I've begun a series to discuss the implication of the Supreme Court's new Cruz-Guzman decision. In the first post, I explained that the the Cruz Guzman plaintiffs brought a suit claiming that their attendance at racially isolated schools deprived them of an adequate education, but that the Court of Appeals had decided that the right to an adequate education was unenforcible.
I cannot do justice to this topic in a few paragraphs. Its going to take more and longer posts. But, we in the education community have been handed a great opportunity by the Cruz-Guzman decision to fix our broken public education system. We cannot afford to squander that opportunity by thinking small. There have now been three major constitutional litigations brought to reform education some way since 1990. The first, Skeen v State, sought to give smaller mostly white districts a fairer property tax system. The recent Forslund suit sought to attack the seniority system and challenge tenure. This Cruz-Guzman attacks racially isolated schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Listen! The Minneapolis school district is being crushed financially. The students in the plaintiff class, if they are still attending Minneapolis schools, are witnessing cutbacks. Their school district's special education funding shortfall is over $50 million and will continue to rise. In the next couple of weeks, the Mitchell Hamline Law Review will publish my law review article: Minnesota’s Education System Is Unconstitutional Will Someone Bring a Compelling Case? That article argues that we must attack our unconstitutional education system more thoughtfully, more intentionally, with "the end in mind." Minnesota's public education system is too deeply broken to fix it with one simplistic solution. Charter schools didn't do it. Bussing didn't do it. Culturally responsive teaching didn't do it. And an injunction banning racial isolation, while certainly a step forward, will not get us where we need to be.
We need to stop trying to find simple solutions that ignore the growing research that looks at systems, that recognizes that public education is complex, and that it takes all hands on deck to transform it.
So in these coming posts, I'll be trying to provide some background to post readers that answer a few questions:
Past Series on Education and Constitutional law:
McCleary v. State, Part I McCleary v State Requires Legislature to Base Funding on Actual Cost
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part II
McCleary v State and Determining the Cost of Education
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part III
McCleary v. State: what level of scrutiny is appropriate for legislative funding decisions
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part IV
Correlating the cost of education: fund the child.
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary V. State Part V
Summary of Decision Network for Excellence
Washington Supreme Court Blog
JvonKorff on Education, The Rose Decision
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part I
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part II
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part III
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part IV
Minnesota Constitutional Challenge to Tenure Misses the Mark (Forslund)
Forslund suit insufficiently ambitious
Vergara Decision Raises Questions about Minnesota Anti-Tenure Suit
Three Branches of Government are Responsible to Provide a Minnesota Adequate Education
What Does Adequate Education Mean and Who Decides
Commissioner Cassellius Throws Sand in the Face of the Courts to Win the Cruz-Guzman Litigation Academic Standards Law is Part of Minnesota Adequate Education Framework
What is an Adequate Education under Minnesota Law (Part I)
Minnesotas Adequate Education Laws--Special Education
Curriculum Content Standards Help Define a Minnesota Adequate Education(Part 4)
I cannot do justice to this topic in a few paragraphs. Its going to take more and longer posts. But, we in the education community have been handed a great opportunity by the Cruz-Guzman decision to fix our broken public education system. We cannot afford to squander that opportunity by thinking small. There have now been three major constitutional litigations brought to reform education some way since 1990. The first, Skeen v State, sought to give smaller mostly white districts a fairer property tax system. The recent Forslund suit sought to attack the seniority system and challenge tenure. This Cruz-Guzman attacks racially isolated schools in Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Listen! The Minneapolis school district is being crushed financially. The students in the plaintiff class, if they are still attending Minneapolis schools, are witnessing cutbacks. Their school district's special education funding shortfall is over $50 million and will continue to rise. In the next couple of weeks, the Mitchell Hamline Law Review will publish my law review article: Minnesota’s Education System Is Unconstitutional Will Someone Bring a Compelling Case? That article argues that we must attack our unconstitutional education system more thoughtfully, more intentionally, with "the end in mind." Minnesota's public education system is too deeply broken to fix it with one simplistic solution. Charter schools didn't do it. Bussing didn't do it. Culturally responsive teaching didn't do it. And an injunction banning racial isolation, while certainly a step forward, will not get us where we need to be.
We need to stop trying to find simple solutions that ignore the growing research that looks at systems, that recognizes that public education is complex, and that it takes all hands on deck to transform it.
So in these coming posts, I'll be trying to provide some background to post readers that answer a few questions:
- Why the heck are the Cruz-Guzman plaintiffs suing the state using the Minnesota Education Clause about desegregation? Didn't that get fixed by Brown v. Board of Education?
- What are the Cruz-Guzman plaintiffs complaining about? Who is responsible for racial isolation; how would it get "fixed"; and will fixing it really give us the through, efficient, and adequate public education system that the constitution requires?
- Why has nobody brought a suit to challenge the massive underfunding of Minnesota's public education system? These suits have been brought across the country, but in Minnesota, nobody has stepped forward? Is that because the education community thinks that Minnesota's funding is, well, pretty darn good, and we don't want to rock the boat? Or, is it because too many people in the education community are afraid that a financial adequacy litigation would help other schools and other districts more? Or is it a by product of the forces in Minnesota who don't really want more funding for the districts who need it?
- What would a really comprehensive, ambitious constitutional litigation look like, and why is nobody bringing it?
- How can we bring the education community together, charters, the big two metro school district, the AMSD suburban school districts and outstate districts, to advocate for a big comprehensive fix. How can we get the community to stop looking out for themselves, and start fighting the big fight, for a truly adequate truly constitutional system
Past Series on Education and Constitutional law:
McCleary v. State, Part I McCleary v State Requires Legislature to Base Funding on Actual Cost
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part II
McCleary v State and Determining the Cost of Education
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part III
McCleary v. State: what level of scrutiny is appropriate for legislative funding decisions
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary v. State, Part IV
Correlating the cost of education: fund the child.
Jvonkorff on Education McCleary V. State Part V
Summary of Decision Network for Excellence
Washington Supreme Court Blog
JvonKorff on Education, The Rose Decision
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part I
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part II
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part III
Minnesota's School Finance System is Unconstitutional, Part IV
Minnesota Constitutional Challenge to Tenure Misses the Mark (Forslund)
Forslund suit insufficiently ambitious
Vergara Decision Raises Questions about Minnesota Anti-Tenure Suit
Three Branches of Government are Responsible to Provide a Minnesota Adequate Education
What Does Adequate Education Mean and Who Decides
Commissioner Cassellius Throws Sand in the Face of the Courts to Win the Cruz-Guzman Litigation Academic Standards Law is Part of Minnesota Adequate Education Framework
What is an Adequate Education under Minnesota Law (Part I)
Minnesotas Adequate Education Laws--Special Education
Curriculum Content Standards Help Define a Minnesota Adequate Education(Part 4)
No comments:
Post a Comment
comments welcome
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.