This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
I read with uneasiness the coverage of the South Dakota school funding lawsuit, which began yesterday in Pierre. I want schools to have more funding. I believe schools need more revenue to pay the competitive wages they'll need to recruit and retain the best teachers. I have made and will continue to make that case vigorously here on the blog, and will gladly take that argument to the school board and the halls of the Legislature, where our elected officials can fight it out and vote.
But I'd have a hard time making that case beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. How do we quantify for Judge Lori Wilbur whether we are providing an adequate education? No child is being denied a free public education. We aren't turning out hordes of illiterate, unemployable nincompoops (although Judge Wilbur may see a disproportionate number of such characters marching past her bench in criminal trials). We employ thousands of professionals to teach kids the three Rs and more. We even have Internet access in every building, making it possible for our kids to access pretty much any subject matter they might want or need.
Smart educators will rightly complain that the above is a pretty minimalist conception of an adequate school system. But a judge necessarily has to take a minimalist view, strictly within the bounds of the law. Everything else—how many AP classes to offer, what constitutes a competitive wage for teachers, how old is too old for textbooks—is a policy question better resolved through legislative action and the local ballot box, not judicial review.
Expect Judge Wilbur to rule against the schools. Her ruling will not and should not put an end to the fight for better funding for the schools. It will simply say that the state is meeting the minimal requirements written in the Constitution and that the judicial branch lacks the authority to set levels of taxation or spending for any particular state function.
Hide Fido (by Andy Horowitz)
-
I coined Noem as the ‘Palin of South Dakota’ when she ran for the state
house, seems I nailed it; America: meet your new Secretary of Homeland
Security. Sh...
1 day ago
The Janklow school funding formula seemed to work at first, giving school districts equal amounts of per-student dollars each year, until folks started having less children and the economic basis for school funding declined with our birthrates in SD. Madison Central is a good example, dropping from large graduating classes of 150 or more seniors to around 90 these days. Take that times 13 different classes and you can see why state funding at Madison Central has declined so dramatically.
ReplyDeleteThat's the problem. The current funding formula does not address declining enrollment and its effect on local budgets. Madison is down from 1550 students to just over 1100. Take 450 lost students times $4700 per student and you're left with over a $2 Million annual local shortfall that local taxpayers had to cover, along with $1.5 Million in district cuts. That's the problem and that's why the State is being sued. They have not stepped forward to tweak the funding formula to compensate for declining birth rates and its effect on their 1990's formula.
These cuts have negatively affected the quality of education students receive by limiting their opportunities to learn. Pretty simple, really.
By the way, other States have lost this same lawsuit and I hope South Dakota loses so our kids win!
The burden of proof for a plantiff in a civil lawsuit is not beyond a reasonable doubt.
ReplyDeleteO.K., judge, what is the burden of proof? What is the judicial standard in a civil proceeding for determining "inadequacy"?
ReplyDeleteIf the current funding scheme is based on a per student basis, how is the current budget not providing support?
ReplyDeleteAre the fixed costs of maintaining the current facilities eating up too much money? Have we not fired the excess teaching staff? Is the cost of teaching a student not directly proportional to the number of students?
The standard in a civil case is us often, but not always, by a preponderance of the evidence. That's a pretty low standard.
ReplyDeleteThe standard in a civil case may depend on the filing, complaint, type and nature of the complaint, etc. For example an alleged violation of constitutional right is sometimes treated with a higher level of review - but it depends on the "right" for in the courts' eyes, not all rights are created equal. (Like Palin, you can't make this crap up.)
For example if the school suit used an equal protection argument, as have several school funding suits (and made successful arguments), then the state could be subject to a higher burden to show its actions did not violate equal protection for students. Don't think less of yourself for not understand it - judges argue about all the time.
Regardless, either party will appeal this case.