|
Education Finance Litigation: Overview of 2002 Cases
Education finance litigation continued to play an influential role in state policy in 2002. Continuing the trend that began during the 1990s, the notion of education adequacy is the major issue for state courts, with 19 states involved in active cases during 2002 and early 2003. Brief summaries of these cases are included below.
Overall, the courts are requiring states to provide some type of rationale or methodology for determining education funding levels, and with the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) regulations, the issue of how finance and education standards interrelate will continue to be emphasized.
Alabama
ACE vs. Hunt Opinion of the Justices, 624 So.2d 107 Ala. 1993
In 1993, the Alabama Supreme Court found the state financing of K-12 unconstitutional. In 1997, the Alabama Supreme Court gave the Legislature a "a reasonable time" to create a new system. Plaintiffs returned to the courts in 2001, seeking to speed up the creation of a new system. However, in May 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the ACE vs. Siegelman case (a continuation of the original case) after it had affirmed the case on four previous decisions. In the recent dismissal, the Alabama Supreme Court stated that, "[i]n Alabama, separation of powers is not merely an implicit 'doctrine,' but rather an express command; a command stated with a forcefulness rivaled by few, if any, similar provisions in constitutions of other sovereigns."
Alaska
Kasayulie v. State, 3AN-97-3782 CIV
In 1997, plaintiffs filed an "adequacy" and "equity" suit against the state of Alaska on the grounds that the state funding system for K-12 education capital outlay violates the education clause and the equal protection clause of the Alaska Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On September 1, 1999, the Superior Court granted partial summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court found that the system funding capital outlay for K-12 education was unconstitutional under the education clause and also violated regulations associated with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In March 2001, the state motioned for the case to be reopened because it had provided significant resources for capital outlay in 2000-2001. Although the Superior Court acknowledged that the state had increased funding, it dismissed the state motion to reopen the case because the system was still flawed and constituted a dual system of capital outlay financing. In 2002 ,the Legislature did not make any changes to the distribution system, and the court did not take any action. A final order from the court is expected in 2003.
Arizona
Flores vs. Arizona, 48 F.Supp.2d 937
In 1999, plaintiffs sued the state for failing to adequately fund classes for English language learners. The court ordered a costing out study that was issued by the Arizona Department of Education on May 7, 2001. The original study did not provide sufficient information, and in August 2002, the Arizona Legislature contracted with NCSL's National Center on Education Finance (NCEF) to conduct another costing out study.
Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 vs. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806.
In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court found in favor of plaintiffs in an equity suit over school facilities. Plaintiffs argued that the current funding system, which was based largely on local property taxes, was inequitable and did not provide the facilities and equipment necessary for many students to have an opportunity to meet education standards. In response, the state created the Building Renewal Fund, which made the state solely responsible for school facilities and equipment. In 2002 plaintiffs brought suit (Roosevelt Elementary School District #6 et al. vs. Jane Hull CV 1999-019062) in district court, claiming that the state is not fully funding the Building Renewal Fund. On October 16, 2002, the court ordered the legislature to restore $90 million to the fund by June 30, 2003. The state has appealed and is currently awaiting a hearing.
Arkansas
Dupree vs. Alma School District No. 30, 651 S.W.2d 90
In 1983, the Arkansas Supreme Court found the state's school funding system unconstitutional on the grounds of inequity. The court rejected "local control" as a justification for the disparities in funding and educational opportunities. Although the state has twice made major revisions to the state funding system, plaintiffs have continued to challenge the state system.
Lake View vs. Huckabee, No. 1992-5318
In May 2001, in Lake View v. Huckabee, an Arkansas trial court declared the state's education funding system unconstitutional based on the system being both inequitable and inadequate. The court found that a constitutional finance system must be based on the amount of money needed to provide an adequate educational system and that an adequacy study to determine the system must be undertaken. On November 21, 2002, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's finding and gave the state until January 1, 2004 to address the deficiencies.
