Late Defendant-Intervenors Fail to Stop Missouri Trial

On the verge of trial in a case filed three years ago, three members of the Show-Me Institute, a conservative think tank, recently intervened on the side of the state defendants in Committee for Educational Equality v. State, Missouri’s school funding lawsuit. In addition to arguing that education funding is a political question and does not belong in the court system, these defendant-intervenors have been instrumental in procuring expert witnesses to provide testimony that there is no relationship between school funding and student achievement.

While trial was scheduled to begin this month – and indeed did begin on January 3 – the court allowed the three defendant-intervenors to join the case in November 2006. The court heard their motion to dismiss on January 2.

“School Districts Are Hurting”

The Plaintiffs in Committee for Educational Equality v. State, comprising 236 of Missouri’s 524 school districts, allege that Missouri’s school finance system is both inadequate to provide students with meaningful educational opportunities and inequitable, largely due to an over-reliance on local property taxes despite low property wealth in many districts.

"The bottom line is that school districts, be they large or small, are hurting. They’re not able to provide an adequate and equitable education," said Alex Bartlett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs Cite Constitutional Violations

In 2003, a cost study performed on behalf of the Missouri Coalition for Adequacy reported that Missouri schools would need over $900 million in additional funding to provide students with an adequate education. Claiming that the state’s funding system was unconstitutional and “deprived [children] of rights to an adequate education and equal opportunities to an education,” the Committee for Educational Equality filed suit in early 2004. Plaintiffs argue both that the amount of funding provided to schools is insufficient and also that reliance on local property taxes results in “a wide disparity” in the per pupil funds available to various districts.

In 2005, largely in response to the lawsuit, the Legislature passed a new school funding formula, establishing a minimum spending per pupil based on spending by successful school districts. However, Mr. Bartlett has argued that the new law does not address plaintiffs’ concerns. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, stating that the legislature’s determination of the new system was based on a flawed methodology, the new system still underfunds Missouri schools by $600 million, and the new system does not fix inequities in funding. Also, plaintiffs claim, if the law – which does not require the state to reach its funding targets until 2012 – ends up being a constitutional remedy, the delayed implementation violates children’s rights in the interim.

Critics of the lawsuit have claimed, among other things, that the state is only constitutionally mandated to spend 25 percent of its revenue on school funding – a floor Missouri easily meets. However, plaintiffs argue that the Missouri constitution’s education clause, which states as its goal “a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,” requires a much higher floor.

A Return to the Courts

This lawsuit is the second time the Committee for Educational Equality has brought the state to court over its funding formula. In 1993, the trial court in the original Committee for Educational Equality v. State lawsuit ruled the state’s school funding system unconstitutional. In response, the Missouri legislature passed the Outstanding Schools Act, changing the state’s school funding formula and adding $300 million per year in state spending. Despite the 1993 reforms, advocates argue that the state’s school funding system has once again become inadequate and inequitable.

The trial is expected to last about six weeks.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, January 11, 2007