Post by blackcrowheart on Mar 30, 2007 8:53:51 GMT -5
Supreme Court hears challenge to N.M. school funding
By JENNIFER TALHELM | Associated Press
January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two northwestern New Mexico school
districts that primarily serve American Indian
students told the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that
the Department of Education is depriving them of $20
million a year by deliberately using the wrong public
school funding formula.
The Zuni school district, located on Zuni Pueblo, and
the adjacent Gallup-McKinley district, which includes
a large amount of Navajo land, contend the federal
government has failed to follow a funding formula
providing aid for districts where there is a large
federal presence, such as a military base or Indian
reservation, that makes it difficult to raise local
tax dollars.
The districts said Congress was clear in a 1994
statute, and they are owed millions of dollars.
The state of New Mexico and the federal government
disagreed.
During the hourlong hearing, justices argued between
themselves about how to interpret statutes and joked
about fumbling with statistics as they wrestled with
whether Congress wanted to send certain school
districts more money by revising the formula.
New Mexican Virtual Tours
Justice John Paul Stevens summed up the case: "One
way, the money goes to the districts, and the other
way it goes to the state."
The two districts argue that when Congress revised the
school funding statute in 1994, it rejected a formula
the agency had developed in 1976.
But the department has refused to follow the 1994
language, saying Congress could not have intended it
to change the formula.
The federal government, the state and 54 of the
state's 89 school districts oppose the districts'
claim, contending that an adjustment would disrupt
funding equity statewide.
Last year, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a U.S. administrative law judge's decision in
favor of the federal government in the lawsuit.
Justices appeared split Wednesday, mostly along
ideological lines. Liberal-leaning justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer repeatedly asked why
Congress would not defer to the Education Department
on such a technical issue.
Breyer asked what Congress meant by "percentile" when
it instructed the department how to determine the
disparity between districts. When the districts'
attorney struggled to answer, Breyer snapped, "If you
don't know, I've never seen a case better fitted to
rely on the views of an agency."
But conservative justices Antonin Scalia and John
Roberts seemed to side with the districts, grilling
the department's attorney, Sri Srinivasan, assistant
to the solicitor general.
The education secretary "could have copied the
regulations ... and just put them in the statute,
could he not?" Scalia asked, wondering why the
secretary would have allowed Congress to leave out the
1976 formula, since the secretary was directly
involved in writing the 1994 legislation.
Stevens asked the department's attorney: "What if I'm
convinced your opponent's is the only fair reading of
the statute, but I'm not convinced Congress meant it
should be?"
"Either way, you should rule in our favor," Srinivasan
answered, drawing laughs from the court and the
audience.
A decision is expected before the end of July.
The case is Zuni Public School District No. 89 v.
Department of Education, 05-1508.
By JENNIFER TALHELM | Associated Press
January 10, 2007
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two northwestern New Mexico school
districts that primarily serve American Indian
students told the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday that
the Department of Education is depriving them of $20
million a year by deliberately using the wrong public
school funding formula.
The Zuni school district, located on Zuni Pueblo, and
the adjacent Gallup-McKinley district, which includes
a large amount of Navajo land, contend the federal
government has failed to follow a funding formula
providing aid for districts where there is a large
federal presence, such as a military base or Indian
reservation, that makes it difficult to raise local
tax dollars.
The districts said Congress was clear in a 1994
statute, and they are owed millions of dollars.
The state of New Mexico and the federal government
disagreed.
During the hourlong hearing, justices argued between
themselves about how to interpret statutes and joked
about fumbling with statistics as they wrestled with
whether Congress wanted to send certain school
districts more money by revising the formula.
New Mexican Virtual Tours
Justice John Paul Stevens summed up the case: "One
way, the money goes to the districts, and the other
way it goes to the state."
The two districts argue that when Congress revised the
school funding statute in 1994, it rejected a formula
the agency had developed in 1976.
But the department has refused to follow the 1994
language, saying Congress could not have intended it
to change the formula.
The federal government, the state and 54 of the
state's 89 school districts oppose the districts'
claim, contending that an adjustment would disrupt
funding equity statewide.
Last year, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
upheld a U.S. administrative law judge's decision in
favor of the federal government in the lawsuit.
Justices appeared split Wednesday, mostly along
ideological lines. Liberal-leaning justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer repeatedly asked why
Congress would not defer to the Education Department
on such a technical issue.
Breyer asked what Congress meant by "percentile" when
it instructed the department how to determine the
disparity between districts. When the districts'
attorney struggled to answer, Breyer snapped, "If you
don't know, I've never seen a case better fitted to
rely on the views of an agency."
But conservative justices Antonin Scalia and John
Roberts seemed to side with the districts, grilling
the department's attorney, Sri Srinivasan, assistant
to the solicitor general.
The education secretary "could have copied the
regulations ... and just put them in the statute,
could he not?" Scalia asked, wondering why the
secretary would have allowed Congress to leave out the
1976 formula, since the secretary was directly
involved in writing the 1994 legislation.
Stevens asked the department's attorney: "What if I'm
convinced your opponent's is the only fair reading of
the statute, but I'm not convinced Congress meant it
should be?"
"Either way, you should rule in our favor," Srinivasan
answered, drawing laughs from the court and the
audience.
A decision is expected before the end of July.
The case is Zuni Public School District No. 89 v.
Department of Education, 05-1508.