Massey v. Normandy School Collaborative

492 S.W.3d 189 (2016)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Massey v. Normandy School Collaborative

Missouri Court of Appeals
492 S.W.3d 189 (2016)

Facts

When Normandy School District (Normandy) routinely failed to meet certain achievement standards, the Missouri State Board of Education (board) (defendant) changed the district’s status from provisionally accredited to unaccredited. A Missouri statute provided that students residing in an unaccredited school district were entitled to transfer to accredited schools in the same or adjoining counties, with the home school district paying the cost of the student’s tuition and transportation. During the 2013 school year, 930 Normandy students transferred to four other districts (the receiving districts) (defendants). In May 2014, the board adopted a resolution lapsing Normandy as a school district and establishing the Normandy School Collaborative (collaborative) (defendant), a state oversight district subject to an improvement plan with accountability standards. The board and the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) (defendant) did not originally state that the collaborative’s status as a state oversight district was equivalent to accreditation. In fact, certain documentation stated that the collaborative’s status would allow it to operate while working toward accreditation. However, after the collaborative’s establishment, the DESE told the receiving districts that accepting transfer students was optional for the 2014 school year. The receiving districts opted not to accept transfers. The DESE then also issued a policy stating that only students who transferred during the 2013 school year could request transfers for the 2014 school year. Various parents, guardians, and students (plaintiffs) zoned to the collaborative sued the collaborative, board, DESE, and receiving districts. They argued that because the collaborative was not accredited, the students were entitled to transfer to accredited districts per state law, and that the collaborative, board, and DESE therefore lacked authority to restrict transfers, and the receiving districts lacked authority to reject transfer students. The trial court granted a permanent injunction preventing restrictions on transfers. The collaborative, board, DESE, and receiving districts appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ritcher, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 814,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership