Over the past 30 years, education litigation has centered on the issues of adequacy and equity. In this first Discussion, you must find at least 1 case of education litigation and complete a brief but thorough analysis of the case. Your analysis must include the main issues argued by the plaintiffs, the defendants position, the outcome of the case (if it has been decided), any lingering issues associated with the case, and the implications the case has for school funding.

reply to the following:
Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al. V. State of New York

            Regarding education litigation, one can access the court case titled Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al. V. State of New York to find issues in school finance that led to lack of equity for students in New York state. The following will examine the plaintiff and defendants stance, the court ruling, and the long-term impact of the courts rulings.

            In 1993, the plaintiff, an organization known as the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, argued that funding in the state of New York violated the states constitution of providing a basic education for students. The organization argued that schools had low graduation rates, low test scores, and that schools and classrooms did not have the basic supplies needed (ESCR-Net, 2015).

            There is little information on the stance of the state of New York as the defendant. There were several hearings in the appellate court over the next ten years, and the state of New York was given a year to come up with a new finance policy with defined inputs and outputs (Ashley, 2017). The court agreed that New Yorks remedy of an additional two billion dollars into education was sufficient as a minimum.

            Later, the courts ruled that the state of New York needed to significantly increase revenues to provide for New York schools, most importantly New York City. New reforms were designed and implemented for the 2007-2008 school year; however, recessions hit the nation, and New York had to rely on local revenues as oppose to the planned state aid (Atchison, 2019).

            In conclusion, it should be noted that the governor New York, Cuomo, argues that the state of New York pays more than the national average per student and that money will not fix the school system (Ashley, 2017). Regardless, data indicates that the state of New York has not increased equity. According to Atchisons (2019) study, there was no meaningful impact from the courts rulings. School districts with high poverty populations, still receive less funding than more affluent areas. Atchison (2019) notes that if the reform were fully implemented, there may have been more funding in less affluent areas; furthermore, a court case overturning such a finance system is not enough to change the equity of a state school financing system. This case and its lack of impact, serve as an example for other cases that long-term commitment is needed to see favorable results.

References

Ashley, S. D. (2017). New York’s persistent denial of New York City educational rights: Ten years after campaign for fiscal equity v. New York. Seton Hall Law Review, 47(4), 1045-1076.

Atchison, D. (2019). Forgotten equity: The promise and subsequent dismantling of education finance reform in New York state. Education Policy Analysis Archives. 27(143). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4422

ESCR-Net. (2015, August). Campaign for fiscal equity et al. v. state of New York et al. 719 N.Y.S.2d 475. https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2006/campaign-fiscal-equity-et-al-v-state-new-york-et-al-719-nys2d-475

arrington