Serrano v. Priest refers to three cases regarding the financing of public schools in California that were decided by the California Supreme Court: Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971) (Serrano I); Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) (Serrano II); and Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977) (Serrano III).
"[As] a direct result of the financing scheme they are required to pay a higher tax rate than [taxpayers] in many other school districts in order to obtain for their children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other districts."
"[That] an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity and constitutionality of the financing scheme under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the California Constitution."
In an opinion by Justice Raymond L. Sullivan, the Court agreed with the plaintiffs, largely on equal-protection grounds, and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
As Sullivan summarizes, "We are called upon to determine whether the California public school financing system, with its substantial dependence on local property taxes and resultant wide disparities in school revenue, violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We have determined that this funding scheme invidiously discriminates against the poor because it makes the quality of a child's education a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors. Recognizing as we must that the right to an education in our public schools is a fundamental interest which cannot be conditioned on wealth, we can discern no compelling state purpose necessitating the present method of financing. We have concluded, therefore, that such a system cannot withstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the equal protection clause."[1]
Serrano II (1976)edit
In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a similar decision by a Texas District Court, which, like Serrano I, had been decided on Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection grounds. In Serrano I, however, the California Supreme Court had relied in addition on California's constitution, and in Serrano II they affirmed that basis, protecting the Serrano decisions from Rodriguez.
The Serrano II decision also held that the legislative response to Serrano I was insufficient, and affirmed the trial court's order requiring that wealth-based funding disparities between district be reduced to less than $100 by 1980.
Serrano III (1977)edit
Serrano III dealt primarily with attorneys' fees, but in passing affirmed the trial court's response to the Serrano II decision, including a six-year timetable for bringing the funding system into compliance.
Proposition 13edit
The California State Legislature's response to Serrano I and Serrano II was significantly constrained by the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which reduced property-tax revenues and imposed a 2/3-majority vote requirement for statewide tax increases. The initial property-tax-based solution was replaced by a funding scheme that relied more heavily on state (as opposed to district) revenue, which has remained in effect, with occasional adjustments, ever since.
Compliance (1983)edit
In 1983, the Los Angeles County Superior Court found, on remand, that the requirements of Serrano II had been sufficiently met, allowing a relatively small number of residual districts to retain a higher level of funding, based on well-above-average local property taxes.
^"Serrano v. Priest - 5 Cal.3d 584 - Mon, 08/30/1971 | California Supreme Court Resources".
Further readingedit
Dollars and Sense: A Simple Approach to School Finance, California Little Hoover Commission, 1997
Hanushek, Eric A., and Alfred A. Lindseth. 2009. Schoolhouses, courthouses, and statehouses: Solving the funding-achievement puzzle in America's public schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Kirst, Michael W. , “Coalition Building For School Finance Reform: The Case of California.” Journal of Education Finance 4#1 (1978), pp. 29–45 online
External linksedit
Text of Serrano I decision via FindLaw
Text of Serrano II decision via FindLaw
Text of Serrano III decision via FindLaw
October 27, 2023
serrano, priest, refers, three, cases, regarding, financing, public, schools, california, that, were, decided, california, supreme, court, 1971, serrano, 1976, serrano, 1977, serrano, contents, serrano, cases, serrano, 1971, serrano, 1976, serrano, 1977, propo. Serrano v Priest refers to three cases regarding the financing of public schools in California that were decided by the California Supreme Court Serrano v Priest 5 Cal 3d 584 1971 Serrano I Serrano v Priest 18 Cal 3d 728 1976 Serrano II and Serrano v Priest 20 Cal 3d 25 1977 Serrano III Contents 1 The Serrano cases 1 1 Serrano I 1971 1 2 Serrano II 1976 1 3 Serrano III 1977 1 4 Proposition 13 2 Compliance 1983 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External linksThe Serrano cases editSerrano I 1971 edit Initiated in 1968 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Serrano v Priest John Serrano was a parent of one of several Los Angeles public school students Ivy Baker Priest was the California State Treasurer at the time set forth three causes of action quotes from the decision As a direct result of the financing scheme they are required to pay a higher tax rate than taxpayers in many other school districts in order to obtain for their children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other districts That an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity and constitutionality of the financing scheme under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the California Constitution In an opinion by Justice Raymond L Sullivan the Court agreed with the plaintiffs largely on equal protection grounds and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings As Sullivan summarizes We are called upon to determine whether the California public school financing system with its substantial dependence on local property taxes and resultant wide disparities in school revenue violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment We have determined that this funding scheme invidiously discriminates against the poor because it makes the quality of a child s education a function of the wealth of his parents and neighbors Recognizing as we must that the right to an education in our public schools is a fundamental interest which cannot be conditioned on wealth we can discern no compelling state purpose necessitating the present method of financing We have concluded therefore that such a system cannot withstand constitutional challenge and must fall before the equal protection clause 1 Serrano II 1976 edit In San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a similar decision by a Texas District Court which like Serrano I had been decided on Fourteenth Amendment equal protection grounds In Serrano I however the California Supreme Court had relied in addition on California s constitution and in Serrano II they affirmed that basis protecting the Serrano decisions from Rodriguez The Serrano II decision also held that the legislative response to Serrano I was insufficient and affirmed the trial court s order requiring that wealth based funding disparities between district be reduced to less than 100 by 1980 Serrano III 1977 edit Serrano III dealt primarily with attorneys fees but in passing affirmed the trial court s response to the Serrano II decision including a six year timetable for bringing the funding system into compliance Proposition 13 edit The California State Legislature s response to Serrano I and Serrano II was significantly constrained by the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 which reduced property tax revenues and imposed a 2 3 majority vote requirement for statewide tax increases The initial property tax based solution was replaced by a funding scheme that relied more heavily on state as opposed to district revenue which has remained in effect with occasional adjustments ever since Compliance 1983 editIn 1983 the Los Angeles County Superior Court found on remand that the requirements of Serrano II had been sufficiently met allowing a relatively small number of residual districts to retain a higher level of funding based on well above average local property taxes See also editSan Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez Texas Edgewood Independent School District v Kirby Texas Abbott v Burke New Jersey References edit Serrano v Priest 5 Cal 3d 584 Mon 08 30 1971 California Supreme Court Resources Further reading editDollars and Sense A Simple Approach to School Finance California Little Hoover Commission 1997 Hanushek Eric A and Alfred A Lindseth 2009 Schoolhouses courthouses and statehouses Solving the funding achievement puzzle in America s public schools Princeton NJ Princeton University Press Kirst Michael W Coalition Building For School Finance Reform The Case of California Journal of Education Finance 4 1 1978 pp 29 45 onlineExternal links editText of Serrano I decision via FindLaw Text of Serrano II decision via FindLaw Text of Serrano III decision via FindLaw Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Serrano v Priest amp oldid 1175149637, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
