Archives for category: Equity
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Who Benefits from Expanded Access to AP Courses? Students or the College Board?

By dianeravitch
September 10, 2017 //
31

This is a really good piece of investigative writing by Alina Tugend on the value of Advanced Placement courses. It doesn’t answer the question posed in the headline of this post but it supplies valuable information and poses the right questions.

I was interviewed and what really bothers me about the demand for “AP for All” is the implicit assumption that taking a rigorous course and failing the exam will improve educational opportunity. As I say in the article, if this is the goal of the College Board, why not offer the test for free? It is easy to forget that the College Board is a business, not a charity.

There are other ways to reduce the achievement gaps instead of putting kids in a class where the reading level is far beyond their reach and they are near certain to fail.

Although AP was originally designed for elite high schools, some of them have dropped it because their own classes are equally demanding. And some elite college don’t give credit for AP courses.

So the strongest claim of the College Board these days is that their tests supply equity. No standardized test has ever increased equity. They are designed not to. If your primary interest is civil rights, fight for funding and desegregation, not a better standardized test.

Categories Civil Rights, Equity, Higher Education, Standardized Testing

NAACP Demands Reform of Charters!

By dianeravitch
July 26, 2017 //
155

The NAACP today released a strong report demanding the reform and regulation the charter school industry. The NAACP report calls for a flat prohibition of for- profit charters and for-profit charter management companies. It says that only school districts should be allowed to authorize charters. It says that charter teachers should be certified.

The task force of the NAACP said that “while high quality, accountable and accessible charters can contribute to educational opportunity, by themselves, even the best charters are not a substitute for more stable, adequate and equitable investments in public education in the communities that serve our children.”

The NAACP report boldly acknowledges that charters are part of a public-funded system. It says that it makes no sense to strip funding from the public schools that enroll the great majority of students in order to fund a parallel system that is usually no better than the public system and often worse.

Carol Burris analyzes the report here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/07/26/naacp-report-charter-schools-not-a-substitute-for-traditional-public-schools-and-many-need-reform/?utm_term=.9d91271f673d

There is also a link to the full text of the NASCP report and resolution.

This report strips away the claims of charter advocates who say that they are advancing civil rights. They are not. They are undermining public education by stripping students and resources away from the public schools.

The NAACP recognizes that the best way to advance civil rights in education is to assure a strong, accountable,and equitable system of public schools.

Like every national organization, the NAACP relies on major donors to survive. By standing strong against privatization of public schools, the NAACP has demonstrated courage and integrity. I add the NAACP to the honor roll of this blog, with admiration and respect.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Corporate Reform, Courage, Education Industry, Equity, For-Profit, Honor Roll

Kansas: Court Hammers State Lawyers Over Latest School Funding Plan

By dianeravitch
July 20, 2017 //
5

The great puzzle in Kansas is how the State got such a thoughtful Supreme Court, one that actually cares about education.

Kansas is in a deep budget hole because Governor Sam Brownback cut taxes repeatedly, in the belief that low taxes would produce economic growth. Only it didn’t, and the schools are in big trouble.

The court has repeatedly ordered the state legislature to produce a school funding plan that meets the requirements of the state constitution. After years of budget cuts, the state’s schools are in dire need of money. At one point, legislators grumbled ominous threats about how they might shake up the court to undermine its authority.

But now the lawyers for the state are in court, and the justices are insistent on a commitment to a fair funding plan.

Attorneys for the state and the Legislature faced a barrage of questions from skeptical Kansas Supreme Court justices Tuesday scrutinizing the Legislature’s school finance plan.

Solicitor general Stephen McAllister and Jeff King, a former Senate vice president, sought to fend off claims from school districts that Kansas is doing too little to make up for several years in which budget cuts and funding stagnation became the norm and school budgets fell behind inflation.

The justices repeatedly interrupted their arguments to seek deeper clarification of calculations the state cited to justify adding $293 million to school funding over the next two years. And they showed some interest in potentially retaining jurisdiction once they have issued their ruling, to ensure the state complies.

McAllister and King stood their ground, arguing the state’s solution meets the court’s previous demands.

“S.B. 19 makes substantial efforts to improve the funding,” McAllister said, using the plan’s legislative bill number.

Digging into the math

In the span of Gannon v. Kansas’ seven-year history, district court judges and the state Supreme Court have repeatedly struck down Kansas’ school funding schemes as unconstitutional.

Among the justices’ concerns in this latest round of the legal battle was a statistical analysis of student achievement that the Legislature generated this spring and used to extrapolate what statewide funding should be. The calculation was based on spending levels at 41 school districts found to be performing well on certain academic outcomes.

“I understand the math,” Justice Dan Biles told McAllister. “I need to know what makes that reliable and valid, and I’m not seeing it here.”

‘I understand the math. I need to know what makes that reliable and valid, and I’m not seeing it here.’ — Justice Dan Biles
The justices homed in on methodological particulars, such as the use of averages instead of medians and whether the omission of budget changes at six school districts could have skewed the results. And they questioned whether lawmakers had cherry-picked portions of past school finance studies to minimize the state’s financial obligations.

Justice Eric Rosen asked about the state’s reliance on local property taxes to fund education through a system that allows school boards to elect to spend more. The concern is that poorer school districts are less likely to do so because of the burden on local taxpayers.

“What happens to those children?” he said, referring to students in those areas.

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Reform, Equity, Funding, Kansas

Jersey Jazzman: Chris Christie Show His True Colors, on the Jersey Shore

By dianeravitch
July 8, 2017 //
13

Jersey Jazzman notes that Chris Christie will soon leave office as the most unpopular governor in the nation. He loved to ridicule those who disagreed with him, and one of his favorite targets was the state’s public schools and teachers, most especially their union. He never acknowled that the state is one of the three top-performing states on national tests (NAEP), the other two being Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Christie has cemented his rotten reputation as a greedy, crude bully with his latest escapade. The state was in a budget impasse, and many state beaches were closed on this past weekend. But Christie and his family went to the governor’s beach house and enjoyed the sun and an empty beach, while the public was excluded.

What really bothers JJ about Christie is his callow hypocrisy. He sends his own kids to private schools that are well funded while underfunding the state’s public schools.

His idea of “reform” does not translate into reduced class sizes or other necessities. A true “reformer,” he offers charters and vouchers instead of funding.

JJ writes:

“To be clear: I really don’t have a problem with Christie, or anyone else, sending their children to elite private schools, or to wealthy suburban public schools. What I find so disturbing is when some of those same people then turn around and declare how important education is for purposes of social equity, but refuse to support policies that adequately and equitably fund schools.

“Even worse is when these people substitute funding reform for “reforminess.” They claim that things like charter schools, gutting teacher workplace rights, expanded testing, test-based teacher evaluation, curricular changes, “personalized learning,” and school vouchers can serve as substitutes for adequately and equitably funding schools.

“But they then turn around and put their own children in elite private schools that spend far more per pupil than public schools — especially urban public schools. And again: these schools enroll very few children with special needs, keeping their costs relatively low.

“You will often hear these reformsters acknowledge that factors such as economic inequality and segregation negatively impact educational outcomes; however, in the same breath, they will gravely intone, “We can’t wait to fix poverty!”

“And so, their thinking goes, we have to expand charter schools no matter the negative consequences, or expand testing and its unvalidated uses no matter the negative consequences, or put more unproven digital stuff into schools no matter the possible negative consequences, and so on. And we have to do all this right now.

“It seems to me, however, that we now have more than enough evidence that school funding matters. It matters a lot. I mean, funding really matters. It does.

“Maybe we can’t solve poverty and segregation quickly; we could, however start getting more resources into schools that need it today. But getting adequate funding to schools — a necessary pre-condition for educational success — isn’t so much a problem of a lack of resources as it is a matter of political will.

“We’ve got plenty of money in this country (even if it is distributed extraordinarily unequally). There’s very little evidence we’re overspending on schooling relative to the rest of the world. We could drive more resources into the schools that enroll our least advantaged students much more quickly than we could expand private schools using vouchers or expand properly regulated charter schools.

“But we don’t. Instead, our leaders keep pushing reformy schemes based on outlier “successes” rather than funding reform, a policy that would quickly provide improvements across the K-12 education system. Worse, many of these same leaders then refuse to subject their own children to their designs, opting instead to enroll them in highly resourced schools.

“Chris Christie will be gone in a few months, and New Jersey might then begin to have a serious conversation about education funding. Sadly, many of our nation’s leaders, Republican and Democrat alike, are following Christie’s example. They refuse to address the issue of inadequate and inequitable school funding head on.

“Fortunately, even conservatives are starting to realize that effective schools and other government services come at a price. Let’s hope the era of Chris Christie and his ilk — and era where unproven reformy nonsense has replaced a commitment to getting schools the resources they need — will soon come to an end.

“If I had to pick one…

“ADDING: In the very earliest days of this blog — April, 2010 — I said that where Chris Christie sent his own kids to school was no one’s business.

“I was wrong.

“Of course, this was before Christie repeatedly underfunded the public schools, even after the Great Recession. This was before the lies of Chapter 78. This was before Christie tried to slash funding to the urban districts with his cruel “Fairness Formula.” This was before Christie showed repeatedly he never took education policy seriously. This was even before Christie unloaded some of his worst invective at the NJEA and teachers around the state.

“But I still should have known better. Anyone who is against the adequate and equitable funding of public schools yet sends their own children to a well-resourced private or public school is a massive hypocrite.

“They should be called so in no uncertain terms.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Equity, Funding, New Jersey, Privatization

Wendy Lecker: How Chicago Targeted Black and Latino Schools and Communities for Destruction

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2017 //
8

This article is an excellent analysis by civil rights lawyer Wendy Lecker of the deliberate destruction of public education in black and Latino neighborhoods in Chicago.

Chicago has purposely sacrificed the needs of black and Latino students while protecting and enhancing the needs of white students. We have to bear in mind what Rahm Emanuel told CTU leader Karen Lewis when he was first elected: about a quarter of these kids are uneducable. Everything else flows from that assumption.

Open the article to read the links. The most astonishing point noted here is that Chicago’s public schools OUTPERFORM its charter schools!

Lecker writes:

“Chicago is this nation’s third largest city, and among its most segregated. Recently, several unrelated reports were released about education policy in Chicago that, together, provide a vivid picture of the divergent views policymakers of have of public education; depending on who is served.
As reported by researchers at Roosevelt University, between 2009-2015, Chicago permanently closed 125 neighborhood schools, ostensibly because of low enrollment or poor performance.

“The standard Chicago used for low enrollment was 30 students to one elementary classroom — an excessively large class size, especially for disadvantaged children.

“The school closures occurred disproportionately in neighborhoods serving African-American, Latino and economically disadvantaged students. Professors Jin Lee and Christopher Lubienski found that Chicago’s school closures had a markedly negative effect on accessibility to educational opportunities for these vulnerable populations. Students had to travel longer distances to new schools; often through more dangerous areas.

“School closures harm entire communities. As Georgia State Law Professor Courtney Anderson found, where neighborhood schools were a hub for community activities, vacant schools become magnets for illegal activity. Moreover, buildings in disuse pose health and environmental dangers to the community. Vacant buildings depress the value of homes and businesses around them, increase insurance premiums and insurance policy cancellations. In addition, the school district must pay for maintenance of vacant buildings.

“Although Chicago claimed to close schools to save money, the savings were minimal — at great cost to the communities affected.

“At the same time Chicago leaders closed 125 neighborhood schools, they opened 41 selective public schools and 108 charter schools; more than they closed. Chicago charter schools underserve English Language Learners and students with disabilities, and have suspension and expulsion rates ten times greater than Chicago’s public schools. Even more astounding, despite the self-selecting and exclusive nature of charters, researcher Myron Orfield found that Chicago’s public schools outperform charters on standardized test passing and growth rates in both reading and math, and high school graduation rates.

“The Roosevelt University researchers found that the expansion of Chicago charter schools devastated the public school budget, contributing to massive cuts of basic educational resources in Chicago’s public schools. Moreover, many of these new charters have remained open despite falling below the “ideal enrollment” standard used to close neighborhood public schools.

“The education policies of Chicago’s leaders force its poor children and children of color to attend under-resourced schools, often at a great distance from their neighborhoods, on a pretext of under-enrollment and poor performance. Officials fail to consider the devastating effects school closures have on educational opportunities or on the health of entire communities.

