Layoffs, Education Cuts Serve as Impetus for New Lawsuits Filed in California and Indiana

Lawsuits filed in late February in response to education funding cuts in California and Indiana may be a bellwether for future litigations across the country as state budget deficits mount and more states consider reductions in education funding. In California, the plaintiffs—families of students at three Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) middle schools—argue that the State’s decision to reduce education funding levels and LAUSD’s subsequent choice to layoff thousands of teachers, largely on the basis of seniority, has caused their students to be taught by ineffective replacement and substitute teachers, denying them their constitutional right to basic educational opportunity. In Indiana, three suburban school districts and parents of students attending their schools filed a suit after the state announced budget cuts that they allege disproportionately affect their schools; the complaint claims that the system as a whole, exacerbated by the recent cuts, favors urban districts like Indianapolis and denies their students a “uniform education” as well as other constitutional protections.

LAUSD, State of California Sued Over Layoffs

In the California case, Reed v. State of California, eight students at Samuel Gompers, John H. Liechty and Edwin Markham Middle Schools in LAUSD and their parents and guardians filed a class action lawsuit against the State and school district over the massive layoffs that resulted from last year’s education budget cuts. The schools, which primarily serve students of color, children from poverty backgrounds and English Language Learners, suffered greater reductions in staff than many of their affluent counterparts due to seniority rules.

Schools serving disadvantaged populations often struggle to attract experienced teachers, but each of the plaintiffs’ schools had recently successfully implemented programs to recruit, train and retain young teachers. Due to the layoffs, the schools lost teachers whose efforts had resulted in significant increases in student performance, as well as entire departments in core subject areas. According to the complaint, vacancies were filled by long-term substitutes and permanent teachers from the rehire pool, including many without credentials to teach in their assigned subject areas and grade levels. Since the case was filed in February, over 20,000 teachers have received pink slips.

Plaintiffs charge the State with violating the equal protection, education and privileges and immunities clauses of California’s constitution. In addition to declaratory relief, the plaintiffs have requested that the Court prohibit defendants from laying off teachers at Gompers, Liechty and Markham in the 2010-2011 year, laying off a greater percentage of teachers at these schools than at the average LAUSD school, contributing to a higher rate of turnover at these schools than in the average LAUSD school, and inflicting any “further educational harm.”

Indiana Funding System Violates “Uniform Education” and Other Provisions of the State Constitution, Say Suburban Districts

Plaintiffs in the Indiana case, Hamilton Southeastern Schools, et al. v. Daniels, specifically take issue with 1) the adjusted “average daily membership” (ADM) and “complexity index” components of Indiana’s funding formula, 2) 2010 amendments that, at the same time, lower base-line per-pupil funding for all schools and provide “restoration grants” to some other districts to mitigate the cuts, and 3) the prohibition on using property tax revenues for general school expenses like teacher salaries.

Per-pupil funding levels for school districts in Indiana are adjusted to take into account, among other things, the percentages of students receiving free or reduced lunch. The plaintiff districts serve considerably fewer students from poverty backgrounds than their urban counterparts, and consequently they receive lower amounts of state funding. For example, only 11% of the students in Hamilton Southeastern are from poverty backgrounds, compared with 82% in the Indianapolis schools. The suburban plaintiffs also allege that the funding formulas do not sufficiently take into account the fact that they although the school population in the state as a whole has risen 5% over the past decade, they have experienced increases in enrollment between 27 and 114 percent.

In light of the existing formula and the little or no support in the form of restoration grants, the plaintiffs claim that the $275 per-pupil 2010 reduction to base-line funding has a “greater negative impact on students attending” their schools. Additionally, the plaintiffs argue that the prohibition on use of property taxes for general budgets contravenes the “all suitable means” provision of the education clause, and without this source of revenue, districts are required to request funds via referendum which they claim force taxpayers in the district to “pay tuition,” again in violation of the state constitution.

To succeed in this case, the plaintiffs will have to overcome the strong precedent of the state supreme court’s recent ( June, 2009) dismissal of Bonner v. Daniels, an education adequacy lawsuit, on justiciability grounds. The court held there that “[b]y its own terms, Article 8, concerning education, does not speak in terms of a right or entitlement to education…To the extent that an individual student may have a right, entitlement, or privilege to pursue public education, any such right derives from the enactments of the General Assembly, not from the Indiana Constitution.”