Pa. Supreme Court Delivers Major Victory for Schoolchildren across the Commonwealth in School Funding Case

On September 28, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court delivered a major victory to hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania students by ordering the Commonwealth Court to hold a trial on whether state officials are violating the state’s constitution by failing to adequately and equitably fund public education.

The lawsuit – William Penn School District, et al. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Education, et al. – was filed in 2014 on behalf of parents, school districts, and statewide organizations in response to the failure in Harrisburg to adequately fund public education and provide students with the resources they need to succeed academically.

In a sweeping decision, the Court agreed that it has a clear duty to consider the case and ensure legislative compliance with the state’s Education Clause, which requires the General Assembly to “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education” for Pennsylvania’s schoolchildren. The Court also found no basis to deny consideration of claims by parents and school districts that the legislature’s grossly unequal funding discriminates against children based on where they live and the wealth of their communities.  Read the decision here.

“Judicial review stands as a bulwark against unconstitutional or otherwise illegal actions by the two political branches,” Justice David N. Wecht wrote in his majority opinion. “It is fair neither to the people of the Commonwealth nor the General Assembly itself to expect that body to police its own fulfillment of its constitutional mandate.”

“Today’s ruling ensures that our schoolchildren across Pennsylvania will finally have their day in court,” said Deborah Gordon Klehr, executive director of Education Law Center – PA, which brought the suit along with the Public Interest Law Center and pro bono counsel from O’Melveny & Myers LLP. “We look forward to presenting extensive evidence proving that decades of underfunding and inequity in our public education system violate Pennsylvania’s Constitution.”

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark decision today vindicates the principle that adequate and fair school funding is a constitutional mandate, not a political issue,” said Michael Churchill, an attorney with the Public Interest Law Center. “Now that the court has ruled that education funding is subject to judicial review, we hope the Governor and legislature will work with us and our partners to bring Pennsylvania into constitutional compliance by ensuring that every school has adequate resources.”

“We are gratified by the Supreme Court’s decision and the opportunity to take this case to trial, and we hope it will be a turning point for Pennsylvania’s public education system,” said Brad Elias, an attorney with O’Melveny & Myers who serves as pro bono counsel for the petitioners. “Our goal is to ensure that all children in Pennsylvania have equal access to a thorough and efficient education, and this decision brings us one step closer to achieving that.”

The case now heads back to Commonwealth Court for a full trial, which will permit advocates to present evidence proving their claims. Lawyers on the case will ask the court to expedite the trial, given the importance of the case.

Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court dismissed the case in 2015, relying on an older Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision and saying that education funding was not subject to judicial review. Today the state’s highest court reversed that decision, and overruled that earlier precedent, agreeing with advocates that school children and school districts must be able to seek relief from the Courts to protect their rights to a quality education.

“Judicial oversight must be commensurate with the priority reflected in the fact that for centuries our charter has featured some form of educational mandate,” Justice Wecht wrote. “Otherwise, it is all but inevitable that the obligation to support and maintain a ‘thorough and efficient system of public education’ will jostle on equal terms with non-constitutional considerations that the people deemed unworthy of embodying in their Constitution. We cannot avoid our responsibility to monitor the General Assembly’s efforts in service of its mandate and to measure those effects against the constitutional imperative, ensuring that non-constitutional considerations never prevail over that mandate.”

The petitioners in the case are six families, six school districts – William Penn, Panther Valley, Lancaster, Greater Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre Area and Shenandoah Valley – the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools, and the NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference.

“Today’s ruling represents a major victory for civil rights across Pennsylvania,” said Pennsylvania NAACP President Dr. Joan Duvall-Flynn. “For too long, access to a quality education has been limited to those who live in the right ZIP code, leading to vast disparities that disproportionately impact African-American and Latino families. This decision presents an opportunity to dismantle barriers that prevent children of color from getting the education they need to succeed in the 21st century economy.”

