Wednesday, September 7, 2016

"Connecticut is defaulting on its constitutional duty''

254 pages.
From the Hartford Courant:

Moukawsher's dramatic and far-reaching ruling blasted the state's "befuddled and misdirected" education policies that have left cities without adequate resources, denying children their constitutional right to an equal education. 
The case highlighted the inequity between Connecticut's urban and largely poor school districts and the state's wealthier -- and higher achieving -- suburban school districts.

I just read this now. More as I read more.  
UPDATE: Go read Jonathan Pelto on the part that the judge didn't get to.
However today, a former Democratic state legislator-turned-judge sought to tread a political and timid path by calling the existing funding system “irrational,” but stopping short of declaring that the plaintiffs were correct in their assertion that Connecticut must both increase its level of school aid as well as distribute that aid in a more equitable manner.
Hmm...maybe. There are some passages that do make one wonder, though. As Jonathan cites, read the Mirror coverage as well.
UPDATE II (with credit to Melissa for posting): Well, this is worrisome:
The excellent decision came, however, containing a very dark poison. Judge Moukawsher proposed that certain children with severe disabilities be denied a public education. He says, "The call is not about whether certain profoundly disabled children are entitled to a 'free appropriate public education.' It is about whether schools can decide in an education plan for a covered child that the child has a minimal or no chance for education, and therefore the school should not make expensive, extensive, and ultimately pro-forma efforts." He claims, inaccurately, that "no case holds otherwise, and this means that extensive services are not always required."
Whoa. Entirely untrue. The federal IDEA law, the civil rights act, and plenty of other legal decisions surround "free and appropriate" and "least restrictive environment." He's just plain wrong here, as is well dealt with in the article. You definitely want to keep an eye on that part, though.

No comments: