Reimagining Education

What does the recent Supreme Court ruling mean for kids in unaccredited school districts?

Kate Casas, State Director, Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri

On March 6, 2012 the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the King-Willmann vs Webster Grove student transfer case be reheard in a lower court.

Background
The original ruling in the King-Willmann vs Webster Grove case came in August, 2011 when Circuit Court Judge Barbara Wallace ruled that Webster Grove must enroll King-Willmann in Webster Grove High School under the Revised Missouri Statute 167.131. Webster Grove appealed this ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court. (See earlier stories about King-Willman vs Webster Grove here)

What did the Supreme Court decide and what does it mean for my child?
The Supreme Court ruled on two things:

1. The ruling stated: “Because contested issues of fact exist, the judgment is reverse and the case is remanded.” The primary issue that still needs to be resolved is whether or not King-Willmann actually resides in the City.

2. The Supreme Court also ruled that the Webster Grove School District could not claim that this law was a violation of the Hancock Amendment (see more about the Hancock Amendment here) because only tax payers have rights under the Hancock Amendment, and the Webster Grove School District is not a tax payer. (You can read about the Supreme Court case and ruling here and here.)

These most recent rulings do not have any consequences, good or bad, for the children and families who are seeking an education in an accredited district.

The Children’s Education Alliance of Missouri will continue to fight for families seeking to access their rights to unaccredited district.

 

« Previous Post:

» Next Post: