transcript of closing argument in school funding trial

[gmoses]

Part One of final argument by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund in the 2004 Texas school funding trial. Delivered on Sept. 15 by attorney David Hinojosa in the District Court of Judge John Dietz.

Your Honor, if it please the Court, "lost opportunities" are two simple and yet profound words to describe why our clients, the Edgewood intervenors, appear once again in court.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their district because of the inequity in funding between property poor and property rich districts.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every limited English proficiency child in their district because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for bilingual education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every poor child in their districts because of the insufficient weight and allotment provided for compensatory education.

Lost opportunities for our clients to provide a quality education to each and every child in their districts because of the inequitable and insufficient funding for facilities, forcing our districts to place their children in overcrowded, deteriorating and unsafe facilities.

And all of these lost opportunities lead to the most glaring, the most disheartening opportunities lost, and those are for our Texas children.
http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=170

[gmoses]

1. Bilingual Ed--Part Two

In Part Two of his closing argument in the school funding trial, attorney David Hinojosa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) focuses on Texas' failures to meet needs of bilingual students.

While the equity gap has negatively affected our property poor districts as a whole, the limited English proficiency students, also known as English language learners, also do not have the opportunity to achieve their full potential because of the insufficient bilingual education allotment.

The Edgewood intervenors offered three recognized experts, documenting a myriad of way that the State fails to meet the needs of LEP students, both in rich and poor districts. The State could offer no expert in its defense. The evidence overwhelmingly established that the State has failed to treat these LEP students equitably and adequately.

Texas recognizes that districts require more resources in order to provide an access to a quality education for LEP children, and in fact, provides them with a .10 weight to the adjusted basic allotment. But the level of the weight to bring our LEP children to the achievement standard set in Texas and in our nation is grossly inadequate and unsupported by any research in Texas or in any other state or by the testimony of any of the superintendents in this case or by any of the experts in this case.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=171

[PDittie]

2. I linked you in another forum

where Texas high school students are debating school funding equalization as their UIL topic this spring:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=40821&highlight=

Advise if this doesn't meet with your approval and I'll edit.

[gmoses]

4. what a cool forum!

thanks for the link

[gmoses]

3. Texas Comp Ed: Either Way Somebody Pays (Closing Argument Part Three)

In Part Three of his closing argument in behalf of Edgewood Intervenors in the 2004 Texas school funding trial, attorney David Hinojosa of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) argues that when it comes to the needs of economically disadvantaged students, Texas continues to discount students who deserve premium attention.

The general purpose and theory of comp ed in our nation and state is to compensate for low investments in low income children, low community investment, family advantages, low health investment, access to a history of success.

The evidence shows that parents of economically disadvantaged students often have low educational levels, poor housing, and they must overcome these obstacles created by poverty, including the lack of resources in their local public schools. And when the intensity of poverty increases, as the evidence shows, within a school or a school district, research has shown that the negative effects upon the economically disadvantaged are magnified.

Within the Edgewood intervenor districts, the intensity of poverty ranged from 70 percent economically disadvantaged to 96 percent economically disadvantaged. And while the West Orange-Cove plaintiff superintendent testified about the new struggle in dealing with an increasing number of economically disadvantaged children, our districts have been struggling at higher levels for a much longer period of time.

http://texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=172