Adequacy Trial Begins in Alaska, Oral Arguments in New York, Preliminary Hearing in Georgia

In the past two weeks, three education finance adequacy litigations reached major milestones when trial proceedings began in Alaska’s Moore v. State case, New York’s highest court heard oral arguments in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State for the third time, and attorneys in Georgia’s Consortium for Adequate School Funding v. State case argued at a pretrial hearing.

“21st Century Schools” Needed in Alaska

On October 2 in his opening statement at trial, plaintiffs’ attorney Collin Middleton described the “grave disparity” between test scores for Alaska Native children and Caucasian children, claiming that the test score gap results from insufficient funding for the higher-need Native children. “All children…deserve the same opportunities,” Middleton said.

Alaska’s rural school districts have unique education funding requirements due to their sparse populations and very small enrollments, which make the per-pupil costs of education proportionately high. Schools also face high energy and transportation costs, as well as a high cost of attracting and retaining teachers. As John Davis, superintendent of the Bering Strait School District – a district with 1800 students in 15 villages located across an area approximately the size of Kansas – testified, even providing sufficient water for schools and teacher housing is a problem. “The basic things most people take for granted are struggles for us.”

Such high costs force schools to cut back in other areas. Kristine Moore, the first named plaintiff in the case, became involved in seeking additional funding because of the overcrowded classrooms, lack of special education, and lack of art, music, and physical education instruction in her children’s schools. “It’s the 21st century and we need 21st century schools,” Moore said.

The trial is expected to last at least a month.

Disputing Education’s Price Tag in New York

“When the Court’s order has been scorned essentially for over two years, I think it is important for this Court to speak out,” Michael Rebell argued in oral argument in CFE v. State on October 10. “The audience is not just those of us here, it is millions of children in New York who cannot understand why the highest court in the state says that something should happen and years later they are still deprived of the benefits of the sound basic education they were promised.”

The oral arguments before the New York Court of Appeals (available on the court’s website) tackled critical constitutional issues. Assistant Solicitor General Denise Hartman, arguing for the state, claimed that the court has no authority to issue a directive specifying the amount of education funding the state must provide, saying the court can only issue a “declaratory” judgment backed by its “moral authority.” Joseph Wayland, Simpson Thacher & Barlett, and Rebell, co-counsel for the plaintiffs, argued that such a position would allow the state to ignore the Court’s ruling and undermine “the integrity of the judicial process.”

Despite the constitutional implications of the case, the judges focused on the dollar amounts in question. The state claimed that a $1.93 billion increase in funding would be sufficient to meet its constitutional requirements, while the plaintiffs insisted upon the $4.7 billion minimum determined by the trial and appellate courts. Starting with the very first question, the judges leaped into the dispute, asking both sides about their figures, trying to determine their origin, whether they had any basis in the record of the case, and whether each party’s figure represented a constitutional minimum or merely a suggested policy. Subsequent to the proceedings, the Court requested further information dealing with the cost determinations.

During a press conference following the arguments, Rebell reiterated what he believed was really at stake in the case. In reference to the intense questioning over what level funding actually represented New York’s constitutional obligation, Rebell wanted to remind people, “These are not just artificial figures; this means the difference whether these kids from a poverty background get a fair shake.”

Should Georgia Define an Adequate Education?

As an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial reported, on October 12, attorneys in Georgia’s Consortium for Adequate School Funding v. State case presented arguments in a pretrial hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Long. At the hearing, attorneys for the state argued that the responsibility for educating children and the responsibility for funding that education lies with local school boards, and that the state cannot be held responsible for what they described as local governments’ refusal to increase local taxes.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that relying on local taxes for education funding is unfair and inequitable, and that the Georgia Constitution holds the state responsible for providing its residents with an adequate education.

Although courts in school funding adequacy cases routinely determining the constitutional definition of an adequate education, attorneys for the state also told the court that, even if the state is responsible for providing an adequate education, trying to define it would lead the court into a quagmire, the Journal-Constitution editorial reported.

The Consortium for Adequate School Funding released its recommendations for a settlement with the state on October 10, according to the Athens Banner-Herald. The governor’s office, however, cautioned that a settlement is “not imminent.”

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, October 13, 2006