Search Blog:
Category List
2009 Legislative Session
2010 Legislative Session
2011 Legislative Session
2012 Legislative Session
2013 Legislative Day
2013 Legislative Session
Accountability
Achievement Gap
Affordable Care Act
Alliance for a Healthier Generation
ASBSD
Award
Bill Tracker
Board Meetings
BoardDocs
Bulletin
Bullying
Capital Outlay
Charter Schools
Collective Bargaining
Common Core
Communication
Communications
Consolidation
Continuing Contract
CPI-W
CTE
Data Reporting
Early Learning
Economic Impact
education funding
Education Funding
Enrollment
ESA
ESAs
ESL
Federal Education Policy
Federal Stimulus
Fund Balance
Graduation Rates
Grants
High School
House Education Committee
IDEA
Joint Convention
Kindergarten
LAN
LEP
Moving South Dakota Forward
National Standards
NCLB
Negotiations
News Links
NSBA
Open Government
opt-out
Policy
Pre-K
Pre-Kindergarten
Preschool
Protective Trust
SASD
School Board Election
School Board Policy
School Choice
School Facilities
School funding
School Funding
School Nutrition
School Safety
SDRS
Senate Education Committee
Sequestration
Small Schools
Smalls Schools
Social Media
SPED
Spring Tour
State Aid
state funding
State Funding
State of the State
Student Achievement
Summer Study
Supreme Court
Taxation
Teacher Quality
Teacher Salaries
Teachers
Transportation
Veto
Webinar
Webinars
Advocacy Tools
ASBSD Bill Tracker
Legislative Action Network
By Month
May, 2013
April, 2013
March, 2013
February, 2013
January, 2013
December, 2012
March, 2012
February, 2012
January, 2012
November, 2011
April, 2011
March, 2011
February, 2011
January, 2011
March, 2010
February, 2010
January, 2010
December, 2009
August, 2009
April, 2009
March, 2009
February, 2009
January, 2009
October, 2008
May, 2008
April, 2008
March, 2008
February, 2008
January, 2008
December, 2007
November, 2007
October, 2007
September, 2007
August, 2007
June, 2007
May, 2007
April, 2007
March, 2007
February, 2007
January, 2007
View Full Archive
Blogroll
ASBJ Leading Source
Education Commission of the States
EduWonk
NSBA Board Buzz
Politics K-12
RSS Feed
Home >
Open Forum Blog
KELO coverage of Supreme Court
Posted Wednesday, January 12, 2011
As lawmakers were preparing to take their oaths, the eyes of the education community were on the Supreme Court chambers, where the state's highest court was hearing oral arguments on Davis v. State, the litigation challenging the constitutionality of the state's school finance system.
KELO was on-hand in Pierre, and offered up a very balanced segment on the case. Check it out below. You can also recap the action by reviewing our live blog.
Categories:Supreme Court, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Blog Stream: South Dakota Supreme Court
Posted Tuesday, January 11, 2011
12:00 PM
Open Forum's final thoughts on oral arguments in Davis v. State:
Listening to the two-hour back-and-forth, Open Forum's guess is that the outcome of this case with be tough to handicap based on the questions asked today.
In the Olson v. Guindon case - the related case in which the Supreme Court overturned Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur - observers felt the state was going to come out on the losing end of the case. They did, and it was a big win for the plaintiffs.
This time around, the Court appeared to grill each side evenly.
Justices aggressively probed the plaintiffs about the link between funding and achievement. They also stayed after the parents' lawyers to define precisely what a judicial remedy in the case would look like - the plaintiffs were forced to repeatedly suggest that they are not seeking additional funds, rather a declaration of what an adequate education means.
When the defense was up for questioning, the Justices seemed intent on moving past the State's arguments that the Courts did not have jurisdiction to interpret the constitution or to determine whether students are being offered a Constitutionally adequate education. The state's main contention - that the Court can not compel the Legislature to act - was the focus back-and-forth, with state lawyers referencing case law dating back to 1895 in an attempt to provide an example of when the Court fell short of requiring the Legislature to act. One Justice quickly corrected the state lawyer, saying that the Supreme Court in that case did rule Legislative action inappropriate and found it to be in continuing violation of the Constitution.
The Court nibbled around other big issues - the cost of educating a student and achievement statistics - but their examination and questioning surrounding the definition of an adequate education could be a determining factor in Davis v. State.
A Circuit Court ruling from the 90s set a low threshold for a minimum education in South Dakota, suggesting that students need only to be prepared for post-secondary or the workforce. The state cited that case often, but Justices were able to coax both sides into agreeing that student proficiency in math and reading are also part of the definition. Including a measure of proficiency may be a boon to the plaintiff's case, given that the state set's high and ever-increasing benchmarks for what students should learn and be able to know.
After listening to the arguments today, Open Forum thinks that Davis v. State will, at the very least, yield a solid interpretation of the Constitution and the guarantees it makes to the public school students of South Dakota. That, in itself, would be groundbreaking. Aside from that, it's hard to tell whether the Court will go further to assess whether the Constitution is being violated or declare any sort of remedy.
11:30 AM
The session has ended, and they used more than the extra 45 minutes they allotted.
Just before closing arguments, there was a good exchange between the Court and the State regarding the cost of educating a student. We're going to jump back a bit, and offer that portion up.
Justice comment: Why shouldn't actual cost [to educate a student] be a consideration? State replies with an explanation of how the current formula was put into place (at the time, lawmakers took the total amount being spent by all schools and divided it by the number of students to come up with a per-pupil basis).
"Now we have a formula that doesn't relate to costs?" the Justice asked.
State responds that the formula did relate to costs, but the Legislature added an index factor and other adjustments to the formula to provide additional money to schools. When the Justice comments that plaintiffs likely believe the index factor is inadequate, the state simply says: "That's a political question."
11:15 AM
The closing argument continues, with one Justice trying to further illuminate on what the plaintiffs are asking the Court to do.
One justice offers a summation of the plaintiffs argument, suggesting parents are asking the state to provide more money to schools. Parsons corrects him, laying out his clearest answer yet about what the plaintiffs are seeking with the lawsuit.
"We're not asking for a dollar to be spent," Parsons said. "We're asking you to interpret the constitution, tell us what it means, give us a standard that provides what an adequate education is, and declare that there is a systemic problem" that prevents all students from benefiting from a public education.
"Set the standard, and tell the Legislature to correct it," Parsons concluded.
11:08 AM
In the closing argument, the Court comes back to the plaintiffs to justify the correlation between funding and achievement.
Justice comment: The state's former education secretary, Rick Melmer, says there is no demonstrated link between funding and achievement. Parsons replies: that conclusion isn't correct, and the state's own expert witnesses contradicted the statement by saying that investing in teaching and professional development has the greatest impact on student learning.
Justice comment: But some of the state's most well-funded schools are also the lowest achieving. Parsons doesn't directly respond to the statement, suggesting instead that some districts receive federal money and that there are different circumstances in different districts.
11:00 AM
We're onto closing arguments, and it looks like the Court will go over time. They just gave Parsons 15 minutes, and he's staring now. We'll give a hello to readers referred by Josh Verges and the Argus Leader - remember, we're rookies at live blogging, but we hope you enjoy.
10:55 AM
Justices and the state had a lengthy discussion looking at the point at which the Courts should become involved in determining whether students are receiving a quality education.
Justice comment: Is that a problem under the constitution, that districts are not providing a basic education? State replies: Every student is current being provided with an opportunity to receive a Constitutionally required education.
One justice interjects: But the Constitution uses the word "secure" advantages and opportunities - doesn't that mean that outputs (results) need to be there? State says no school system can guarantee a student will come to or succeed in school.
Justice comment: Repeating a statistic offered up earlier by Parsons, one Justice asks whether the courts should be involved if 50 percent of the students in a district were not meeting achievement benchmarks. "Where does it have to get to?" the Justice asked. "Doesn't it have to come a time where the courts can say these kids are not getting an adequate education?"
10:35 AM
Justices and the State are trying to shed light on what, exactly, is the minimum standard of education guaranteed by the Constitution.
After state lawyers recite portions of the education clause in the Constitution - focusing only on the portions that say the system as to be general, uniform, thorough and efficient - the Court questioned why the state chose to leave out the provision that dictates the state "adopt all suitable means" to "secure the advantages and opportunities" of an education.
"[The language] has to mean something - isn't that the provision we're talking about?" one Justice asked.
In terms of education quality, the state concedes that the basic constitutional requirement means students have to be proficient in reading and math, and to go on to the workforce. The definition is basically what the plaintiffs argued for - with small differences (college or the workforce was added).
10:20 AM
We're underway again. The defendants are up now, and state lawyers are making their arguments before the Court.
The state's lawyers start off on the question of whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to resolve the case - and it doesn't sound like the Justices are buying that line.
Justice comment: What happens if the Legislature cuts state aid in half? Does the Court have jurisdiction, then? State says no, which provokes one Justice to plainly ask whether the state believes that the Legislature can choose to violate the constitution (oddly, the state doesn't dispute it).
