Chapter 3 Legal Framework for Financing Public Education

1
Chapter 3Legal Framework for Financing Public
Education
2
Federal Role in Education

• The federal government has a long precedent of
  providing education programs, funds,
  initiatives to the states
• Without federal intervention, many initiatives
  may not have been started, and many injustices
  would have continued longer

3
Federal Role in Education, cont.

• Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (ended
  desegregation)
• Brown II (ended more desegregation)
• Serrano v. Priest (finance equity)
• The Kentucky Education Reform Act (more finance
  equity)
• Title IX (ended gender discrimination),
• Title VII (Civil Rights Act)
• Public Law 94-142 (Special ed. rights)

4
Limited Federal Role in Education

• The Tenth Amendment to the United States
  Constitution says that the powers not delegated
  to the federal government by the Constitution or
  are not prohibited by it are reserved for the
  states
• Since the first ten Amendments do not mention
  education, it became a state function by default

5
The Tension Continues Today

• The 10th Amendment compromise balanced interests
  of those who wanted a strong federal government
  and those who wanted to preserve states rights

• The states are not willing to surrender control
  of education and the federal government cant
  afford to pay its promised share

6
10th Amendment CompromisePlenary Power

• Each state is responsible for setting up an
  educational system and may pass laws it considers
  desirable towards that end as long as those laws
  are not in conflict with its own State
  Constitution or Federal Constitution
• The courts, however, can only intervene if there
  is a challenge based on a legitimate controversy
  brought by a party with legal standing concerning
  the states practice and the State or Federal
  Constitution or its application

7
10th Amendment CompromisePlenary Power, cont.

• Over the past decades, the federal powers have
  somewhat reduced the plenary nature of the
  states control of education.

8
State Control of Education

• Each states constitution has language that forms
  the legal framework for the organization of the
  states education function

• All states except Hawaii (and the District of
  Columbia) delegate much of the authority for
  education to local school boards to be
  coordinated through the State Department of
  Education also known as the State Education
  Agency (SEA)

9
State Control of Education, cont.

• The state constitution the states department
  of education regulations control the parameters
  under which each local school district operates

10
School Finance The Law

• Finance is perhaps the most critical issue facing
  states as it affects the federal role in
  education

• Increasingly, federal courts are ruling against
  states in cases involving states education
  funding formulae, challenging equity and adequacy

11
School Finance The Law, cont.

• A Historical Legal perspective and Guiding
  principles regarding
• Taxation
• Equal protection
• State Federal Constitutional language
• Adequacy
• Vouchers and charter schools
• Tuition tax credits

12
Taxing to Fund Schools

• The federal level has a long history of taxing
• spending to pay for education
• services
• The first public school laws
• involved taxation in the Massachusetts Bay
  Colony to raise the necessary funds for education
  services the 1647 Ye Olde Deluder Satan laws

13
Taxing to Fund Schools, cont.

• Section 8, Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution
  gives the Congress
• the right to tax and spend
• The article, in part, reads, The Congress shall
  have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, and
  Imports and Excises, to pay the Debts and
  provide for the common Defense and General
  Welfare of the United States

14
General Welfare Clause

• Originally controversial, the General Welfare
  clause conferred on Congress broad powers to tax
  and spend for the general welfare of the United
  States.1
• 1 United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.
  Ct. 312 (1936).

15
Taxing to Fund Schools

• At the state level, the Supreme Court has ruled
  that states have taxing power to resort to all
  reasonable forms of taxation in order to defray
  the government expenses.
• Further, the court said, Unless restrained by
  provisions of the Federal Constitution, the power
  of the state as to the mode, form, and extent of
  taxation is unlimited .
• Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.s. 37 (1970).

16
Federal Involvement in Education ONLY When

• (1) States agree in accepting federal grants that
  are provided under the authority given the
  Congress by the General Welfare Clause
• (2) Standards or regulations that the Congress
  has authorized within the Commerce clause
• (3) Court actions that constrain states by
  enforcing federal constitutional provisions
  protecting individual rights and freedoms

17
Federal Involvement in Education ONLY When

• 1. When the state has accepted a federal grant
  (NCLB, Drug Free Schools, etc.) and grant
  provisions require the state to comply with
  certain federal guidelines.
• If states and localities do not comply, the
  federal government can force the state to comply.

