has on tax rates and local school districts particularly the way the state enforces the learning standards is through mandatory state right testing that specifically heading to standards and with us that there's a correlation between spending and student achievement because the state has created the foundation level that's a level of funding set by the state and defined by statute to mean  between our spending and student achievement is that it's certainly something we have pledged to be true we've alleged that states that look at school districts necessarily have to have fun education in their districts and a book here's my fundamental problem with the construct homes if i'm just going to pull districts out of the year if you go to one of the smaller world districts where they don't have a high percentage of hires  disassociated from biology you're correct me if i'm wrong says he but you're asking about is your point is that school districts will the expectation of parents will have their children i would presume this is a cairn just kind of point out of the year i would guess the parents of winnetka are on their kids a because our parents made us to that we're making you do that you're going to go to college so you don't have a choice about it you're going to go to college you're not going to go work no longer you are going to go on in school and you've got to get g rades in order to get there there isn't a lot of other communities in the state of illinois college may not be an expectation not because parents wouldn't want to just you know college is just you  to the point of challenging your search and that dollars equate to success well stuff obviously dollars right i have and i think i would you also wouldn't dispute and i think the record of this case can't be disputed that there's a flow or there's a me that you know stripped away your argument basically is if you've got enough money in a district a higher minimum master's level people to teach school and you're going to pay them well therefore they're going to be super teachers were is in a poor district where you've got people with yes they've got a teaching degree why since to teach but because they're not paid as much they're just not as good so basically you're arguing i don't think we would i don't think i would make an argument at that level of detail and i think we have the material in the case to go to that level of detail state didn't believe that funding was necessary to provide basic education there would be no there'd be no such thing ok and the state has done it gets the status said here's your basic level everybody's got to know the state does not say that it just does not impose a requirement that district actually spend that much or make that much but the state has defined the term bendish right to mean the minimum  to get to the foundation level up let's just say we're talking about unified districts to simplify it only if they tax at three percent that that fact applies even if the school district chooses to tax it a different rate because pick learned in that school district what we're challenging is the inflationary effect of the schools unequal findings whether even if the district makes a of school districts to choose a floor and here by having a system that forces property poor districts to tax at a higher rate than our pretty wealthy districts to reach your honour's seems very familiar with the way the system works if you if you're available local research resources times the specified rate three percent for talking about unified districts if that is less than ninety three percent of the for pretty showing just how specific it is talks about learning about individuals the role of ben franklin the revolutionary war kinetic theory i frankly don't i didn't learn that when i was in school but learning standards and the other and the status change in your choice all the way out of it now you get back to your original question these districts have tax and even higher rates the fact is that the foundation level i the the plaintiffs here are taxpayers they're not you know students or parents or teachers or school districts themselves so what matters is not whether the students are in fact meeting the standards or whether the district is and sanctioned but whether these two plaintiffs have been forced to pay a higher tax rates than similarly situated taxpayers in other districts because of the effect of the learning stand how to get there i agree with you that the way that it ties together is that the force of the learning standards requires school districts to educate to a certain level the west are very brief it's less river is and you know a school that's been sanctioned is now run by the state gets you know a school that's coping with the learning standards to avoid sanctions it's as dressed they do have there is it's true that there's they have discretion to set the tax free yes and the statute doesn't mandate it's specific tax rate but they don't they no longer have the ability to choose tax rate below that necessary to achieve the only learning  thank you good afternoon my name is paul burke some assistant attorney general and i'm representing the defendants interests in this field if i may just think the court for accommodating my schedule this morning appreciate your flexibility in them i would like to engage in th discussion a day just as turner principally was having about what the state's role here is in terms of the injury that these plaintiffs suffered and then after that maybe talk a little bit about her and the position that we've taken is i think it is clear from the barn from the briefs is that the state is really not responsible for players tax rates the states only distinction in its funding statute between property poor districts and property rich ones is that it gives more money to the property port districts the gap between their available local resources in the foundation levels greater so the only distinction that the state directly plays between these property poor populous districts is to provide more funding to the poor districts to the point of districts in this case so the claim here isn't that the it's that the state is forcing the local districts to set tax rates that are higher now the council has acknowledging conceded that the statute doesn't require this that the local districts to set any particular tax rate the amount of money that state gives to each local district does not depend on their tax rate they get taxes erode and they will get the exact same amount from the state is if they tax it seven percent or if they tax it you soon statutory rate of three percent there is no difference the state does not play favorites that way so the argument then becomes well if they did tax at the assumed rate it would reach the foundation level the state does not penalize any school district that does not reach the foundation level there is no statute that says you must reach the foundation level state provides that guidance says this is what we believe to be a minimal required minimum required amount for the school districts and the school boards to no you know what our view is on that but if a school district decides to tax the lower rate  foundation level there is no penalty so they go one step further and say well we didn't tax at least at the level to reach the foundation level that we can never satisfy the only way of learning standards but there is no penalty for not the direction of where the standards are for eight consecutive years the state that has the right to take remedial action that's the only test and that's a very attenu from the tax rates that are being that are form the allegedly form the basis of standing here so even with deadpan you waited injury they haven't identified a school district that suffered head injuries they haven't identified a school district that sort of you know been put under some kind of advisory decree and had to raise their tax rates in order to fund more money into education in order to meet the learning standard in order to avoid a penalty there's no such a allegation in this complaint so the it's an entirely speculative injury th i think your article a did really well with the difference it makes me some school districts and i think just accept and sort of put its finger on a little bit of some school districts have a lot of parents who are maybe more committed to advanced degrees in education and are going to want to spend more money raise more money invest more money in their schools that other districts might want to do so by by by allowing local districts to make those kind of judgment calls and determine the amount of money they want to span you you facilitate the liberty of every family in the state to spend the money they want on the education of their children so it does make i think it makes a difference probably the parents in the school district well said they have some access to local decision makers  disperse that's why the right state of illinois running no we're right because it helps their claim doesn't make it make a model and this it doesn't make the fact doesn't change the fact that the state doesn't control those rays that local school districts determine that like and i think that parents of school districts expect that from the state to say look we have experts panels that you know ever have looked at these questions and we can tell you what's required to be successful in the world going forward and what people should be learning at certain times and we can set standards provide them to you this guy gives the local district his guidance and monitor whether or not you're doing a good job of providing there's a better education dollar bill english so there is a balance between equality making sure our students get at least a minimum level even if they're in a school district that that doesn't prioritize it and literally allowing those those those school districts that want to prioritize education more to spend more money and  tax their citizens more so that there is a war with the plate but it's a it's a nuanced role that is subject to balancing and then that the legislature is sort of constantly reworking between that the quality that that's necessary for all of them students in the liberty that's necessary the standing question is even if you assume that the state the state's the sume tax rates were mandatory that for a unified school district three percent the state required it and for the reasons i stated we don't require there are no penalties for using a different tax rate it's just a didn't present the similar question so if we assume that the plaintiffs have standing to sue the state then the question becomes one of the questions is whether or not the state's funding system which relies heavily on property taxes in that case the plaintiffs were school children who said that we in low property in core property districts are getting less education or more education than those in rich property districts here it's the taxpayers in the or property districts who are saying well court pay a higher percentage but they also place the right from the exact same policy which is the state's decision to follow global education through a combination of local property taxes and state so the question is the same is that set is the state has to balance local control quality has to balance providing a certain minimum level to everybody we're allowing certain last week some school districts to exceed that it has to it has to you know determine what the proper balance between those two policies are and an editor they really went out of their way to say look there's there's range here for those policies there's rage to balance that there's not a single spot on the continuum where it's right  the policymakers and the parents and those interested in education have to continually make a decision about whether more local control or less local control is appropriate now they've proven its own anger they affirm the system it's the same system fundamentally it has moved a little bit more towards equality a little bit away from local control in the sense that the state is now providing additional funding to low income schools so there's a little bit more redistribution a little bit more equality agreements local school districts do they have to decide what they're going to pay their superintendent local school districts to do that and decide that the taxing rate local school districts do that so to say that because the state has provided the standards that  because because what edgar said is legislators and parents and school boards everybody's interest in education in the political process will do a pretty good job of determining that balance the only way that the state standards or the  state funding mechanism is so out of whack where it's gone all the way to one side or another that no rational person could believe this is or this is the right way to balance local control and any quality only bad this is finally equal protection remember this is a rational basis so you know when you're talking about something that's so that's so deep here to the heart of so many citizens of illinois i think the honest report was saying put it in the political arena where it belongs and the people will come up with a balanced that's rational and they have come up with about a situation they moved a little bit from where it was in ninety six they might it might move back but you know you have to let the political process decide that it till it gets so far beyond the pale where where you know where the conclusions that they've  a few points first a couple of times counsel for the state indicated that i believe you said there are no sanctions for failing to meet the learning standards there's no doubt that that's incorrect there are s standards have a profound effect on education and to echo that statement or question by justice cooke it's clear that the state is running the show with the current standards the state is running the show about and even point is that if two districts need to spend to satisfy the only living standards two districts need to spend ten thousand dollars per student per year it's much higher than the student district that funding system that currently exists were declared unconstitutional and they can it's fair to assume that it would be replace by constitutional funding system one that didn't impose an equally high tax rate and we wouldn't be coming up with a solution that we would be helped that the question of what quality education was was not just a trickle and actually that's the context in which the discussion council was referring to about putting it out for public discussion  what the airport was talking about when it said those things it's actually about whether an education constitutes a high quality education but when it came to equal protection the court examined the funding system completely accepted its role as a