“While our children struggle in schools without adequate technology, dedicated arts, music, library or physical education teachers, students several miles away attend school in modern buildings with the latest course offerings,” said Jamella and Bryant Miller, public school parents who live in Landsdowne and who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit. “The court’s decision means that it’s time for our elected officials to address these devastating disparities by providing the funding our schools require to provide a quality education to our children.”

Given the dire situation many schools face, lawyers on the case will work to bring it to trial as soon as possible. Many schools have yet to recover from the drastic funding cuts of 2011 and still lack basic resources, including updated textbooks, modern curricula and school counselors. Compounding this issue, only 6 percent of the state’s education budget is being distributed through the basic education funding formula, which was adopted by the legislature in 2015 in an attempt to distribute funds based on actual student needs. Finally, modest investments in education over the past few years remain inadequate and the legislature has abandoned setting any goal for adequate funding.

Refugee education lawsuit will cost Lancaster schools more than $600K next year

by Emily Previti, WITF

The city of Lancaster resettles a lot of refugees for a community of its size, and various stakeholders have long collaborated with the district for school-based programs designed to help entire families from this vulnerable population.

So when the School District of Lancaster was sued one year ago, officials argued that they — not the courts — knew best how to deal with their own students.

But Judge Edward G. Smith found last year that the School District of Lancaster had violated the federal Equal Educational Opportunities Act by delaying or denying enrollment of older refugee students and diverting them to a magnet school with less support for English Language Learners than the mainstream high school and its Newcomer Program designed for first-year ELLs (formerly known as the International School).

And now, the School District of Lancaster is looking at spending more than half a million dollars, less than 1 percent of its $208 million annual budget, as a result of the lawsuit, according to school officials.

Read the full article at Newsworks

Appeals Court Upholds Duty of Lancaster School District to Overcome Language Barriers and Provide Equal Educational Opportunities for Older Immigrant Students

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 30, 2017

PHILADELPHIA (January 30) – The federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today upheld the rights of immigrant students to receive equal educational opportunities in the School District of Lancaster. The opinion emanates from a federal class action lawsuit, Issa, et al., v. School District of Lancaster challenging the District’s treatment of immigrant students aged 17-21.

“This case is more important now than ever. It affirms the right of immigrant and refugee students to a meaningful education that overcomes language barriers.” said Maura McInerney, senior staff attorney of the Education Law Center and one of the lawyers for the students. “The decision sends a clear and unequivocal message to all public schools that they have a duty to provide sound and effective English language services. Many immigrant students, particularly those newly arrived in the U.S. with limited prior education have unique and significant language needs that must be proactively addressed. They cannot languish in classrooms where they cannot access the curriculum.”

The Third Circuit affirmed the August 26th decision of Judge Edward Smith of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which held that the School District violated the civil rights of older immigrant students under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) by diverting them to an inferior, privately operated alternative school, Phoenix Academy, that failed to address their significant language needs. Judge Smith’s order granted a preliminary injunction directing the School District to immediately enroll the student plaintiffs in the regular high school, McCaskey. The School District appealed that order to the Third Circuit.

“Our refugee clients came to America with a vision that a good education is the ticket to success. We are thrilled that the courts have opened the schoolhouse gates for them.” said Vic Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania who argued the case in the Third Circuit. “We will continue to push the District to extend this relief to all immigrant students in similar circumstances. They are all legally entitled to a meaningful education that permits them to learn English.”

Kathleen Mullen, of counsel with Pepper Hamilton LLP, added, “With this ruling, the Court has plainly rejected the School District’s claim of unfettered decision-making authority when its programs fall short of protections provided by federal law. The School District claimed that it graduates these students as evidence of their success at overcoming language barriers, but the District Court found ample evidence, and the Third Circuit today affirmed, that pushing these students to a quick graduation is not the same as ensuring their right to overcome language barriers.”

The lawsuit was filed in July 2016 by the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, the ACLU of Pennsylvania and pro bono counsel from Pepper Hamilton LLP on behalf of a group of refugees from Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, and Burma who had fled violence and persecution before being resettled in the U.S. The lawsuit is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other immigrant and refugee students similarly denied or delayed enrollment to the main high school and diverted instead to Phoenix, which offers inferior English instruction on an accelerated structure.

The action is ongoing before Judge Smith in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The students are being represented by Vic Walczak, Molly Tack-Hooper, and Michelin Cahill of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; Maura McInerney, Kristina Moon, and Alex Dutton of the Education Law Center; Kathleen Mullen, Thomas A. Schmidt, III, Megan Morley, Katrina Long, Kaitlin M. Gurney, and Hedya Aryani at the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLC; and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

 

Click here to download the Court’s January 30, 2017 decision.

Click here to read more about the case.

 

English learners caught in competition for funding

Oct. 20, 2016 – The Philadelphia Public School Notebook – by Bill Hangley, Jr.

This year brought some good news for Katie Christ.

“I finally got textbooks!”

That’s a welcome addition to Christ’s high school classroom in Delaware County’s William Penn School District, where she’s taught students who are learning English for 11 years.

But new textbooks are just the start of what she needs for her English learner (EL) classes. For other needed materials – novels and short stories, online language instruction, computers, snacks –  she’ll keep doing what she’s always done: find freebies on the internet, borrow from the English or history departments, raise private donations, or pay from her own pocket.

“I don’t mind spending the money when I see the outcomes,” said Christ, who estimates she spends $1,000 of her own money a year and raises about $3,000 more online.

One online source of funds is a website where donors can give to classroom projects. “Without Donors Choose, I wouldn’t be able to do what I want to do,” she said.

And when it comes to the bigger things that only her district can provide – like more staff to support students, more time in the school day to collaborate, or a fully stocked computer cart – she’ll cross her fingers and hope for a better budget next year.

“I only have two computers in the classroom. One of them’s mine,” Christ said. “I had a computer cart, but they couldn’t handle the new updates. They were old when I first got them.”

Read the rest of the article at the Philadelphia Public School Notebook.

Emergency Motion Filed to Force School District of Lancaster to Comply with Court Order to Transfer Immigrant Students from Alternative School

LANCASTER, PA – Three weeks after a federal judge ordered the School District of Lancaster to transfer six refugee students from one of the district’s alternative schools, attorneys for the students filed an emergency motion today asking for protection for all English Language Learner immigrant students aged 17-21 against the district’s continuing practice of delaying the enrollment of older immigrant students and denying them admission to the district’s regular high school.

On August 26, after a week-long trial, Judge Edward Smith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the school district had violated “clear law” by denying or delaying enrollment to older immigrants and by placing them in Phoenix Academy, a privately run alternative school with inadequate English language instruction instead of allowing them to attend the regular high school in the district, McCaskey.  Evidence at trial showed that more than 90 Phoenix students were English Language Learners.  The district has appealed the August 26 ruling and asked the court of appeals to expedite the appeal and to issue an order immediately blocking the injunction while the appeal proceeds.

Although the August 26 preliminary injunction order “encouraged” the district to apply the court’s interpretation of the law to all similarly situated students, plaintiffs’ motion filed today presents evidence that the school district has decided not to do so.  In an email conversation with a staffer at a local refugee resettlement agency cited in today’s filing, a senior school district official stated that, “At this point, transfers [to McCaskey] are being offered to students who were at Phoenix at the time of the [court] order. With all other students, we are proceeding status quo until our appeal is heard.”  Other email chains presented to the court showed that the district had refused transfers to several Phoenix students.

The plaintiffs argue in the emergency motion that “[i]t is now clear that the District has not honored, and has no intention of honoring, the Court’s legal reasoning” with respect to other immigrants, who continue to suffer “irreparable harm” caused by enrollment delays and exclusion from the regular high school. “The potential for harm . . .  is just as real” for other students as it was for the six named plaintiffs, the motion argues.

The plaintiffs’ emergency motion asks the court to certify the lawsuit as a class action while litigation proceeds, expressly extend the injunction to cover similarly situated immigrant English Language Learners so they can attend McCaskey, and order the district to share with plaintiffs’ lawyers information about other affected students.

