FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1562022024> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1562022024 startingPage "1341" @default.
• W1562022024 abstract "INTRODUCTION Lawsuits challenging New York State's public elementary and secondary school funding formulas have followed, in several respects, the school finance litigation trends in other state and federal courts. The most notable linkage lies with New York plaintiffs' incorporation of doctrinal developments from successful litigation attacking public school funding systems in other states. As this Article demonstrates, the first New York school finance case, Board of Education, Levittown Union Free District v. Nyquist (1) (Levittown) commenced after victorious public school funding cases in California, Serrano v. Priest, (2) and New Jersey, Robinson v. Cahill. (3) The Serrano and Robinson cases provided a useful litigation blueprint for raising legal challenges to state public elementary and secondary school funding systems based largely upon principles and arguments. (4) Equity-based challenges in school finance litigation rely primarily upon state constitutional equality or equal protection provisions. (5) The most typical equity argument raised by plaintiffs is that a state public school funding system, which relies largely upon local property taxes, is inherently unfair or impermissibly disadvantages poorer school districts. (6) Plaintiffs also frequently point to specific provisions within state financing practices benefiting wealthier public school districts at the expense of allocating more funds to poorer districts. (7) Although the Levittown litigation was eventually unsuccessful, (8) in 1989, school finance reform advocates and interest groups were encouraged by three successful cases in Montana, (9) Kentucky, (10) and Texas. (11) These cases provided a related, but newer, legal argument revolving around a theory of adequacy to challenge state public elementary and secondary school finance practices. (12) Adequacy-based challenges revolve around the interpretation of education articles or guarantees found in respective state constitutions whereby plaintiffs argue that children in poorer school districts are deprived of a legally level of education. (13) Plaintiffs frequently cite numerous inadequacies in education services, such as school facilities, lack of textbooks and qualified teachers, inferior computers, etc., to bolster claims that a state fails to meet its burden of providing an adequate public education to all school children in a given state. (14) Consequently, plaintiffs commonly assert that more state funding needs to be diverted to poorer school districts to address any inadequacy. (15) Both the development in the 1989 cases and the New York Court of Appeals' recognition in Levittown that they could entertain future claims of a gross and glaring inadequacy in public education currently provides New York education finance reform groups with a new angle from which to challenge the state's public school funding formulas. (16) Part I of this Article evaluates the influence of federal courts' school finance cases on the New York school finance groups' decision to litigate in the New York courts. Particular attention is paid to the holding, rationale, judgment, and legal claims of interest groups in relevant school finance cases decided by the United States District Court and the United States Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, (17) which effectively closed the federal courts' door to school finance claims. Part II analyzes the importance of other states' legal precedents in school finance cases as a factor influencing interest groups in New York to challenge the state's public education funding formulas. Part III discusses in detail the progression of public elementary and secondary school funding formula litigation in New York, beginning with Levittown, up to the most recent case, Campaign for Fiscal Equities, Inc. v. State of New York. (18) The discussion focuses on the legal arguments raised by various interest group-plaintiffs and traces the development of those arguments to school finance cases in other states. …" @default.
• W1562022024 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1562022024 creator A5005196141 @default.
• W1562022024 creator A5047529930 @default.
• W1562022024 date "2003-05-01" @default.
• W1562022024 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1562022024 title "From Equity to Adequacy: The Legal Battle for Increased State Funding of Poor School Districts in New York" @default.
• W1562022024 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1562022024 type Work @default.
• W1562022024 sameAs 1562022024 @default.
• W1562022024 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1562022024 countsByYear W15620220242013 @default.
• W1562022024 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1562022024 hasAuthorship W1562022024A5005196141 @default.
• W1562022024 hasAuthorship W1562022024A5047529930 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C195487862 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C57017900 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C10138342 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C11413529 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C162324750 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C17744445 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C195487862 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C199539241 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C199728807 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C200635333 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C2777834853 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C3116431 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C41008148 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C48103436 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C57017900 @default.
• W1562022024 hasConceptScore W1562022024C97460637 @default.
• W1562022024 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W1562022024 hasLocation W15620220241 @default.
• W1562022024 hasOpenAccess W1562022024 @default.
• W1562022024 hasPrimaryLocation W15620220241 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W112851171 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W146204772 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W1495942179 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W1952506658 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W2124219939 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W249854996 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W2564678737 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W257070928 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W2733004592 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W284172262 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W289268720 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W2915964836 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W2953276503 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W300122758 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W3099256522 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W315241364 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W346517370 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W37375221 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W402050913 @default.
• W1562022024 hasRelatedWork W214001414 @default.
• W1562022024 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W1562022024 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1562022024 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1562022024 magId "1562022024" @default.
• W1562022024 workType "article" @default.