“Chicago promised to use the proceeds of the sales of vacant schools to improve those neighborhoods. Yet, city leaders instead used those funds for school capital projects. A WBEZ investigation found that Chicago’s new school construction and additions disproportionately benefit schools that serve white, middle class students, even though white students are far less likely to suffer overcrowded schools than Latino students, whose schools do not see the benefit of capital spending.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Chicago, Civil Rights, Closing schools, Corporate Reform, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, Fraud, Privatization, Racism

Rev. Barber Plans to Lead National Movement

By dianeravitch
May 11, 2017 //
15

The inspirational leader Rev. William Barber 11 is stepping down from his post as chair of the North Carolina NAACP to launch a national movement.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/11/naacp-leader-who-led-north-carolina-protest-movement-to-step-down/

His strong voice for moral strength, equal rights, dignity, courage in the face of adversity, and love is needed more than ever today.

Categories Civil Rights, Democracy, Equity, Freedom, Justice

Frank Adamson: Is Education a Choice or a Right?

By dianeravitch
May 9, 2017 //
43

Frank Adamson of Stanford University wrote a marvelous article that lays out the issues with enormous clarity and insight. To read the references and links, open the article.

The United Nations has identified “free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education” by 2030 as a goal for sustainable development. This goal reaffirms the right to education guaranteed by countries in multiple U.N. declarations over the last half-century.[i] Although these treaties reflect a general consensus that everyone has a right to education, most countries do not actually deliver on this promise. To address the issue, different countries are organizing their education systems based on contrasting values. Some countries have placed the responsibility for choosing schools on families, while others have delivered the right to education at a system-level, with the latter approach correlating with better national outcomes.

Instead of countries delivering on their U.N. treaty commitments to the right to education, some have proposed that parental choice should drive the education “marketplace.” This approach varies across countries. In countries in the global south such as India and Uganda, families can “choose” to send their children to “low fee” private schools, or else their children will likely not receive an education. In countries in the global north like Sweden and the U.S., school “choice” usually happens when governments give parents the option to leave public schools. However, in both cases, governments place the responsibility on the family to figure out the best option for their child instead of fulfilling their child’s right to a free, equitable, high quality education.

Even more problematic is the reality that school “choice” does not guarantee a better education, for a variety of reasons. One issue is that, when a charter school or low-fee private school does provide a good education, everyone wants to go there and there are not enough spots for every student. And that’s the best-case scenario. The more common problem is that schools of choice do not provide higher quality education. In addition, they often exclude certain types of harder and/or more expensive-to-each students – those with disabilities, discipline histories, lower socio-economic status – as well as racial and ethnic minorities and second-language learners. These students may have lower scores on the tests used to judge schools or they may require extra attention from teachers, incentivizing these schools to choose their students, instead of students being able to choose their schools.[ii]

The results are not surprising because these schools compete with each other instead of providing education to everyone. School choice systems operate under a market-based rationale. In this marketplace, schools depend on competition to get students to enroll. This sounds like a great idea—the companies (schools) that produce the best product (education) have the most customers (students), while those that don’t will go out of business (closing the school). But market-based approaches require schools to seek a competitive advantage that leads to their exclusionary approaches. And when these schools exclude the more “expensive” students, these students end up in overcrowded and underperforming schools that lack basic services, or, even worse, without the opportunity for an education at all.

Countries seeking to provide a free, equitable, quality education aren’t trying to create competitive advantage within their systems. Instead, they fulfill their “education as a human right” imperative at the system level by investing in teachers and infrastructure. Their public investments produce some of the highest outcomes on international assessments, with smaller differences between students, meaning the systems function more equitably. These countries, including Finland, Singapore, Canada, Cuba, and others, have signed at least some of the U.N. treaties that declare the right to education, have opted for investing in their public education systems instead of pursuing market-based approaches that lead to inequity, and continually deliver high quality education to their citizens. Instead of forcing parents to choose schools, or even be chosen by schools, countries employing market-based approaches would do well to shift their focus towards ensuring the educational rights of their citizens on a proven pathway to better outcomes.

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Equity, International, Justice, Privatization, School Choice

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, Former Chicago Leader, Sentenced to 4 1/2 Years in Prison

By dianeravitch
April 28, 2017 //
13

Barbara Byrd-Bennett, once Rahm Emanuel’s choice to lead the Chicago Public Schools, was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for her role in a kickback scheme intended to gain her hundreds of thousands of dollars. She has lost her job, her career, her reputation, and now, her freedom.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-barbara-byrd-bennett-sentence-met-20170428-story.html

One of her co-conspirators received a sentence of seven years, another got 18 months.

MORE BREAKING NEWS: Cook County judge rejects CPS lawsuit seeking more money from the state. The district may close schools June 1 because of lack of funding.

Judge rejects CPS’ state funding lawsuit, gives district option to refile
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-chicago-schools-funding-lawsuit-ruling-met-20170428-story.html

Categories Accountability, Chicago, Education Reform, Equity, Fraud, Funding

Should Your High School Be Recognized for Its Success in Providing Equal Opportunity to All Students? Apply Now.

By dianeravitch
April 11, 2017 //
1

The National Education Policy Center is inviting high schools to apply for recognition as a “school of opportunity.”

A School of Opportunity is one that works hard to make sure that all children have equal opportunity to succeed.

The deadline for applying is May 1.

Learn more by going to this site: schoolsofopportunity.org

High schools still have three weeks left to apply for recognition for working to close opportunity gaps: schoolsofopportunity.org @NEPCtweet #schoolsofopportunity

Here are the criteria:

At the most basic level, a School of Opportunity must strive to ensure that all students have access to rich, challenging and supported opportunities to learn. This means that the school’s best opportunities cannot be exclusive or rationed. For this reason, we will recognize a school as a “School of Opportunity” only if it declines to restrict or stratify student access to those best opportunities. In addition, we seek to highlight schools with strong and welcoming cultures, therefore we will only recognize schools if they reject “zero tolerance” policies and other discipline policies that unnecessarily exclude students from opportunities to learn.

Accordingly, all applicants need to address the first two practices, Criterion 1 and 2. Then applicants may choose which four of the remaining eight criteria they wish to highlight in their application.

Criterion 1: Broadening and Enriching Learning Opportunities, with Particular Attention to Reducing Disparities in Learning Created by Tracking and Ability Grouping

Criterion 2: Creating and Maintaining a Healthy School Culture, with Attention to Diversity and to Reassessing Student Discipline Policies

Criterion 3: Provide More and Better Learning Time During the School Year and Summer

Criterion 4: Use a Variety of Assessments Designed to Respond to Student Needs

Criterion 5: Support Teachers as Professionals

Criterion 6: Meet the Needs of Students with Disabilities in an Environment that Ensures Challenge and Support

Criterion 7: Provide Students with Additional Needed Services and Supports, Including Mental and Physical Health Services

Criterion 8: Create a Challenging and Supported Culturally Relevant Curriculum

Criterion 9: Build on the Strengths of Language Minority Students and Correctly Identify their Needs

Criterion 10: Sustain Equitable and Meaningful Parent and Community Engagement

Categories Equity, Justice, Students

Illinois: 17 School Districts Sue the State of Illinois, Governor Rauner, and State Board for Fair Funding

By dianeravitch
April 6, 2017 //
3

Seventeen Illinois school districts have banded together to sue Governor Bruce Rauner, the State of Illinois, and the Illinois State Board of Education for failing to fund public education adequately in accord with the state constitution. The state expects all students to meet its learning standards but not provide the funding to support what is expected. This is not equality of educational opportunity.


Media Contact: Allison Ordman
319-594-4690

Illinois School Districts File Lawsuit to Hold State Accountable to Adequately Fund State Learning Standards
Seventeen districts with low-wealth property tax bases and high number of low-income students unite
to demand state not leave their students behind

SPRINGFIELD – Today 17 Illinois school districts stood up for students when they filed an unprecedented lawsuit to hold accountable the State, Governor Bruce Rauner and the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) to carry out their constitutional duty of adequately funding a “high quality education” for all students. The superintendents of four plaintiff districts discussed the lawsuit today at a press conference at the state’s Capitol building: Dan Cox (Staunton CUSD #6), Jill Griffin (Bethalto CUSD #8), Art Ryan (Cahokia CUSD #187) and Brad Skertich (Southwestern CUSD #9). The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.

The plaintiffs argue the State first must use an evidence-based methodology to calculate the per-pupil extra financial aid necessary for low property wealth districts to meet the Illinois Learning Standards, and second must fund each district at that calculated level. The Illinois Constitution provides basis for this case in Article X, Section 1, which requires that Illinois “shall provide for an efficient system of high quality education.”

Under the current model, students are held accountable to meet the Illinois Learning Standards – standards that school districts across Illinois have been forced to fund on their own without additional state funding to cover those mandates.

“The 17 districts that have joined this case so far did so because we are all at a breaking point. We as school administrators and superintendents have been forced to increase class sizes, lay off qualified teachers and eviscerate social services for students, all because the State is not living up to its constitutional obligation to adequately fund the Learning Standards it mandates,” said Dr. David Lett, Superintendent of Pana CUSD #8. “Each district has gone through its budget line by line to re-allocate dollars more efficiently. But we won’t stand to see our students lose out any longer simply because of where they live.”

This lawsuit stands out from previous cases in that the State now has defined the standards of a “high quality” education and has required districts to meet those standards.

Participants in the suit include districts from these counties: St. Clair, Bond, Christian, Clinton, Fayette, Jersey, Macoupin, Madison, Montgomery and Peoria (the full list of districts is available at the end of this release). All 17 plaintiff districts spend under the state average on instructional and operating cost per pupil, primarily because their regions have less property wealth to tax. These districts comprise about 25,000 students, half of whom qualify as low-income.

In 1997, ISBE adopted the Illinois Learning Standards to hold schools (teachers, administrators, students) accountable to achieve key benchmarks. These standards were aligned with the federal Common Core standards in 2010, and after a three-year grace period, each district was “expected to fully implement curricula that meet the new standards during the 2013-14 school year” without any additional State aid.

Over time the standards increased in rigor, and meeting them required new resources such as textbooks, curriculum and professional development, for which the State provides no assistance.

Though all plaintiff districts support the establishment of and accountability for rigorous student standards, their superintendents have learned firsthand that meeting these standards consistently comes at a cost – a cost of eliminating critical teaching positions, counselors and other programs essential to student learning – because the State does not fund these mandates.

ISBE has adopted and held all school districts accountable to meet the Learning Standards, disregarding the districts that lack sufficient local finances to cover the costs of special programs, curriculum and professional development that the Learning Standards inherently require.

If the plaintiffs win in court, the State would be required to fulfill its constitutional obligation to adequately fund each district for the Learning Standards it mandates.

Each year, the General Assembly establishes a “Foundation Level” per-pupil cost (as of now $6,119), and if any district lacks the local resources to meet that level, the State is obligated to make up the difference. Lawmakers have not adjusted this “Foundation Level” in over eight years, and the level does not relate to the Illinois Learning Standards in any measurable way.

In fact, in recent years the General Assembly has failed to fully appropriate the “Foundation Level,” so instead it has prorated the funds. Under proration, the State decreases its aid to each district in a proportional manner. However, proration has a disproportionate impact on districts that have lower property wealth because those districts rely more heavily on state aid.

The State also evaluates districts based on their students’ scores on the Partnership for Assessment for Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) exam, an exam that must align with the Learning Standards. The 17 plaintiff districts’ PARCC scores remain lower than wealthier school districts. This increasing disparity has made it even harder for students in the lower property wealth districts to compete against students from higher property wealth districts for admission at Illinois public universities and colleges.

Due to this disparity, some families have elected to move to areas with higher-performing schools or to districts that have higher state-assigned grades. This shift has further reduced the pool of local resources available to the already under-funded school districts.

The Board of each plaintiff district voted to join the suit. The 17 plaintiff districts are listed here, as well as the 14 superintendents who attended the press conference.

Bethalto CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Jill Griffin)
Bond County CUSD #2 (Superintendent Wes Olson)
Bunker Hill CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Victor Buehler)
Cahokia CUSD #187 (Superintendent Art Ryan)
Carlinville CUSD #1 (Superintendent Mike Kelly)
Gillespie CUSD #7
Grant CCSD #110
Illinois Valley Central CUSD #321 (Superintendent Chad Allison)
Mt. Olive CUSD #5 (Superintendent Patrick Murphy)
Mulberry Grove CUSD #1 (Superintendent Brad Turner)
Nokomis CUSD #22 (Superintendent Scott Doerr)
Pana CUSD #8 (Superintendent Dr. Dave Lett)
Southwestern CUSD #9 (Superintendent Brad Skertich)
Staunton CUSD #6 (Superintendent Dan Cox)
Taylorville CUSD #3 (Superintendent Gregg Fuerstenau)
Vandalia CUSD #203 (Superintendent Rich Well)
Wood River Hartford #15

The firm representing the plaintiffs is Despres, Schwartz & Geoghegan, Ltd.

###

Categories Equity, Funding, Illinois
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »