The New York school finance system also relied on local property tax, and several districts with low funding challenged the system. The New Jersey Supreme Court found that this system violated the state constitutional guarantee of access to a “thorough and efficient” public education system. Prior to this case, the New Jersey public school funding system relied heavily on local property tax. Priest, the Supreme Court found that the system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause after determining that the system did not intentionally or substantially discriminate against a class of people. Parents of students in a Texas school district argued that the school finance system in Texas, which relied on local property tax for funding beyond that provided by the state, disadvantaged the children whose districts were located in poorer areas. *San Antonio Independent School District v. The California Supreme Courtfound the system in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because there was too great a disparity in the funding provided for various districts. Students of Los Angeles County public schools and their families argued that the California school finance system, which relied heavily on local property tax, disadvantaged the students in districts with lower income. The 1971 case, also referred to as Serrano I, was the first of three cases called Serrano v. *denotes US Supreme Court Case School Finance
0 kommentar(er)
