A new paper on Rose and political mobilization in Kentucky from Susan Weston and Bob Sexton just came out.
At first read, it appears the authors argue a Kentucky judiciary that was "both bold and restrained" and that "the system could not be made constitutional without lasting legislative monitoring."
Justice Robert Stephens thought of himself as a judicial activist but he did demonstrate restraint by not exceeding the court's authority according to the separation of powers - a decision that would have later benefitted the plaintiffs in Young v Williams. Stephens struck down Judge Ray Corns' idea of a committee to monitor the legislature for the same reason, but made it clear that it was the General Assembly's responsibility to monitor the continued constitutionality of the system - something the legislature has almost never done very well.
This from Prich:
Our experience illustrates that a restrained judicial ruling, at least in the context of lasting political mobilization, can yield quite major legislative steps forward."Substantial and Yet Not Sufficient" provides an analytic overview of the origins, impact and implications of Kentucky's landmark educational adequacy litigation, Rose v. Council for Better Education. It provides important new material and insights regarding the political mobilization for school reform, legislative action, statewide implementation, and recent fiscal difficulties that have occurred over the past 20 years since the case was decided. The authors make their case that Kentucky's 1989 court ruling and 1990 legislation unquestionably led to substantive improvement for all students in the state. Based on their experience, they also share a set of thoughts about what counts as successful work to build school systems that serve all students well.
No comments:
Post a Comment