It seems clear that the jurisdictional question - at least as it applies to interpreting the Constitution's education clause - isn't going to be a hurdle for the Court.
10:06 AM
Court goes into recess for 10 minutes. Plaintiffs have wrapped up their arguments, the state goes next.
10:05 AM
Parsons moves on to portion of discussion of what plaintiffs are asking the court to do - and the Justices are aggressively questioning the endgame of the lawsuit.
Justice comment: Don't you want us to become a super school board for the state of South Dakota (the Justice is expressing concerns that the litigation will be ongoing if the Legislature doesn't act on the Court's remedy, or that the Court would have to get involved if quality doesn't improve). Parsons says they want an interpretation of the Constitution for the Legislature to use to form policy.
Justice comment: Is there a problem with relying on standards? Can they lower their standards and meet a constitutional requirement? Parsons replies: There should be a minimum standard, proficiency in reading and math, that they are capable citizens and qualify for higher education.
Justice: So the constitutional yardstick is proficiency? Parsons: The constitutional yardstick is whether students are receiving the opportunities and advantages of an education.
9:50 AM
Justices and plaintiff lawyers are jousting on the achievement levels. Parsons says hard numbers cannot be disputed: 25 percent of students can't do basic math, 25 percent aren't reading at a basic level, more than one-third need college remediation.
Justice comment (paraphrase): The definition of an adequate education is a rolling standard. You're talking to some of us who when to a one-room school house and we didn't have a problem. How do you judge [education quality] as time goes on?
Parsons replies: "What you should really look at is the effect. To participate in society back then, [students] only needed an eighth-grade education. That doesn't cut it in today's society."
9:30 AM
Justices are probing plaintiffs arguments, going heavily into specific funding questions.
Justice asks: "What level of funding is required?" -- Parsons (lead attorney for the plaintiffs) says an exact figure isn't available, but that rural districts, schools with at-risk populations and districts with Native American students can't offer an education that meets constitutional standards.
Justice asks: "If there isn't evidence to tell the legislature what minimum level of funding is necessary, what constitutional yardstick is [the Legislature] to use to make decisions?" -- Parsons responds that funding levels are always a political question, but the court should order to the Legislature to examine funding and determine how much it costs to educate a student.
9:10 AM
We're underway, after a short delay from the audio feed.
Plaintiffs are up first. Ron Parsons is arguing before the court, and he dives heavy into history first. He says founding fathers are "particularly obsessed" with ensuring education was "suitably funded." Parsons says he'll move on to what he wants the court to do soon.
8:55 AM:
The internet radio is fired-up and we're ready to start the blog stream. In case you're not familiar with what we're trying to do - we'll post news an analysis throughout the hearing, which is expected to last from 9 to 10:45 am. We'll post it to the same blog entry, with time stamps so you can follow along - just keep refreshing your browser.
Categories:Supreme Court, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story
Backgrounder: Davis v. State
Posted Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this morning in Davis v. State, a case that is sure to produce a landmark interpretation of the South Dakota Constitution and the rights of public school students. Make no mistake, this case is a big deal.
In 2006, a group of parents filed suit against the state officials alleging that the state's school finance system is inadequate and therefore deprives students of a quality education. The filing came about six months after ASBSD and other school groups released South Dakota's adequacy study, which found that the state's school systems were underfunded by at least $133 million.
Soon after the litigation was commenced, state officials - mainly the Attorney General and Auditor General - began a process to impede the lawsuit. Arguing that it was illegal for schools to contribute to legal expenses incurred in Davis v. State, the state's top lawyer and auditor accused school boards of making improper expenditures. That prompted a second lawsuit, later known as Olson v. Guindon, to determine whether schools could help defray the legal expenses incurred by parents.
Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur ruled in favor of the state in both cases.
In Davis, Judge Wilbur ruled that the Constitution did not suggest education is a fundamental right did not guarantee students a quality education. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The lopsided ruling prompted ASBSD to file an amicus brief to counter the potentially damaging precedent.
In Olson, Judge Wilbur said that schools were creatures of the Legislature, and could not legally spend district resources in a suit against the state. The Supreme Court handed parents and schools a major victory when they overturned Wilbur's ruling. The Supreme Court said that schools were products of the Constitution, not creatures of the Legislature, and that districts had a right to challenge actions of the lawmaking body.
To read ASBSD's background resources, click here.
Categories:Supreme Court, Comments (0) | Link to this story | Send to a friend | Print Story