Litigation Round-Up

California

Last week, the state of California agreed to settle a lawsuit that had highlighted a pattern of charging illegal school fees by a number of school districts throughout the state. The suit, filed in September 2010 by the American Civil Liberties Union, had charged the state with failing to ensure a free public education for all students. The settlement does not establish any new legal ground, since it was clear under California law that school fees do violate the right to a free public education, but it provides a framework for “informing students and parents of their rights, enforcing the rules and penalizing transgressors.” School districts that have illegally charged students fees for books, art supplies, and other basic education materials will be required to reimburse parents. Parents will be able to bring complaints against the district that must be resolved within 30 days.

After the long overdue passage of the California budget in October, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used line-item vetoes to cut $133 million earmarked for mental health services for special education students. He also suspended a mandate requiring schools to provide mental health services for students. Shortly thereafter, several education advocates, including the state’s largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, filed a lawsuit to overturn the Governor’s veto. On October 29 California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell said that he would allocate $76 million in federal funding to help continue to provide mental health services; however these funds are only about one-third of what is needed for mental health services, according to local officials in Ventura County.

Indiana

In November, a Hamilton County Judge denied a motion to dismiss by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels in Hamilton Southeastern Schools, et al. v Daniels, a school-funding lawsuit filed in February 2010. The case was brought by three suburban school districts and parents of students in those districts after a round of budget cuts that, according to the plaintiffs, disproportionately affected their schools. The complaint argues, among other issues, that the current funding formula does not account for year-to-year increases in student enrollment. Over the last ten years, overall student population in Indiana has grown five percent, while in Hamilton Southeastern, the student population has increased 114 percent during the same time period. The plaintiffs’ main constitutional argument is based on the constitution’s requirement for “uniformity in education funding.” A major part of the claim is an allegation that the funding formula provisions that provide extra funding for large cities with high concentrations of poverty students, like Gary and Indianapolis, are denying uniform treatment to the suburban districts.

The court’s decision to deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss focuses on the justiciability of the current case in relation to a previous education adequacy case, Bonner v. Daniels, that had been dismissed by the state’s Supreme Court. The decision by Superior Court Judge Steven Nathan states that in Bonner, “the Supreme Court did not have before it whether the same Constitutional language… The issue in this case is not equality of educational outcomes, as it was in Bonner. The issue here is uniformity of funding.” The lawsuit will proceed to trial barring settlement or the Defendant’s successful appeal to a higher court.

Kansas

On election day 2010 a coalition of 63 Kansas school districts filed a school funding lawsuit against the state for failing to adequately fund public education. The case arose as a result of the legislature’s failure to comply with the 2006 settlement of Montoy v. Kansas, a previous adequacy challenge that had been upheld by the state supreme court. The Montoy remedy had included a substantial increase in state funding over three years. Budget cuts in recent years have denied school districts the promised funds, and the current case utilizes a past cost study commissioned by the legislature during the Montoy case to show that current funding levels are inadequate for providing constitutionally mandated services for children in the state. The plaintiffs also argue that in recent years, the cost of educating kids has increased, there have been significant increases in overall enrollment and in the numbers of students eligible for free and reduced meals. The complaint states that, based on Kansas funding formulas and the costing out study done in 2006, the total under-appropriation for 2010-2011 was over $415 million. The plaintiffs also stress the point that the state has violated its constitutional obligation by arbitrarily cutting education funding without considering where the most logical places are to make cuts and how funding decreases would affect children’s educational opportunity.

Another lawsuit, with a very original constitutional claim, was filed in Kansas last week. Ten parents in Shawnee Mission Unified School District No. 512, argue that a state-imposed cap on the amount of money residents can tax themselves to support their school funding is unconstitutional because it denies them fundamental liberty and property interests and their right as parents to direct and participate in the upbringing and education of their children The legislature sets the cap as a percentage of state-provided funds, and prohibits any school district from raising additional revenue above the cap. The complaint also states that the cap denies them equal protection of the law because it“disproportionately affects the Shawnee Mission School District because it receives one of the lowest levels of per-pupil funding in the State. Of 296 Kansas school districts, Shawnee Mission ranks 265th.” In 2008-2009, Shawnee Mission Sch

ool District received $4,701 per student in state aid, compared to the state average of $7,344 per pupil. The Kansas Board of Education promptly moved to be dropped as a defendant, since they have no control over legislative decisions.

New Jersey

Oral argument will be held before the New Jersey Supreme Court on January 5, 2011 on plaintiffs' motion in Abbott v. Burke challenging Governor Christie's extensive budget cuts for public education. Plaintiffs' main claim is that the New Jersey Supreme Court had added a proviso to its approval of a new state funding formula two years ago requiring that the new formula be fully funded.

South Dakota

Oral arguments for the 2006 South Dakota school funding case in the State Supreme Court have been scheduled for January 11, 2011, and the court, recognizing the importance of the case, has assigned extra time to the argument. At the end of the trial in 2009, Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur ruled that the state was not violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights to a “thorough and efficient” education. Plaintiffs are appealing a broad number of issues, including the Court’s definition of adequacy, findings that low income children do not require extra funding, and that there is no connection between funding and achievement.

Washington

Last week, the Washington Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the state’s method of funding special education. Plaintiffs, the School District’s Alliance for Adequate Funding of Special Education, had argued that the state improperly included the basic education allotment, the state’s core foundational educational funding system, in its analysis of the amounts needed for special education, requiring many districts to supplement state funding with local levies in order to meet the needs of their students with disabilities. The court’s holding is likely to have little precedential significance outside of the State of Washington, since it is based on the intricacies of the state’s statutory system for meeting constitutional “ample” funding requirements. As Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn said in reacting to the decision, the real issue regarding education finance is whether schools are amply supported and the real debate lies in the other school lawsuit (McCleary v. State) pending before the court. "When the state amply funds education, all students, including those who receive special education services, will benefit," Dorn noted.