California
Williams et al. vs. State of California et al., Case No. 312236
In May 1999, a statewide class action suit was filed on behalf of students in 18 schools across the state. Plaintiffs claim that these children are deprived of educational opportunities because they attend schools that lack such basic and necessary learning tools as books, trained teachers and seats for students. In October 2002, plaintiffs published reports from 16 experts. In September 2002, the state of California created the California Quality Education Commission, which is responsible for developing an education model that will define "educational components, educational resources, and corresponding costs" necessary "so that the vast majority of pupils can meet [state] academic performance standards." The trial is to begin in the summer of 2003.
Connecticut
Johnson vs. Rowland
Plaintiffs have filed an adequacy suit against the state. The case currently is in the discovery phase, and the trial is to begin in early 2003. This case follows other adequacy and equity cases in Connecticut such as Sheff v. O'Neill, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996), and Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (1977).
Florida
Honore vs. Florida 790 So. 2d 413; 2001
Plaintiffs brought suit in 2000 on the grounds that the state was not providing an adequate education. To strengthen their argument, plaintiffs cited illiteracy rates and other student outcome performance data. In addition, plaintiffs are requesting the state to declare education a fundamental right of Florida students. At this time, no trial date has been set.
Idaho
ISEEO vs. State, 976 P.2d 913
In 1998, the Idaho Supreme Court stated that, "the Legislature has the duty to provide a means for school districts to fund facilities that offer a safe environment conducive to learning." In response, the Idaho Legislature passed a school building safety act and established a revolving loan fund for school safety and health needs. However, in February 2001, a trial court ruled that merely supplying loans to districts does not meet the state's constitutional requirement for school facilities. The court based its decision on the basis that Idaho's poorer districts do not have the fiscal capacity to repay loans in a similar manner to wealthier districts. In response, the Legislature passed a bill that helps districts, on a sliding scale by wealth, pay the interest portion of their loans. During 2002, the trial court appointed a "special master" to gauge the needs of school facilities in the state; a hearing on the finding is expected soon.
Iowa
Coalition for a Common Cents Solution vs. State.
In April 2002, plaintiffs brought suit against the state, claiming that the current education finance system was inadequate and violated the state constitution's education clause. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that the current system creates educational resource disparities. As a result, many districts are not able to provide an adequate education. The trial judge dismissed defendant's motion to dismiss; a hearing is expected soon.
Kansas
Robinson vs. Kansas No. 99-CV-1193-MLB
In 1999, plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of minority, immigrant and disabled students in a federal court. Plaintiffs claim that the current education finance system has negative affects on districts that have a high proportion of these student populations, in violation of Title VI, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the federal 14th amendment on equal protection and due process. The trial court denied a motion to dismiss in 2000 in Robinson vs. State, 117 F.Supp.2d 1124, and the court of appeals affirmed the lower court's decision in July 2002.
Montoy vs. State, No. 99-C-1738
In November 2001, a state court dismissed a 1999 suit that challenged the state's School District Finance and Quality Performance Act. Plaintiffs claimed the system was inequitable, but the court found in favor of the state, primarily basing its decision on the 1994 Supreme Court decision that upheld the state education finance system. However, in January 2003, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal and ordered the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
Massachusetts
Hancock vs. State
Plaintiffs have brought suit on adequacy grounds against the state, and the case is to begin in late spring 2003.
Montana
Columbia Falls Public Schools vs. State.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the state on the grounds that the state is not providing an adequate education. Furthermore, plaintiffs argue that declining state funding has caused school districts and schools to cut programs and staff. Plaintiffs are seeking establishment of state funding levels to be determined by an education finance adequacy study.
New Hampshire
Claremont vs. Governor, 794 A.2d 744
On September 5, 2001, plaintiffs returned to the state Supreme Court, stating that the state's funding system was still unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that the new education finance system currently in place continued to cause disproportionately high taxes in low-wealth districts, which is in violation of the state constitution. They also claimed that the state had not followed the court's requirement to define an adequate education. In 2002, the state Supreme Court ordered the trial court to reinvestigate the issue regarding the adequacy of funding for education. In addition, the Supreme Court ordered the state to develop an accountability system, and the state quickly did so.