18
Federal Involvement in Education ONLY When

• 2. A state action impacts the Commerce Clause (as
  in the case of United States v. Lopez).
• In this case, the U.S. Congress made it a crime
  to have a gun within a school zone. A student
  brought a loaded pistol to school and was sent to
  jail under the Gun Free School Zone.
• United States v. Lopez, 131 L.Ed.2d 626, 115 S.
  Ct. 1624 (1995).

19
Federal Involvement in Education ONLY When

• 3. U.S. Constitutional rights are involved (as in
  Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
  District).
• The school suspended students for wearing
  black arm bands to protest the Vietnam war. The
  Supreme Court ruled that a school policy cannot
  outweigh freedom of expression (speech) without
  reasonable knowledge that such an act of
  expression would have foreseeably substantially
  disrupted the school process.

20
Federal to Schools

• In 2003, the total federal contribution to
  national education expenditures was approximately
  10

21
Federal to Schools Includes

• Department of Health and Human Services' Head
  Start program
• Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program
• Department of Education pays only
• 6 of total education spending

22
Federal to Schools

• The US Department of Educations annual
• 63.2 billion appropriation is only 2.9 of
  the Federal Government's nearly 2.2 trillion
  budget in fiscal year 2003.
• The remaining dollars are divided almost
  equally between state and local revenues.

23
Federal Education Funds Over Time
24
State Prerogatives

• States may tax what they wish as long as it does
  not conflict with federal provisions or with the
  states constitution

25
State Prerogatives, cont.

• Taxing authority is not considered to be inherent
  in school districts unless the state constitution
  language permits such taxing authority

26
State Prerogatives, cont.

• There is strong legal precedent for state
  constitution language to be strong and clear
  regarding authority for school boards to tax
• In Marion and McPherson Railway Co. v. Alexander,
  64 P. 978 (Kan. 1901), the Kansas Supreme Court
  ruled that the authority to levy taxes is
  extraordinary... and should never be left to
  implication
• Contested again Florida Department of Education
  v. Glasser, 622 So.2d 944 (Florida, 1993)

27
State Prerogatives, cont.

• This has been contested again in 1993
• The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the School
  Board of Sarasota County required authorization
  of law by the state legislature to levy taxes for
  schools. Absent the specific authorization, the
  school board could not direct the County tax
  collector to collect and remit school taxes
• Florida Department of Education v. Glasser, 622
  So.2d 944 (Florida, 1993)

28
State Prerogatives, cont.

• Some school districts have the legal authority to
  levy taxes for schools
• Others must wait for a governing body to approve
  a school budget as one part of a city or county
  budget. That governing body must then set the
  tax rate
• In spite of the states prerogative in taxing,
  virtually all states rely on one primary revenue
  source to finance public schools property taxes

29
Property Taxes

• Property taxes date back to ancient Greece
• In Athens, land and houses were taxed
• Later, in Rome, people and property were taxed
• In Europe, land, homes, and livestock were taxed

30
Property Taxes in the 19th Century

• Taxing property became the accepted means for
  funding schools
• Land was taxed at different rates if it were
  cleared, uncleared, or cultivated
• Later, livestock and equipment was seen as a
  source of taxable property

31
Property Taxes in the 19th Century, cont.

• Taxing property equipment at different rates
  became increasingly complex for localities

32
Property Taxes in the 19th Century, cont.

• States developed a uniform general property tax
  based on a percentage of the value (or millage)
  of the land
• If Farmer Browns land were worth more than
  Farmer Jones land, Farmer Brown would pay more
  in property taxes
• The tax rate, however, would be uniform
  throughout the state or locality

33
Equal Protection Taxation

• Once states establish a revenue source, they must
  decide how to distribute that revenue to school
  districts

• The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868
• No State shall make or enforce any law which
  shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
  citizens of the United States nor shall any
  State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
  property, without due process of law nor deny to
  any person within its jurisdiction the equal
  protection of the laws.

34
Equal Protection Taxation, cont.

• The Civil War had ended three years earlier and
  the country was trying to decide how to treat the
  newly-freed slaves
• The 14th Amendment was clearly an attempt to
  legislate civil rights after the war

35
Equal Protection Taxation, cont.

• Supreme Court took a role in defining equal
  protection of state taxation
• The court determined that the equal protection
  clause established a minimum standard of
  uniformity to which that state legislation must
  adhere

36
Test of States Taxation Constitutionality,
1890

• Equal protection does not require identical
  treatment. It only requires
• The classification rest on real not feigned
  differences
• The distinction have relevance to the purpose for
  which the classification is made
• The different treatment be not so disparate,
  relative to the difference in classification, as
  to be wholly arbitrary

37
Civil Rights Act of 1964

• This time the equal protection clause was
  linked to federal spending.

• Contained ground-breaking language regarding
  race and discrimination under the language of
  equal protection.

38
Civil Rights Act of 1965

• Education was a constitutionally-protected right
  of all citizens and that right should be provided
  to all citizens on equal terms

• Any state that provided fewer dollars for poor
  school districts denied those children equal
  protection under the law

39

• Since the Supreme Court had already ruled that
  classifying people on the basis of poverty,
  occupation, homesite, or the like was
  unreasonable, it held that the quality of
  education could not be based on a state or local
  taxing system where the level of education is
  determined by the localitys wealth.

40
Two Court Cases Litigated Under Equal Protection
Clause

• Both cases cited that large disparities in
  ability to fund education within their respective
  states (Illinois Virginia) resulted in wealthy
  school districts spending more to meet student
  needs than in poorer districts where educational
  needs may be much greater

41
Two Court Cases Litigated Under Equal Protection
Clause

• The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts
  rulings against the parents and for the existing
  funding practice in Illinois and Virginia, saying
  that equal expenditures were not required under
  the Fourteenth Amendment

42
Two Court Cases Litigated Under Equal Protection
Clause

• Plaintiffs could not define a court-requested
  reasonable standard to assess and measure
  educational need
• Since the ideas could not then be addressed with
  research or consensus, the Court refused to
  declare the finance systems unconstitutional

43
1977 California Supreme Court Case

• Challenged the California funding formula
  Serrano v. Priest (1971)

• The Court determined
• Education was a fundamental interest
• The basic state aid did tend to equalize among
  the disparate school districts

44
1977 California Supreme Court Case, cont.

• The Court determined
• 3. The state funding model generated state
  local funds that created substantial disparities
  in revenue to school revenue proportional to
  the wealth of the individual school
• 4. Declared Unconstitutional

45
1973 Rodriguez Case

• A group of Mexican-American parents from the
  Edgewood Independent School District sued the
  Texas system of education funding
• The plaintiffs argued that education funding
  model in Texas makes the quality of education a
  function of the local property tax base and that
  the state funding is insufficient to correct the
  inherent inequalities

46
1973 Rodriguez Case, cont.

• A Texas three-judge panel stated that since
  education is a state function, the quality of
  education should not be determined by the
  localitys
• wealth, but by the states overall wealth
• On appeal, the United States Supreme Court heard
  the arguments decided that the wide disparities
  in the Texas funding formula do not violate the
  equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

47
Litigating Equal Protection School Finance

• After Rodriguez, for all intents and purposes,
  litigation for school finance reform under the
  umbrella of the equal protection clause ended.

48
Standards of Equal Protection

• The courts use 3 tests to decide if government
  actions that treat individuals differently for
  any reason violates the equal protection clause
• Rational relationship test
• Intermediate test
• Strict scrutiny test

49
Test 1 The Rational Relationship Test

• Does the government have a rational reason for
  the differential treatment of individuals that
  does not violate the Constitution?

• The court is not looking for scientific data to
  substantiate the claim -- only for a rational
  relationship

50
Test 2 The Intermediate Test

• Instead of asking that there be a reasonable
  basis for the treatment based on a rational
  relationship, the court will ask for evidence of
  some substantial government interest

51
Test 2 The Intermediate Test, cont.

• This test has generally been applied to sex
  discrimination cases and many policies that
  treated women differently than men were
  overturned using this test

52
Test 2 The Intermediate Test, cont.

• The intermediate test examines the states action
  more closely than in the rational relationship
  test
• For the states action to be upheld requires a
  greater level of government interest in the
  outcome

53
Test 3 Strict Scrutiny

• At this level, the government bears the greatest
  burden for treating individuals differently

• At this highest level of reasoning, the
  government must show a compelling or overriding
  state interest in the differential treatment of
  individuals, and no less discriminatory manner
  exists for the government in accomplishing this
  overriding interest

54
Test 3 Strict Scrutiny, cont.

• Only two circumstances where courts invoke strict
  scrutiny

• (a) When a fundamental right is affected
• (b) When the action taken by the government
  creates a suspect classification of individuals

55
Test 3 Strict Scrutiny, cont.

• In this test, unlike the rational relationship
  test, the courts will not defer to the ability or
  understanding of the legislative body writing the
  action

56
Test 3 Strict Scrutiny, cont.

• For example, the Court could rule that hiring
  unlicensed minority teachers achieves a
  compelling state interest if licensing
  requirements can be shown to discriminate against
  minorities. In this case, the Court would
  examine the data and make an independent
  determination of the degree of relationship and
  the differential treatment that promotes the
  states compelling interest.

57
Strict ScrutinyFundamental Rights

• Fundamental rights are those rights identified in
  the U.S. Constitution and/or State Constitutions
  as guaranteed under the equal protection clause
• These rights include those in the Bill of Rights,
  (i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
  the right to not only substantive procedural
  due process)

58
Strict ScrutinySuspect Classification

• The Constitution prohibits unequal treatment of
  individuals under the law based on different
  classifications
• One of these classifications, for example, is
  religion
• The Constitution is silent on some other
  classifications

59
Strict ScrutinySuspect Classification, cont.

• For example, the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision
  involving Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka,
  Kansas, made race a suspect classification
• The Brown ruling on school segregation separate
  but equal made race a suspect classification
  because the states had laws which denied a group
  of people equal protection under the law

60
Strict ScrutinySuspect Classification, cont.

• Unequal protection under the law based on race
  became illegal
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 added other
  classifications

61
Strict Scrutiny School Finance Cases

• Serrano v. Priest
• The state supreme court determined that education
  was a fundamental right based on language in the
  Brown v. Board of Education case from 1954
• The California Supreme Court also decided that
  property wealth created a suspect classification
  of individuals
• Based on the strict scrutiny standard, the court
  found the finance model to be unconstitutional.

62
Strict Scrutiny School Finance Cases, cont.

• San Antonio Independent School District v.
  Rodriguez
• The Texas Judges said that since education is a
  state function, the quality of education should
  not be determined by the localitys wealth, but
  by the states overall wealth.
• The U.S. Supreme Court REVERSED this decision.

63
Strict Scrutiny School Finance Cases, cont.

• San Antonio Independent School District v.
  Rodriguez
• Justice Powell, writing for the U.S. Supreme
  Court majority, maintained that education was not
  a fundamental right afforded by the Constitution
  under the equal protection clause.
• The US Supreme Court then reverted to a lower
  standard for examining the case the rational
  relationship test instead of strict scrutiny.

64
State and Federal Constitutional Language

• Each state has language in its Constitution that
  frames how it will treat education
• The states education clause

• State education clauses have been the basis for
  many legal challenges to state finance models
  over the past 20 years

65
Equity and Adequacy

• Equity provides for what people need
• Adequacy provides a sufficient quantity of what
  people need
• People with equal needs should receive equal
  treatment, to be sure. Treating unequals
  equally, however, is a most unfair thing to do.

66
Vouchers, Charter Schools, Tuition Tax Credits

• Interest in vouchers charter schools reflect
  dissatisfaction with the current public school
  system and a desire to have the state pay for an
  alternative form of education
• Dissatisfaction with the public schools and
  attempts to fund alternative schools is part of
  our history

67
Vouchers, Charter Schools, Tuition Tax Credits,
cont.

• Basically, these issues involve the concept of
  increased parental choice in public schooling.

68
Charter Schools

• Alternative, generally specialty schools that
  operate with fewer state restrictions
  restraints than regular public schools
• The state constitution defines their operation
• The state charter, or contract, stipulates how
  the school will operate and what accountability
  measures will gauge student achievement
• If the charters measures are not kept, the state
  may revoke the charter

69
Public Schools Religious or Secular?

• By 1750, new secular interests began to take
  the place of religion as the chief topic of
  thought and conversation. Secular books began to
  dispute the earlier monopoly of the BibleThese
  changes manifested themselves many ways in
  education. New textbooks, containing less of the
  gloomily religious than the New England Primer,
  and secular rather than religious matter,
  appeared and began to be used in the schools.

70
Battle for Free State Schools

• By 1820, education had moved from private
  schools (run by individuals, churches,
  incorporated school societies) and state schools
  for the poor to a loosely organized public school
  system of secular interest.
• A conflict loomed The Battle for Free State
  Schools.

71
The Battle for Free State Schools, cont.

• People who did not want to pay taxes to support
  public schools AND
• Conservative Protestant ministers who argued that
  public schools would hurt religious schools
  attendance ( reduce their influence)
  VS.
• Civic government more progressive legislators

72
The Battle for Free State Schools, cont.

• With conflict about the mission of the public
  schools, conflict about funding could be far
  behind.

73
Massachusetts Act of 1827

• Declared that school committees should never
  require schools to buy any books which were
  calculated to favor the tenets of any particular
  Christian sect

74
Massachusetts Act of 1827, cont.

• As a result of this Act, for the first time in
  American public school history, the public
  schools were called Godless schools

75
Massachusetts Act of 1827, cont.

• The change in public school mission from
  religious to secular led to attacks on
  Massachusetts Secretary of Board of Education,
  Horace Mann, asserting that the increase in
  intemperance, crime, and juvenile depravity in
  the State was due to the Godless schools they
  were supporting

76
Massachusetts Act of 1827, cont.

• In response to this initial
• school secularization, some said
• that if people did not agree with how
• the public schools were run, taxpayers should
  be allowed to have that portion of school taxes
  returned so those funds could be used to provide
  an education more closely resembling parents
  wishes

77
Vouchers, Charter Schools, and Tuition Tax Credits

• Taking their stock of public funds and using
  the monies to establish schools more to their
  liking is essentially what todays vouchers,
  charter schools, and tuition tax credits
  advocates try to do.

78
Vouchers

• Vouchers are receipts or documents issued by
  the state that can be used to pay tuition at a
  public or private school
• Parents can use a voucher to pay the tuition to
  send their child to an alternative school that
  the child would attend

79
Vouchers, cont.

• In 2002, the U.S.Supreme Court ruled that
  vouchers could be used to pay tuition at private,
  religious schools

80
Vouchers Are Not New

• In 1869, Vermont adopted a tuition statute
  attempting to ensure that students in urban and
  rural school districts could receive a quality
  secondary education
• In towns too small to support a school, the state
  paid the tuition to attend another public school
  or a private, non-sectarian school

81
Vouchers Are Not New, cont.

• This 1869 provision included vouchers for public
  schools outside Vermont
• In 1961 the state legislature banned religious
  schools from this voucher provision

82
Whats Legal Depends on the State
Constitutions Language

• School finance cases such as involving paying
  public monies to support private sectarian or
  parochial schools often depend on the exact
  language the states constitution uses rather
  than judicial approval of the concept, itself

83
Maine Vouchers

• In 1903, Maine legislation provided all students
  a high school education with the state paying
  tuition to any school of the parents choice,
  including paying tuition to schools outside of
  Maine
• In 1980, however, the Maine Department of
  Education enacted provisions to end tuition
  payments to attend parochial schools in towns
  where public high schools exist

84
Maine Vouchers, cont.

• In 1999, the Maine Supreme Court
• ruled in the Bagley v. Raymond case that the
  1980 ban on religious schools receiving state
  monies is not unconstitutional
• As written, Maines constitutional language did
  not prevent public monies from going to religious
  schools

85
Maine Vouchers, cont.

• At the same time that the state
• court was hearing the Bagley case, Strout v.
  Albanese raised the same funding issue in federal
  court
• Both courts delivered the same opinion the
  state could ban religious schools from receiving
  voucher money BUT the constitutional language
  not judicial approval of the concept determined
  the outcome

86
Wisconsin Vouchers

• In 1990, the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, enacted the
  Parental Choice program
• This legislation provided for up to 1 of the
  economically-disadvantaged Milwaukee Public
  School students to obtain a voucher for the
  states share of public school costs to attend a
  participating non-sectarian private school

87
Wisconsin Vouchers, cont.

• Five years later, the program expanded for
  Milwaukee students to include participating
  religious schools
• Jackson v. Benton challenged this action
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court did not allow the
  programs expansion into religious schools, but
  allowed the program
• to include non-sectarian schools

88
Wisconsin Vouchers, cont.

• In 1997, the Wisconsin legislature expanded the
  school choice voucher program to include
  religious schools. On remand, a district court
  ruled it unconstitutional
• Appealed in 1998, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
  upheld publicly-funded vouchers used to fund
  students in private religious schools, stating it
  did not violate the Establishment Clause
• On appeal, the U. S. Supreme Court
• declined to hear the case

