By Antonio D. French
Filed Tuesday, September 25, 2007 at 6:44 AM
Attorneys representing the elected St. Louis Board of Education, the appointed Special Administrative Board, and the state Board of Education will appear in a Cole County courtroom today for the start of the trial to decide who should be in control of the St. Louis schools. Labels: Schools
The elected school board argues that the state Board of Education unfairly changed the rules by stripping the district of its accreditation more than a year before it was scheduled to be re-evaluated. The state board argues that SLPS' financial and academic situation, added with its persistent instability in its leadership, created a dire situation which forced them to act.
After several earlier rulings against them, the president of the school board said he doesn't expect the judge to rule in their favor.
"You have to remember this is a judge that ruled that the state constitution doesn't guarantee children a public education," president Peter Downs said at a forum last week referring to Judge Richard Callahan's ruling against 200 school districts across the state which challenged the state's method for funding public schools.
Regardless of the outcome of this trial, Downs said he expects appeals. "This to be ultimately decided by the state supreme court," he said.
2 Comments:
Um, Peter Downs?? I think the ruling was that the state constitution DOES guarantee children a public education, but the framers (and me) believed it should be feasible with 25% of the budget. Interesting interpretation of the text.
I think that you have to remember that this is a judge who said "...plaintiffs have not asked this Court to decide whether a particular financing scheme is 'better' as a matter of policy than another but rather whether the current level of state appropriations for public schools satisfies the constitutional requirements of providing for free public schools." Perhaps you don't have a constitutionally defensible case?
9/25/2007 9:56 AM
I thought the case was over when the judge refused to grant the temporary restraining order on June 14th. I thought the elected board had a very strong case to not allow the sab into effect until he ruled on the overall case. But I am not a lawyer.
I don't think Downs' assertion about the state appropriations case has much validity-----but I like the idea of him pointing out what a piece of crap this judge is.
You never know---maybe the judge will rule that the governor and the mayor have not even been competent enough to legally form the 3 man board, with the unexplained status of Sullivan, etc. and somebody needs to be in charge---it might as well be the people who were elected.
Not holding my breath on that.
9/25/2007 10:27 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home