* The Sun-Times has an interesting story today about why this latest school funding lawsuit has better prospects than the previous two, which were shot down by the IL Supreme Court…

As in Illinois, previous suits challenging New York State’s school funding system had failed. But in 1993, a coalition there filed suit alleging for the first time that the system had a “disparate racial impact” based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After 10 years and several appeals, New York’s highest court ruled in 2003 in favor of the plaintiffs. Further appeals by New York’s governor ended with the Court of Appeals upholding the ruling in 2006 and ordering the state to meet a minimum funding figure. That new funding level was finally enacted in April 2007.

Those involved in two previous lawsuits in Illinois said that without the new “disparate impact” claim, the Chicago Urban League’s suit would face bleak prospects.

“The earlier ruling of the court that there really wasn’t a binding right to a quality education had put a roadblock in the path of any lawsuits,” said Don Moore of Designs for Change. Still, he said, this new battle “is going to be difficult.” […]

Others argued that the Urban League’s suit has merit beyond its civil rights claims. Illinois courts declined to hear an earlier suit, based on a lack of criteria to determine whether schools were providing a “high-quality” education.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act and Illinois Learning Standards since enacted by the State Board of Education now fill that gap.

* Author and think tanker Richard Kahlenberg argues against the lawsuit and for Sen. James Meeks’ idea to open up suburban schools to inner city students…

What Chicago students need even more than higher per capita spending is what New Trier, Naperville and Geneva schools provide: middle-class environments. It’s an advantage to have peers who are academically engaged and expect to go to college; parents who actively volunteer in the classroom and hold school officials accountable; and highly qualified teachers who have high expectations. On average, all these ingredients to good schools are far more likely to be found in middle-class than poor schools.
[…]

To provide genuine equality of educational opportunity, Sen. Meeks shouldn’t be seeking merely equal funding—a 21st Century version of “separate but equal.” Instead, a reasonable number of low-income students in failing Chicago schools should be given the opportunity to attend high-performing schools in Chicago’s affluent suburbs.

This may sound like a radical idea, but long-standing interdistrict public school choice programs exist in several metropolitan areas—including Boston, St. Louis, Hartford, Conn., Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Rochester, N.Y., and Indianapolis. Typically, low-income students who transfer into these programs achieve at high levels and are more likely to graduate and go on to college.

Even Chicago has experienced successful urban-suburban integration through the historic, court-ordered Gautreaux housing programs, which gave low-income minority families a chance to live in the suburbs. Gautreaux students rose to the occasion and performed significantly better when given the chance to attend good middle-class schools. Meeks would do well to push for a new school-based version of Gautreaux allowing low-income Chicago students a chance to attend good middle-class suburban schools. Overwhelming evidence suggests that equal spending just isn’t enough.

* The Tribune editorial board supports some of Meeks’ agenda and offers up a bit of advice…

“If we’re not going to evaluate educators on student performance, we’re missing the boat,” he said Thursday. “If we evaluate students based on their performance every week when they take a test, why shouldn’t we regularly evaluate teachers on the job they’re doing?”

This sort of imaginative thinking drives the public education industry berserk. Follow Meeks’ line of thinking and you might get to other frightening heresies, such as paying big bonuses to the best teachers—and promptly firing the worst.

* And Phil Kadner recalls former state Sen. Art Berman’s scenario from nearly 20 years ago…

Berman predicted at the time that state legislators never would address the [school funding] problem. A tax hike would be required, and they wouldn’t want to put their careers at risk by voting for such a measure.

“So how is this problem going to get solved? I asked. Berman’s response seems prophetic today.

Someone is going to file a lawsuit against the state, he said, claiming it has failed in its constitutional responsibility to adequately and fairly fund the public schools.

A court then will order the state to change the way it funds public education, Berman continued.

“And that will solve the problem?” I inquired.

Berman laughed and shook his head from side to side.

“No, because the legislators will never be able to agree on a solution,” he said. “They will argue a lot. But they will do nothing. And then someone will file another lawsuit claiming that the state of Illinois had failed to follow the previous court directive to change the school funding system.”

Then the court would spell out exactly what the state had to do to comply with the law, and the legislators would be happy because they could go home and tell the voters that it wasn’t their fault that taxes were being raised. The legislators would blame the court system.

“And then we’ll get public school funding reform,” Berman said. “Of course, that process could take five years.”

He was probably right.