Serrano and Proposition 13: Comment on Isaac Martin, 'Does School Finance Litigation Cause Taxpayer Revolt'

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Fischel
Keyword(s):  
School Finance ◽  
Proposition 13 ◽  
School Finance Litigation

School Finance Litigation: The Promises and Limitations of the Third Wave

2004 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 104-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Roellke ◽  
Preston Green ◽  
Erica H. Zielewski
Keyword(s):  
School Finance ◽  
Third Wave ◽  
The Third ◽  
School Finance Litigation

Contested Meanings of Equality: The Unrealized Promise of the Antidiscrimination Principle and the Uncertain Future of a Right to Education

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel F. Moran
Keyword(s):  
English Language Learners ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
School Finance ◽  
English Language ◽  
Educational Opportunity ◽  
Equal Educational Opportunity ◽  
Right To Education ◽  
School Finance Litigation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Uncertain Future

Many people take for granted that the antidiscrimination principle and an equality norm are one and the same. In fact, there are significant differences that should not be overlooked. Education law offers unique insights into the distinctions because school desegregation cases both concretized demands to be free of discrimination and cultivated aspirations to be equal. In the years since 1954, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared that racially separate schools are inherently unequal in Brown v. Board of Education, the antidiscrimination principle has evolved into a requirement that the government be colorblind; that is, public officials must refrain from all consideration of race in their decision-making. A colorblindness requirement can have perverse consequences for equality. Most notably, local school districts today cannot weigh race in making student assignments to promote voluntary integration. Faced with constraints like these, reformers have sought to capitalize on an antidiscrimination principle without sacrificing their goals for equality. For example, federal civil rights statutes designed to protect children with disabilities and English language learners mandate meaningful access to the curriculum as well as protection from discrimination. In school finance litigation, advocates have moved even further away from an antidiscrimination focus. They have demanded recognition of a right to education, an interest that acknowledges every child’s right to flourish. New strategies that push beyond the antidiscrimination principle to promote equal educational opportunity have not been uniformly successful, but they can deepen our understanding of a fair and inclusive educational system.

All together now?

2009 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Newman
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Us ◽  
School Finance Litigation ◽  
Theoretical Question ◽  
Deliberative Processes ◽  
Exit Options

Deliberative theory has served two purposes in recent studies of education policy-making at the community level in the US: as a lens through which to examine existing practices, and as an ideal toward which to strive.These studies, though, overlook a prior and important theoretical question: should deliberative theory be applied to education policy-making? In this article, I explore this question from an egalitarian perspective. I criticize the prevailing assumption that deliberative decision-making is an egalitarian way to make education policy, by underscoring how it fails in this instance on its own terms. I argue that deliberating about education policy is especially problematic compared to deliberations about other social goods, owing to the unique relationship between education and political equality in public fora. I also highlight two features of American education — de facto segregation, and the availability of exit options — that further challenge the appropriateness of using deliberative processes for education policy-making. Given the current state of educational politics, I conclude by pointing to the benefits of school finance litigation and its rights-based approach, which establishes educational entitlements that apply across communities.

Legal Mobilization and the Politics of Reform: Lessons From School Finance Litigation in Kentucky, 1984-1995

2001 ◽  
Vol 26 (03) ◽  
pp. 631-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Paris
Keyword(s):  
Education Reform ◽  
School Finance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Mobilization ◽  
Legal Studies ◽  
Legal Translation ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Degree Of Coherence ◽  
School Finance Litigation ◽  
Liberal Reform

This article is about legal mobilization by claimant groups seeking left-liberal reform in the United States. Drawing on a growing body of work in political science and legal studies, it takes an interpretive, legal-mobilization approach to one litigation-based reform effort: school finance litigation and education reform in Kentucky. In turn, this case study provides leverage for theorizing about legal mobilization and the role of law and courts in social reform. The article argues that current theoretical approaches either overlook or neglect the implications of important dimensions of legal mobilization by would-be reformers. Specifically, it highlights and explicates the meaning of two related themes: (1) legal translation, taken up here as legal framing and legal construction, and (2) the degree of coherence or fit between the legal and political components of reform projects that include both legal mobilization and extrajudicial strategies and tactics. This article suggests that the “degree of coherence” may have an important but underappreciated relationship to the overall success or failure of such reform projects.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document