(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 1

Legal Issues in School Finance

School Finance: A Policy Perspective, 4e

Chapter 2

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 2

Overview

• School finance litigation has occurred in nearly every state

• Litigation often drives change in school finance systems

• Legal strategies and goals have changed over the past 35 years

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 3

Legal System Overview• Two primary levels of government:

– Federal– State

• Three features of both levels:– Constitution (highest law)– Statutes (passed by the legislature)

• Cannot conflict with the federal (or state) constitution

– Courts

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 4

Overview of Courts

• Federal Courts can decide cases:– That involve federal issues– In which the parties are from different states

• State Courts can decide cases:– That involve state or federal issues– In which the parties are from the same or

different states

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 5

Parties to lawsuits• Plaintiffs

– Children

– Parents

– Schools/School Districts

• Defendants– The state, state agencies, state administrators

• School finance litigation arises when the plaintiffs argue that the state’s school finance system conflicts with one or more constitutional provisions– New approach involves using federal Civil Rights laws

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 6

Important Legal Provisions

• Equal Protection Clause (Constitutional)

• Education Clause (Constitutional)– NOT present in U.S. Constitution

• School Finance Systems (Statutory)

• Basic argument: The finance system violates the constitution and therefore is invalid

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 7

RI Constitution Article XII• Section 1. Duty of general assembly to promote schools and libraries. -- The

diffusion of knowledge, as well as of virtue among the people, being essential to the preservation of their rights and liberties, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to promote public schools and public libraries, and to adopt all means which it may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education and public library services.

• Section 2. Perpetual school fund. -- The money which now is or which may hereafter be appropriated by law for the establishment of a permanent fund for the support of public schools, shall be securely invested and remain a perpetual fund for that purpose.Section 3. Donations. -- All donations for the support of public schools, or for other purposes of education, which may be received by the general assembly, shall be applied according to the terms prescribed by the donors.Section 4. Implementation of article -- Diversion of funds prohibited. -- The general assembly shall make all necessary provisions by law for carrying this article into effect. It shall not divert said money or fund from the aforesaid uses, nor borrow, appropriate, or use the same, or any part thereof, for any other purpose, under any pretence whatsoever.

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 8

Mass. Constitution Article III• PART THE FIRST.• A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

MASSACHUSETTS.• Art. I.All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be

reckoned the right of enjoying their Lives and Liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

• II.It is the right as well as the Duty of all men in society, publickly and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and preserver of the Universe. And no Subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, Liberty or Estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the Dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiments, provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

• III.As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of a civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a Community, but by the institution of the public Worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several Towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own Expense, for the institution of Public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. ~ And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all their Subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can Conscientiously and conveniently attend. Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public Teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. ~ And all monies, paid by the Subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised. ~ And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the Commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the Law. And no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law. ~

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 9

Three “Waves” of Litigation

• Federal Equal Protection– 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution

• Fiscal Equity– State equal protection clause

– State education clause

• Fiscal Adequacy– State education clause

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 10

Equal Protection Litigation

• “No person shall be denied equal protection of the law” (14th amendment)– Most state constitutions have a similar provision

• Government always treats people differently: Examples– Driver’s Licenses– Right to Vote

• Plaintiffs argue that the education provided to some children is of a lower quality than that provided to others due to the structure of the school finance system

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 11

Strict Scrutiny• State must show there is a compelling state

interest or a suspect classification and that no other state policies can be identified that have less discriminatory impacts– The policy goal must be vitally important– The law must provide the best way to achieve the

goal

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 12

Strict Scrutiny• Fundamental interest: Interests mentioned in the

Bill of Rights or identified in court decisions– free speech, the right to vote, right to an appeal

• Suspect classification: Individuals identifiable by some “immutable” characteristic:– Race

– National origin

– NOT sexual orientation, gender, age or disability

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 13

US Supreme Ct Suspect Classification

• In United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, a suspect classification is a classification of groups which meets a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim is asserted against a law alleging unconstitutional discrimination.