New Mexico
Zuni School District vs. State, CV-98-14-II
In 1998, a number of low-wealth districts brought suit against the state school facilities funding system. Plaintiffs argued that the system was inequitable, and therefore was unconstitutional. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs and ordered the state to "establish and implement a uniform funding system for capital improvements . . . and for correcting existing past inequities." The state was to create a new system by the end of the 2001 legislative session. At the end of 2001, the state had appropriated $400 million for school facilities and claimed that these funds would help ensure adequate facilities in all districts. In January 2002, a "special master" report found that the state had made a "good faith effort" to comply with the court's order, and would continue to do so. Although plaintiffs objected to this report, the court approved the report in the summer of 2002.
New York
Campaign for Fiscal Equity et al vs. The State of New York, 187 Misc. 2d 1
On January 10, 2001, a court in New York issued its decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The decision held that the method by which the state funds education in New York State violates plaintiffs' rights under both the Education Article (Article XI, Section 1) of the New York State Constitution and the regulations passed by the U.S. Department of Education pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On appeal, the intermediate court of appeals reversed the lower court's decision in a 4-1 decision in June 2002, claiming that an adequate education could be quantified at an eighth grade level. This decision has been appealed, and a new trial should begin in May 2003.
North Carolina
Hoke County et al. vs. State of North Carolina et al (Case no. 95CVS1158)
In March 2001, the Superior Court of Wake County issued its third decision, which concludes that the academic problems of students who are at risk of failing are not being adequately addressed. The court required that existing funds be spent to ensure that at-risk students receive a sound, basic education before funds are spent for other educational purposes. In April 2002, the court found that at-risk students can learn with effective instruction delivered by "a certified, well-trained, competent teacher with high expectations" and ordered the state to provide such teachers. In addition, the court dismissed the state's motion that local district decisions impeded education opportunities and stated that the state could not "sit on its hands" and allow inefficient and ineffective practices to continue at the local level. Both plaintiffs and the state have filled petitions to have the case quickly move to the state Supreme Court.
Ohio
DeRolph vs. State, 677 N.E.2d 733
In 1997, the Ohio Supreme Court found the state education funding system unconstitutional and ordered the state to make changes to the foundation program, the emphasis on local property taxes, and insufficient state funding for school buildings. During the next two years, the state increased funding for education, but in 2000 the Supreme Court again found the system to be unconstitutional, (DeRolph II 728 N.E.2d 993.)
In the spring of 2001, the state legislature made changes to the system, and in September 2001, the court issued its third ruling on the case. Although the court found the funding system to be unconstitutional, it gave specific directions on how to ensure the new system would meet constitutional requirements. The court assumed that the state would pass the court's requirements into law, and chose not to retain jurisdiction. In December 2001, the court granted the state's motion for reconsideration and appointed a mediator to work with both parties. On March 21, 2002, the court-appointed mediator declared that "mediation has not produced a resolution," and the case returned to the Supreme Court.
On December 11, 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court ended DeRolph v. State litigation by declaring the state education finance system unconstitutional and directing the General Assembly to remedy the system's deficiencies. The court did not retain jurisdiction in the 11-year-old case.
Tennessee
Tennessee Small School Systems vs. McWherter, 894 S.W. 2d 794
In 1998, plaintiffs argued that in order for an equitable system to exist, teacher salaries must be completely equalized. In July 2001, the trial court ruled that the state had taken sufficient action to equalize teacher salaries. Plaintiffs appealed the decision, and in October 2002, the Supreme Court held that the 1995 teachers' salary equity plan violates the state constitution. The court said there was no rational basis for not incorporating teacher salaries into the Basic Education Program (BEP), which calculates the costs of providing education in the state. Even if the state had made efforts to equalize teacher salaries, this was not enough, and the teacher salary cost component must be in the BEP.
West Virginia
Tomblin vs. State Board of Education, Civil Action Number 75-1268
In January 2003, after this case had been in the court system for 20 years, a trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for specific changes in the state's education finance system. The court declared the system enacted in 1998 by the state Legislature constitutional and ended its jurisdiction.
For more information on school finance litigation, contact The Education Department @ 303-364-7700.
Visitor counts for this page.
 National Center on Education Finance Home Page
|
