Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
MTD Reply Brief

MTD Reply Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5 |Likes:
Published by Jordan Fenster
MTD Reply Brief
MTD Reply Brief

More info:

Published by: Jordan Fenster on Apr 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/15/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 N X07 HD-CV 05-050526SCNNCTCUT COALTON FRSTC N DCTONFUN NC, et al
Plaint
 vRLL,  JOD, et al
Defendnts
SUEROR CORTARL 10 2013
PLY BEF  SP    SS
Cnnecticuts 2012 e uatin refrms and aiver frm the requirements f th ederalo Child Le Behnd la (NCLB" have substantiall changed the educatinal mdel n hich the plaintis base their Crrected Third Amended Complaint TAC') Because an trial f  plaintiffs' claims ecessaril must be based n the educational model exising at the time f trialand because the cou ill nt be in a psition to prperl evaluate the constitutinalt f the reformed educatinal mdel fr at least three ears, te plaintis' claims are mt d t ripe laintiffs' clais are nn-justiciabl and shuld be dismissedn ppsing dismissal, plaintis fr the rst time in tis litigatin admit that althugh their cmplaint sounds n equit and seeks injunctve relief, th case is reall abt--and onlabout--btaining signicantl re state nding ithut an regd to ther measures tat are being r culd be iplemented to improve educatin The state Th iatinal, undernded CS frmula  is at the cre of the laintis' case laintis' Brief i ppsitin toDefendants' Motin to ismiss, dated Februar 22 2013 hereinaer laintis' ppsitinBrie), p. 12 Accrdig t the plaintiffs t is universall acceped tat the [ECS] frmula and
 
 ndng evels at the core of Plants' case are nadequate-unouched by refos touted nDefendants' bref." Plants' Opposton ref, p
9
In other words, plantffs as he cout toassume that pubc educaton s consttutonally nadequate and wll be at he te of tral, ad tha the only way to both determne and remedy ths nadequacy s by contng the amont of  money the statspends on educaton. On the strength of these breathtakng assumptos, the plantffs see to convnce the cou to order the Genera Assemby and Goveor o approprateseveral bllons of dollars more per year to publc prmary and secondary educaton.Pants rely on ther 2005 cos study" that sggests the State shoud have spet naddtonal $207 bllon n 2003-0 o publc educaton See Plats' Oposto ref, p. 5,Pans' Exhbt 3. Pantffs argue hat because the ES s not based on the acual cos of  provdng sutable and equtable educatonal oppountes as determned by a cost study" and because he 2012 reform legslaton dd not add several bllos of dollars per year to the ES as urged by ther cost study," the refor legslaton does not aect he core of plants case.Pantffs' reace on ther 2005 cost sudy" demonstrates that ther case s both moot and not rpe. Pants' cost sudy" denes adquacy" as the amount of educaon spendng requed
 toachieve standards andgoals that no onger appy and wil no t apply at time of trial.Plainis
adt ther cost study" s ntended to be nomatve, not detenatve" ad cannotdentvey  resource evels to student otcomes." F,
Estmatng
 the ost of an
Adequate
Educaton n
Coectcut,
Defendants'Exhibit
9,
 p. 4 This cos s t udy," based on
20-0 data, aes no account of the educaton system as t ll est at tral.If t s tue, as plans suggest, that the sole remedy they seek s more state ndngto the excuson of other reedal measressoveregn munty would bar ths clam. See
DalerCsler Co
 v
La,
28 onn. 701, 723 (2007) (The plants request for relef2
 
an order tha the defendan rend all sales taxes for which he plaintif had subite a lm for rend us be characterized as a clai for daages. When a linf brngs an acio for oney dages agans the stae, he us roceed though the ofce o he claimscomissoner") nteal uoaons and ctaon omitted) If tha is not the case, plantifsco defea defendants' moon to dismiss by asserng tha the 2012 eduation reforms fil to rovde the monear relie plaints desire, whl oletely gnorng the ustntal andsgnian chnges to Connectcut's educatonal landscae resulting from tese refosPlitiffs rher aser ta it is wely reconized tha the 2012 egslaon s ncapable producing aequae and substantally equal eduatonal oppotues." Plaintiffs' OposionBrie, .
71
This clai is a re heing The issue is whether the cou l be able to properlyvluate the constitutonlty of the reformed educaonal model before the reorms have hd a reasonable oppounty o e ipleented, at leas hee years. Plainifs do not ontest the reasonableness o his tie frame Rather, hey resond tha becse oly the tae'saropriation o bllons o addional dolls per year to he public educaion sysem can roduce onstitutonally required eduational oppounies, the reformd educationa model isincaable" of providing these oppounities. Plainifs' Opposition Brief, . 11As demonsrae
nfra,
 pp. 810 plantiffs suppo his cli ith selecive, icompleed ou o conex saemens mae by the Goveor d the ecrey o the Oce of Polcyd anageen OPM"). hose saeens do no in ny ay idiae a conession a he012 reorms fai o adress consitutional inadequaces n publ eduatio or ta  suchosttutonal inadequaces exis Contry to plainiffs' asserion, he EC Task Fore Repo
1
lanifs' li assues the ae's eduaion models prior o the 2012 reformserenonsiuional. The defendants have enied all such laims in their pleadings and briefs, dcoiue o deny al suc claims.3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->