children. Educators constantly work to insulate children from the financial side of public education. But, when children and, by extension, parents do not feel the impact of budget cuts then public education loses its most powerful group of lobbyist.

I have worked with a chief financial officer who once purchased the most dilapidated portable classrooms he could find the summer before the school district was to approach its voters about a bond issue. He then had the portable classrooms placed in the most prominent location on campus. The net effect of these efforts was that parents were appalled at the conditions and overwhelmingly supported the ballot measure in November. I feel like the same thing must happen to help public education return to pre-recession funding levels. Parents must become aware of the cuts school districts have implemented and appreciate the burden these cuts have had on the system. Just like the engine with restricted fuel, if the funding issue continues to go unaddressed then public education will begin to sputter and under perform.

A coalition of advocates for public education, including parents, business owners, and city officials (to mention just a few), could prove the catalyst to help policymakers shift the discussion from constitutional obligation related to funding public education to moral imperative. Only when elected officials view funding public education in the latter light will all children realize the Brown ideal of equal access to education for all children.

If the entrance is closed, is it still an open meeting?

The Michigan Education Association and the AFL-CIO have filed a lawsuit challenging the new right-to-work legislation that passed in December.  The suit alleges that the legislature violated Michigan's Open Meetings Act, its Constitution, and First Amendment principles by blocking access to the capitol for four hours during the debate on the legislation.  The focus of the lawsuit is the Open Meetings Act violation.

Like many other states, Michigan law requires that meetings of public bodies be held at a public place and be open so that members of the public may attend.  If an open meeting is not held, the decisions made while closed can be invalidated if this has impaired the rights of the public.  According to the complaint, although the actual vote on the legislation took place after the capitol was reopened, many significant changes to the bills were made during the building closure that essentially transformed the legislation into a right-to-work law. The plaintiffs allege that their rights to participate in the governement by listening to the debate, lobbying legislators while it was ongoing, and to report out the facts of what was taking place were impaired.  The state police claim that the building was closed for structural safety concerns.  The plaintiffs question this claim because this was, from their vantage point, one of the most significant pieces of legislation addressed by the legislature in the past 50 years and the building had never been closed before.

Here's my initial impression of this lawsuit:

While the closing of the Capitol was unprecedented and a very bad idea unless there really were safety concerns, I think that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail in this lawsuit because the actual vote took place after the building was reopened.  Michigan's law only invalidates decisions made while in closed session.  In addition, when interpreting this law, Michigan courts have looked for an intentional closing of a public meeting to cover up for misdeeds or to hide information about how public officials voted as proof of impairing the public's rights.  This situation appears to be about limiting public access to protest or talk about the law before it passed.  Moreover, even if plaintiffs could convince the courts that the votes should be invalidated, in the past Michigan courts have allowed public bodies to reenact votes that were not in compliance with the Open Meetings Act.  So, even if the vote was improper, public bodies have been allowed to re-hold the vote in a public forum and reach the same result.  

Despite my initial analysis, I am very concerned about the closing of the building during this legislative debate. Unless it really was for safety concerns, excluding hundreds of citizens who wanted to participate and observe the debate on important state legislation flies in the face of our democratic traditions.  Public bodies in other states have taken steps to keep their meetings open by moving locations to accommodate more people and/or televising the debate so many more individuals can watch it.  These changes were found to be consistent with open meeting act principles. Michigan did not take these steps in anticipation of a heated debate; instead it closed the capitol building.  It does have a government access tv channel that could have broadcast the legislative proceedings on December 6th.  I don't know if that actually occurred.

This issue promises to continue to be a contentious one in Michigan.  I'll keep you updated.

Here's a link to the complaint:

http://www.aclumich.org/sites/default/files/file/RTWcomplaint.pdf