1 / 26

Turner v Clayton

Turner v Clayton. On July 16, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court released a decision overturning a summary judgment granted in the School District of Clayton’s favor in the matter of Turner v Clayton. Turner v Clayton.

arleen
Télécharger la présentation

Turner v Clayton

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Turner v Clayton On July 16, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court released a decision overturning a summary judgment granted in the School District of Clayton’s favor in the matter of Turner v Clayton.

  2. Turner v Clayton Part of the ruling stated that accredited school districts have no discretion and must accept students from unaccredited districts within the same or adjoining counties.

  3. Turner v Clayton • The original suit was brought on behalf of the families of six students who live in the St. Louis Public School District.

  4. Turner v Clayton • The students were previously enrolled as tuition students in the School District of Clayton prior to the St. Louis Public Schools losing its accreditation in 2007.

  5. Turner v Clayton • The suit sought to require the School District of Clayton to bill the Saint Louis Public Schools, and not the students’ parents, for their respective tuition.

  6. Turner v Clayton • The suit also sought to require the St. Louis Public Schools to make tuition payments to the School District of Clayton on behalf of the students.

  7. Turner v Clayton • One doesn’t have to look too hard to see the potential implications of this ruling, which could reach well beyond the Clayton School District.

  8. Turner v Clayton • Receiving school districts do not have the legal authority to choose what schools incoming students attend, or to limit the amount of students who may attend.

  9. Turner v Clayton • The Supreme Court’s opinion was not a final resolution of the matter. The court remanded the case back to St. Louis County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

  10. Turner v Clayton • Districts become unaccredited as a result of action from the State Board of Education. Criteria for unaccredited status are low student test scores and poor performance on the Annual Performance Report.

  11. Turner v Clayton • Currently, Riverview Gardens and the St. Louis Public School District are the only two unaccredited school districts in Missouri.

  12. Turner v Clayton Nine (9) additional school districts are provisionally accredited.

  13. Turner v Clayton • Approximately 72,000 students are eligible to transfer.

  14. Turner v Clayton • The impact of an undetermined number of students enrolling in county school districts could have a significant impact upon both accredited and unaccredited schools.

  15. Turner v Clayton • Resources for staffing, materials , facilities, special education and transportation would be a major budgeting concern for the receiving and sending school districts.

  16. Turner v Clayton • This is not just a St. Louis County issue. If a large number of St. Louis City private and parochial students also transfer to public county schools, all districts in the State would lose a percentage of their funding due to the increase public school influx.

  17. Turner v Clayton Our district welcomes racial diversity and has accepted students through the Voluntary Transfer Program for many years. What affect will this have on the Voluntary Transfer Program?

  18. Turner v Clayton • My biggest concern is the loss of local control regarding the number of non-resident students allowed to enter our district. I believe that smaller class sizes lead to better leaning opportunities for all students.

  19. Turner v Clayton • I am also concerned about the impact that losing significant numbers of students and resources will have on the students left behind in the unaccredited school districts.

  20. Turner v Clayton • What is next?

  21. Turner v Clayton • The St. Louis County Circuit Court has scheduled a case management meeting for sometime in late May.

  22. Turner v Clayton • Our district has been working with other educational groups from across the State to encourage the Missouri General Assembly to find a legislative “fix” for the Turner case.

  23. Turner v Clayton • There have been several bills presented in both the House and Senate that differ greatly on a “fix” for the Turner Case.

  24. Turner v Clayton • Some of the bills include charter school expansion, vouchers, scholarships, and/or virtual schools as solutions for the Turner “fix”.

  25. Turner v Clayton • I would recommend you contact your representatives and senator to share your thoughts regarding the Clayton v Turner case.

  26. Turner v Clayton • Representative John Diehl • John.Diehl@house.mo.gov • 314-751-1544 • Representative Stacey Newman • Stacey.newman@house.mo.gov • 314-751-0100 • Senator John Lamping • Jennae.neustadt@senate.mo.gov • 573-751-2514

More Related