Connecticut Supreme Court Holds that the State Constitution Guarantees Students the Right to an Adequate Education

After almost two years of deliberation, the Connecticut Supreme Court held last week in Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc v. Rell, that Article eighth, § 1 of the State Constitution has a qualitative dimension that guarantees all students an adequate education. In doing so, the Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the adequacy claims in plaintiff’s complaint and sent the case back for a trial to determine whether the state’s educational resources and standards have, in fact, provided public school students with constitutionally suitable educational opportunities.

Although a majority of the justices agreed on the need to reverse the lower court’s ruling, they differed in their interpretation of the constitutional standard that should be applied. A plurality of three judges stated that the constitution guarantees Connecticut’s public school students“an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting… [and] to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state’s economy.” In reaching this conclusion, the plurality said that it was of “paramount importance” to review the decisions of sister states. The emphasis on preparing students to be capable civic participants and competitive workers is, in fact, a virtual consensus holding of all of the state courts that have specifically addressed this issue.

The plurality relied heavily on the ruling of the New York Court of Appeals in CFE v. State of New York, 801 N.E. 2d 326 ( 2003) and adopted the list of “essential” components of a constitutionally adequate education articulated by the New York Court. These include minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms, instrumentalities of learning such as reasonably current textbooks, reasonably up to date basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies, and “sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas.”

Justice Palmer agreed that the motion to dismiss should be denied and the case sent back for trial, but in a separate concurrence, he argued that for a less demanding constitutional standard. He opined that the constitution requires an educational opportunity that is “minimally adequate by modern educational standards.” Justice Palmer also said that “it is the prerogative of the legislature to determine, within reasonable limits, what a minimally adequate education entails.”

Although joining with the plurality opinion, Justice Schaller wrote a separate concurrence to expand on the constitutional principles that compel the higher standard that the plurality adopted. Citing CFE and Leandro v State, 488 S.E. 2d 249 ( N.C. 1997), he argued that “an education that does not serve the purpose of preparing students to participate and compete in the society in which they live is devoid of substance.” He emphasized that education serves the interests not only of the individual student, but also the utilitarian purposes of the state itself. Justice Schaller also argued that the state must take into account the circumstances of the children who are being educated. That means that “the educational offering must be tailored to meet the adequacy standard in the context of the social and economic conditions of the children to whom it is offered.”

The three dissenting justices, in two separate opinions, agreed with the lower court that the constitutional language was intended merely to ensure that the legislature would continue to provide the free public school system it had traditionally provided and that the courts are not well suited to make the difficult policy decisions as to what constitutes a suitable education or how to achieve that end.

The plaintiffs in this case, a coalition of municipalities and educational organizations, and a number of public school children and their parents, are being represented by the Yale Law School Education Adequacy Clinic. Two law students argued the case before the Connecticut Supreme Court.