89
Ohio Vouchers

• In 1995, the Ohio state legislature enacted two
  educational assistance programs for parents of
  children in the struggling Cleveland Public
  Schools tuition scholarships and tuition
  assistance grants to pay tuition at eligible
  private schools in the Cleveland Public School
  District area or at participating public schools
  in adjacent districts
• In 1999, the Ohio State Supreme Court overturned
  the program on a technicality

90
Ohio Vouchers, cont.

• Appealed, the federal court ruled the
  Simmons-Harris v. Goff case unconstitutional
• Appealed again, the Sixth Circuit Court of
  Appeals rejected the Ohio voucher plan as it
  violated the First Amendments separation of
  church and state provision
• Appealed again, the U. S. Supreme Court, found
  the Cleveland voucher program was constitutional
  and did not infringe on the separation of church
  and state

91
Vouchers Religious Schools

• The 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision finally
  cleared a thick fog of legal opinion regarding
  vouchers to private religious schools.

92
Public Funds Private or Religious Schools

• The legal conflict between the Massachusetts
  parents who believed that the schools had failed
  by becoming more secular in curriculum pedagogy
  the more progressive legal and educational
  writers of the early to mid 1800s has been
  resolved. Public monies can fund private or
  parochial education.
• The philosophical discussion will continue.

93
Tuition Tax Credits

• Instead of receiving a chit for tuition at an
  alternative school, a tax credit is offered to
  parents who send their school-aged children to
  non-public schools, thereby reducing the parents
  tax liability
• Tuition tax credits were first issued at the
  national level by Senators Moynihan (NY) and
  Packwood (OR)
• The Reagan and first Bush presidential
  administrations advocated tuition tax credits
  repeatedly unsuccessfully

94
Minnesota Tuition Tax Credits

• In 1955, Minnesota passed a law (amended in 1976
  and 1978) allowing state taxpayers to deduct
  certain expenses incurred in educating their
  children regardless of the type of school
  attended
• The deduction was limited to 500 per student in
  grades K through 6 and 700 per student in grades
  7 through 12

95
Charter Schools

• Gained popularity during the 1990s as example of
  school choice
• The charter, or contract with the state,
  stipulates how the school will operate and the
  accountability measures that will be used to
  gauge student achievement
• Operate with fewer state restrictions and
  constraints than regular public schools
• If the charters measures are not kept, the state
  may revoke the charter

96
Charter Schools Mueller v. Allen, 1983

• The U.S. Supreme Court found that the loan of
  textbooks to parochial school students did not
  violate the First Amendments Establishment
  Clause, saying that parochial schools provided
  acceptable secular education

97
Charter Schools Mueller v. Allen, 1983, cont.

• Local school boards were required to purchase
  textbooks and lend them without charge to
  students residing within that district who
  attended private schools in grades 7 through 12
  that complied with compulsory attendance laws

98
Charter Schools Mueller v. Allen, 1983, cont.

• Charter school advocates believed that it was
  easier to evade the constitutional proscription
  against the use of public funds to support
  religious education by suggesting that the
  secular aspects of parochial schools was so
  substantial that they justified receiving public
  funds

99
Charter Schools in the 1990s

• Under the Clinton administration, the idea of
  charter schools changed dramatically
• Proposed that charter schools should exist as
  public schools and not in private or parochial
  schools

100
RedefinedCharter Schools, 1990s

• Exempted from state local regulations that
  inhibit flexible management
• Operated under public supervision direction
• Designed with specific educational objectives

• Non-sectarian in programs, admissions, policies,
  employment practices
• Not affiliated with a sectarian school or
  religious institution

101
RedefinedCharter Schools, 1990s, cont.

• Free of tuition or fees
• In compliance with federal civil rights
  legislation
• Students admitted by lottery
• Operated in compliance with state law

• In compliance with federal and state financial
  audit requirements
• In compliance with federal, state, local health
  safety requirements

102
Michigan Challenge to Charter Schools

• Michigan adopted a Charter Schools Act that had
  provisions similar to the 1994 federal
  legislation
• The Michigan State Supreme Court had to decide if
  the charter schools act were constitutional and
  if charter schools constituted parochial aid to
  religious schools
• In 1994, the trial court determined that
  Michigans charter school act was unconstitutional

103
Michigan Challenge to Charter Schools, cont.

• The State Supreme Court held that since the
  legislature declared the charter schools to be
  public schools,
• Charter schools must comply with all applicable
  State Bd. Of Education laws
• The State Board authorizes funding for some
  Charter Schools and not others
• The Michigan Charter School Act did not
  constitute state aid to religious schools