The case is Issa v. School District of Lancaster. The students are being represented by Walczak, Molly Tack-Hooper, and Michelin Cahill of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; Maura McInerney, Kristina Moon, and Alex Dutton of the Education Law Center; Kathleen Mullen, Thomas A. Schmidt, III, Megan Morley, Katrina Long, Kaitlin M. Gurney, and Hedya Aryani at the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLC; and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. More information about the case, including a copy of the complaint and today’s motion, can be found at www.aclupa.org/issa.

More information about plaintiffs’ counsel can be found at:

www.aclupa.org

www.elc-pa.org

www.pepperlaw.com

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument for Fair Education Funding Lawsuit

The suit, filed in 2014, claims the Commonwealth is violating its constitutional duty to “support and maintain” a “thorough and efficient system of public education”

PHILADELPHIA – September 13, 2016 – Oral argument in William Penn School District, et al. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Education, et al. commenced before Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court at Philadelphia City Hall on September 13. Hundreds of parents, students, superintendents, and school board members, including advocates from as far away as Erie and Pittsburgh, crowded the halls of Philadelphia City Hall and waited in line to attend the argument.

The case was filed in 2014 against the governor and legislative leaders in response to decades of underfunding by Harrisburg that has deprived children of the resources they need to succeed.

The attorney for the petitioners delivered a powerful argument urging the state’s highest court to permit judicial review of the state’s failures to uphold the Pennsylvania Constitution’s Education Clause and Equal Protection provision. Specifically, the petitioners challenged that years of underfunding by the state legislature are in direct violation of the Education Clause’s language to provide a “thorough and efficient system of public education.”

Two attorneys representing the legislature and Governor argued that the courts have no role in ensuring that children in Pennsylvania have access to an adequate education and that the courts have no responsibility to enforce the state constitution.

“The legislature continues to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities year after year by drastically underfunding our public schools,” said Deborah Gordon Klehr, Executive Director of the Education Law Center. “Today we asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to give us the opportunity to make the case for our public schools in court. We asked the court to protect and enforce our Constitution.”

“Pennsylvania’s current education funding system is unconstitutional. Right now, a child’s ZIP code determines whether or not he or she will have access to basic school resources like text books and computers,” said Michael Churchill, of counsel for the Public Interest Law Center. “The disparities between well funded and poorly funded districts are greater in Pennsylvania than any other state in the country.  The courts need to tell the legislature to end this inequity.”

Attorneys for the petitioners are asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to permit a full trial on the merits of the case, reversing a 2015 Commonwealth Court decision that dismissed the case. This will allow the petitioners to present evidence that the General Assembly has violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by failing to adequately and equitably fund Pennsylvania’s public schools and leaving children without the resources they need to succeed academically. The petitioners that brought the case include seven parents, six school districts – William Penn, Panther Valley, Lancaster, Greater Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre Area and Shenandoah Valley – the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools (PARSS) and the NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference.  The Public Interest Law Center and Education Law Center-PA are representing the petitioners.

Following the hearing, a large, spirited rally took place on the north side of City Hall.  Speakers and attendees included State Senator Vincent Hughes, representatives from the parent and school district petitioners, Councilwoman Helen Gym, clergy from Philadelphians Organized to Witness Empower and Rebuild (POWER), advocates from Education Voters of PA and the NAACP, and attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center and the Education Law Center-PA.

While Pennsylvania recently adopted a school funding formula – which the attorneys for the plaintiffs acknowledge is a step in the right direction – only 6% of the state’s basic education dollars are driven out through that formula and state education funding levels overall remain wholly inadequate to meet the needs of students.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision of the appeal sometime after the oral argument, although there is no specific deadline.

More information, including case documents, can be found here: http://edfundinglawsuit.wordpress.com/

# # #

The Education Law Center-PA (“ELC”) is a non-profit, legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that all children in Pennsylvania have access to a quality public education. Through legal representation, impact litigation, trainings, and policy advocacy, ELC advances the rights of vulnerable children, including children living in poverty, children of color, children in the foster care and juvenile justice systems, children with disabilities, English language learners, LGBTQ students, and children experiencing homelessness.  For more information visit https://elc-pa.org/ or follow on Twitter @edlawcenterpa.

The Public Interest Law Center uses high-impact legal strategies to improve the well-being and life prospects of vulnerable people by ensuring they have access to fundamental resources including a high-quality public education, health care, employment, housing, safe and healthy neighborhoods and the right to vote. For more information visit www.pubintlaw.org or follow on Twitter @PubIntLawCtr.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument for Fair Education Funding Suit

The suit, filed in 2014, claims the Commonwealth is violating its constitutional duty to “support and maintain” a “thorough and efficient system of public education”

PHILADELPHIA – September 8, 2016 – Oral argument in William Penn School District, et al. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Education, et al. will commence before Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court at Philadelphia’s City Hall on September 13th at 9 AM.  The Public Interest Law Center and Education Law Center-PA, representing the plaintiffs, will ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to permit a full trial on the merits of the case, reversing a 2015 Commonwealth Court decision that dismissed the case. This would allow the plaintiffs to present evidence that the state General Assembly has violated the Pennsylvania Constitution by failing to adequately and equitably fund Pennsylvania’s public schools and leaving children without the resources they need to succeed academically.

Following the hearing, a rally and press conference in support of the lawsuit will take place on the North Side of City Hall, at 10:30 AM.  Speakers and attendees will include representatives from the parent and school district plaintiffs, Councilwoman Helen Gym, clergy from Philadelphians Organized to Witness Empower and Rebuild (POWER), advocates from Education Voters of PA and the NAACP, and attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center and the Education Law Center-PA.

The case was filed in 2014 against the governor and legislative leaders in response to decades of underfunding by Harrisburg that has deprived children of the resources they need to succeed. The plaintiffs that brought the case include seven parents, six school districts – William Penn, Panther Valley, Lancaster, Greater Johnstown, Wilkes-Barre Area and Shenandoah Valley – the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools (PARSS) and the NAACP Pennsylvania State Conference.

“Pennsylvania’s public school children are entitled to have their day in court. The Legislature’s failure to ‘support and maintain’ a thorough and efficient system of public education has resulted in Pennsylvania having the widest disparity between high-wealth and low-wealth school districts of anywhere in the nation,” said Deborah Gordon Klehr, Executive Director of the Education Law Center. “Our children can no longer wait. Court enforcement of our Constitution is the only way that all children in Pennsylvania will receive the sustained investment they need to learn – regardless of where they live or what school they attend.”

“Upholding the Constitution is the highest duty of our judiciary, and we are confident that the Supreme Court will step in where the General Assembly has failed,” said Michael Churchill, of counsel for the Public Interest Law Center. “Our inadequate funding system shortchanges students by leaving them without the most basic resources they deserve. We have the opportunity with this lawsuit to require the legislature to finally address this longstanding problem.”

In the absence of judicial oversight, the Commonwealth has underfunded rural, suburban, and urban schools across the state for many years, resulting in the nation’s highest disparity between wealthy and poor districts. According to the petition filed by the plaintiffs, the General Assembly has adopted state standards that define the academic content children must learn, but has failed to provide the funding necessary to give students an opportunity to meet those standards. As a result, many students in underfunded schools struggle academically and fail to meet state standards.

While Pennsylvania recently adopted a school funding formula – which the attorneys for the plaintiffs acknowledge is a step in the right direction – only a small fraction of education dollars will be driven through that formula and state education funding levels overall remain wholly inadequate to meet the needs of students.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision of the appeal sometime after the oral argument.

More information, including case documents, can be found here: http://edfundinglawsuit.wordpress.com/

# # #

The Education Law Center-PA (“ELC”) is a non-profit, legal advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that all children in Pennsylvania have access to a quality public education. Through legal representation, impact litigation, trainings, and policy advocacy, ELC advances the rights of vulnerable children, including children living in poverty, children of color, children in the foster care and juvenile justice systems, children with disabilities, English language learners, LGBTQ students, and children experiencing homelessness.  For more information visit https://elc-pa.org/ or follow on Twitter @edlawcenterpa.

The Public Interest Law Center uses high-impact legal strategies to improve the well-being and life prospects of vulnerable people by ensuring they have access to fundamental resources including a high-quality public education, health care, employment, housing, safe and healthy neighborhoods and the right to vote. For more information visit www.pubintlaw.org or follow on Twitter @PubIntLawCtr.

 

Federal Judge Orders Lancaster School District to Immediately Transfer Refugee Students from Alternative School

August 26, 2016

LANCASTER, PA – Following a five-day trial, a federal judge ruled today that the School District of Lancaster (SDOL) violated the civil rights of older immigrant students with limited English proficiency (LEP) when it diverted them to an inferior, privately operated alternative school, Phoenix Academy, rather than allowing them to attend the district’s regular high school, McCaskey. The court ruled that it was bound to apply “clear law to clear facts,” and ordered SDOL to immediately transfer eligible plaintiffs to the International School at McCaskey in time for the beginning of the school year on Monday, August 29, 2016. Judge Smith explained: “The plaintiffs are not seeking the creation of a new entitlement, or new and better schools. The plaintiffs are seeking admittance into a program that currently exists, and that is specifically designed for students with their unique language needs.”

The decision resulted from a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Education Law Center of Pennsylvania, and pro bono counsel Pepper Hamilton LLP on behalf of a group of refugees from Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, and Burma who have fled war, violence, and persecution in their native countries.

“Our refugee clients have lived lives of unimaginable hardship, and they are way overdue for a break,” said Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania and one of the lawyers for the students.  “We are thrilled the court recognized that school districts have a legal obligation to provide refugees and other immigrants with equal educational opportunities until age twenty-one.”

In addition to transferring plaintiffs Khadidja Issa, Qasin Hassan, Sui Hnem Sung, and Van Ni Iang to the International School at McCaskey, the school district must assess the students’ language and core content proficiencies the first week of school and place them in appropriate ESL and core content classes.

“These students were thrown into a fundamentally inappropriate alternative accelerated program where they languished in classes they didn’t understand. One of our clients was pushed through four years of high school in 18 months, without learning English or acquiring basic skills,” said Maura McInerney, senior staff attorney at the Education Law Center. “This decision will change their life trajectories by giving them what they were always legally entitled to: the opportunity to learn English and gain the knowledge they desperately need for a successful life.”

“The great thing for these kids is that SDOL already has the kind of program they need to provide a successful and welcoming education – it’s just at McCaskey, the school that Judge Smith has ordered they be sent to, rather than the alternative school that they have been going to,” said Eric Rothschild, one of the attorneys for the students.

The problem of school districts refusing to enroll students with limited English proficiency or placing them in sub-standard programs appears to be increasing around the country. This is the third federal lawsuit filed on this issue in the past fifteen months, with earlier cases filed against school districts in Utica, New York, and Collier County, Florida. The Lancaster case is the first case to go to trial.

The case is Issa v. School District of Lancaster. The students are being represented by Walczak, Molly Tack-Hooper, and Michelin Cahill of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; McInerney, Kristina Moon, and Alex Dutton of the Education Law Center; Rothschild, Kathleen Mullen, Megan Morley, Katrina Long, Kaitlin M. Gurney, and Hedya Aryani at the law firm of Pepper Hamilton LLC; and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

More information about the case, including a copy of the complaint, can be found at www.aclupa.org/issa or www.elc-pa.org/cases/issa-v-school-district-of-lancaster/ 

More information about plaintiffs’ counsel can be found at:

www.aclupa.org

www.elc-pa.org

www.pepperlaw.com

Release: Legislature and Governor tell Supreme Court it cannot enforce state constitution requiring support of a thorough and efficient system of schools

November 6, 2015

 

Legislature and Governor tell PA Supreme Court it cannot enforce state constitution requiring support of a thorough and efficient system of schools

Harrisburg, Pa. –Attorneys for the state legislature and the executive branch told the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week that the Court is powerless to decide whether or not the state system of funding public schools violates the state Constitution. Continue reading