Legal Updates
Montana
Plaintiffs’ motion for supplemental
relief was denied by a Montana District Court judge
on December 15, 2008. Although agreeing with the plaintiffs
that a) education funding increases would drop below
the rate of inflation for 2009, b) special education
funding issues need to be addressed and c) there are
continuing problems with teacher recruitment and retention
in some districts, the court found that the state had
“done a good job” of addressing many of
the other problems discussed in the court’s earlier
opinion. Given the state’s efforts, the court
choose not to issue an order for supplementary relief,
“ at this time,” but to discuss the outstanding
issues in an ‘advisory opinion.”
New Hampshire
On October 15, 2008, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
dismissed Londonderry Sch. Dist. v. State, 958 A. 2d
930 (N.H. 2008). The court terminated its jurisdiction
on the grounds that the case was now moot since the
particular statute that the plaintiffs had attacked
in their 2005 complaint had now been replaced. Plaintiffs
maintained that the revised funding system is still
unconstitutional, but the court held that they would
need to file a new action to litigate these issues.
Early in this 15 year old litigation, the New Hampshire
Supreme Court had held that in order to satisfy constitutional
requirements, the state needed to 1) define a constitutionally
adequate education, 2) determine the cost of an adequate
education; and 3) develop a system of accountability
to ensure the delivery of a constitutionally adequate
public education. Claremont Sch. Dist v. Governor, 703
A.2d 1353 ( NH, 1997). In light of the passage of NH
RSA ch. 193-E, which essentially incorporated the constitutional
guidelines for an adequate education which had originally
been adopted by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Rose v.
Council for Better Educ., Inc. 790 S.W. 2d 186 (KY 1989),
the plaintiffs are no longer challenging the legislature
on the definitional issue, but they continue to maintain
that the new funding system that the legislature adopted
is inadequate and that merely creating a Joint Legislative
oversight Committee does not satisfy the accountability
requirement.
New Jersey
On November 18, 2008, the state Supreme Court rejected
the governor’s request to summarily dismiss the
long-running Abbott vs. Burke school funding case. The
court ordered a series of hearings in which the governor
will have to demonstrate that the new funding formula
for distributing $7.8 billion in state school aid satisfies
the constitutional rights of students in the Abbott
districts.
The extensive Abbott remedial orders, in effect since
1999, apply to students in 32 poor urban school districts.
Governor Jon Corzine’s attorneys argued to the
Court that the new formula maintains present levels
of funding for the Abbott districts, but also provides
substantial increases for high needs students who live
in other districts that are not covered by the decree
and whose numbers have risen substantially in the past
18 years. The Abbott plaintiffs, while not discouraging
additional funding for other needy students, argue that
the new formula is based on abstract models rather than
actual student needs and that under the new formula,
funding levels to many of the Abbott districts will
decline in future years, undoing much of the positive
impact that the remedial orders have had.
|
