Agenda - Council - 07/12/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

students of color an adequate education. In January 2016, the State moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and that the Plaintiffs' Complaint failed to properly state a claim. After a hearing in April 2016,the District Court dismissed the Complaint only as to then-Governor Dayton, State Senator Sandra L. Pappas, and State Representative Kurt Daudt on the basis that they were entitled to legislative immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. The District Court also dismissed one of the claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, concluding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing to assert such a claim. Otherwise, the District Court denied the State's motion to dismiss and their request for more defined claims. The remaining State defendants appealed the District Court's decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals on several grounds and also requested that the Court of Appeals review the District Court's refusal to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims on the merits. In response,the Plaintiffs moved the Court of Appeals to dismiss the State's appeal. On April 13,2017,the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, deciding to dismiss the remaining claims, citing that Plaintiffs' claims that minority students do not receive an adequate education is a political question that the courts cannot address. The Court of Appeals stated"[W]hile we share the desire of respondents,and indeed of all Minnesotans, for an excellent system of public education, the establishment of qualitative standards necessary to achieve that laudable goal is entrusted to the elected representatives in our legislature and local branches of government." On April 14, 2017, an appeal was made to the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Minnesota Supreme Court granted review and heard oral arguments on this matter on January 9, 2018. On July 25, 2018,the Minnesota Supreme Court issued its opinion reversing the Court of Appeals' decision. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota courts may address claims regarding whether the legislature has violated its duty under the Education Clause or violated the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. In a November 2018 ruling, the Minnesota District Court in Hennepin County allowed the litigation to move forward as a class action focusing on all types of racial imbalance. The Charter School is not a direct party to the litigation. After the ruling, the parties to the Cruz-Guzman litigation commenced a period of mediation that has resulted in a potential resolution that involved the adoption of legislation intended to address school segregation. On April 9, 2021,H.F. 2471, a Minnesota House bill incorporating the terms agreed to by the parties during mediation,was introduced to the Minnesota legislature. The bill has five main components: 1. A five-tiered model of identifying students based on multiple economic and social measures. Tiers four and five represent the most challenging environments. Homeless students are identified as tier five regardless of where they reside. 2. Establishment of categories of districts, traditional public schools, and charter schools that must participate in a culturally responsive teaching,inclusion,and integration program and the parameters of participation 3. A voluntary metro-wide integration program, which provides additional funding to both serving and resident districts that participate. 4. A diverse magnet school program, which provides additional funding to hosting and resident districts and full state reimbursement for transportation; and 5. A statewide family information system that presents data and facilitates school-by- school comparisons, as well as a repository of evidence-based strategies to improve outcomes and eliminate disparities for historically underserved populations. 35