Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> I <br />i <br /> ! <br /> i <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> <br />than 90 percent of the Title I funds it <br /> <br />agency cou%d receive less <br /> <br />had received for the previous fiscal year. <br />in~cr The City of Huntsville had previously been allocated an <br /> eased share of its county pot of Title I funds based on <br /> <br />preliminary 1970 census data. As a result of the federal 90% <br />limitation, the City's allocation was reduced. Because its reduced <br />aid was not proportional to the number of educationally deprived <br />students in the district as revealed by the 1970 census, the <br />Huntsville Board of Education challenged the 90 percent law as a <br />violation of its right to equal protection. The federal district <br />court applied the same test that is applicable here, explaining <br /> <br />that: <br /> <br /> To prevail, plaintiffs must demonstrate that, as <br /> applied to these facts, the 90 percent <br /> requirement has no rational basis. <br /> <br />Id. at 1097. <br /> <br /> The Court examined the legislative history of the relevant <br />congressional action. Congress had expressed concern about the <br />drastic changes that would result in the allocation of Title I <br />funding with the initial use of 1970 census data. The original <br />proposal tb deal with this problem was to impose maximum and minimum <br />levels on the allotment to each state. However, additional concern <br />was expressed that these limits would not protect the individual <br />local school districts from incurring drastic reductions. Indeed, <br />it was then-Representative Albert Quie who introduced the amendment <br />that was eventually enacted guaranteeing each local agency a minim~m <br />of 90 percent of its previous year's aid. <br /> <br />-27- <br /> <br /> <br />