• Strict scrutiny is applied to regulations that affect groups that fall under a "suspect classification." Intermediate scrutiny is applied to groups that fall under a "quasi-suspect classification." Rational basis scrutiny is applied to all other discriminatory statutes.

• To be considered a suspect classification in the United States, a group must meet all of the following criteria:

• The groups' characteristics are immutable. (Race, national origin) • The group shares a history of discrimination. • The group is politically impotent. • The group is a discrete and insular minority. (see U.S. v. Carolene Products) • The Supreme Court has recognized that race, national origin, religion, and alienage are

suspect classes, and therefore any laws discriminating against these classes are analyzed under strict scrutiny. Quasi-suspect class, with its intermediate scrutiny, is typically reserved for government sponsored discrimination on the basis of sex or legitimacy. Rational basis scrutiny covers all other discriminatory criteria, i.e. disability, political preference, political affiliation, or sexual orientation.

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 14

Rational Basis Test

• Used if neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification is involved

• The law need only involve a legitimate state interest (local control of education in school finance cases)

• The law need only be rationally related to that interest– Virtually any rationale is acceptable

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 15

Equal Protection Arguments

• Education must be provided equally to all– all education? Only core education?– OK to provide more for special needs?

• Arguments– Education is a fundamental right– Property wealth per pupil is a suspect

classification (Coons, Clune and Sugarman)• new kind of class: property wealth rather than race

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 16

Federal Courts (First Wave)• San Antonio v. Rodriguez, March 1973

– Education is not a fundamental right under the US Constitution

– property wealth per pupil is not a suspect class (high income individuals in low wealth districts)

– Rational basis test applies• local control is a legitimate state interest• hinted that education could be a fundamental right under

state law

– Ended “first wave” and removed school finance cases from the federal courts

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 17

Second Wave• State equity cases• Robinson v. Cahill, April 1973

– New Jersey Supreme Court– Education not a fundamental right– Property wealth per pupil not a suspect class– But NJ School Finance system violates the state

education clause which requires a thorough and efficient education system

• First hint of adequacy

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 18

Second Wave

• Serrano v. Priest (California)– Huge disparities in per pupil funding violated the

state constitution

• Court held that education is a fundamental right under the California Constitution

• Finance system violated the state constitution

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 19

Equity Cases

• “Equalize” resources• Critical is definition of “equalize”

– Does it mean “equalize” access to the local property tax base GTB?

– Does it mean “equalize” base dollars per pupil high foundation of state spending decisions?

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 20

Equity vs. Adequacy Litigation• Equity cases: comparisons between schools/divisions• In contrast, adequacy cases rely less on comparisons of

relative quality– Adequacy cases involve the use of an “absolute” standard– Adequacy is the predominant argument used in SF cases today

• Objective standard– New York CFE Campaign for Fiscal Equity example:– NY High Court defined adequacy as a sound basic education– Voting, Jury service

• Regents Learning Standards (Very high) (Plaintiffs)• 8th Grade education (Appellate Division)• Meaningful High School Education (Court of Appeal)

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 21

Adequacy Litigation• Try to give substantive meaning to vague

education clauses– Thorough and efficient– Thorough and uniform– General and uniform– A liberal education– A free public education (Virginia)– As nearly uniform as practical (WI)– Of a high quality (Virginia)

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 22

Adequacy Litigation

• Plaintiffs have prevailed more often when using adequacy arguments

• Rulings can be limited to education; equal protection rulings may “leak” into other areas of the law

• Provides a more easily manageable judicial standard

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 23

Adequacy

• Key cases:– Rose (Kentucky)– Abbott (New Jersey)– DeRolph (Ohio)– CEF (New York)

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 24

Civil Rights Argument

• Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI – No person in the United States shall, on the

ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

• Success of this argument is unclear

(c) 2008 The McGraw‑Hill Companies 25

And now RI …Again

Woonsocket and Pawtucket v Carcieri