Montana Supreme Court Orders New Funding System Based on “Educationally Relevant Factors”

Affirming a 2004 lower court ruling in Columbia Falls Elementary School District v. State, the Montana Supreme Court on March 22, 2005 declared that “the educational product of the current school system is constitutionally deficient and that the Legislature currently fails to adequately fund Montana’s public school system.” The court’s unanimous opinion also affirmed the lower court’s finding that the state is in violation of the constitutional provision requiring “preservation of American Indian cultural identity” in its educational goals. The state did not even challenge this finding in its appeal.

As reported in the Billings Gazette, members of the legislature said they were pleased that the decision did not alter the lower court decision and they felt that they were “on the right track” to solve the problem. However, plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Jim Molloy, expressed concern about the legislature’s direction.

Funding Must Relate to Needs

The court ordered the state to design a finance system “based upon educationally-relevant factors.” Because the constitution requires the legislature to provide a system of free quality public education, the court instructed the legislature to first define “what is a quality system of education” and concluded that under any “legitimate definition of quality,” the current system is deficient.

Furthermore, the court explained that unless funding “relates to academic standards, teacher pay, fixed costs, costs of special education, and performance standards, [it] is not related to the cornerstones of a quality education.” The court pointed to program cuts, insufficient monies to maintain and construct buildings, and educators leaving the state for higher salaries and benefits elsewhere, inter alia, as evidence of under-funding.

Justiciability

As a threshold question, the court determined that the issue of whether the funding system passes constitutional muster is within the purview of the court. In fact, the court said that “[a]s the final guardian and protector of the right to education, it is incumbent upon the court to assure that the system enacted by the Legislature enforces, protects and fulfills [that] right.” Courts in almost all states that have faced this question have found the issue justiciable, that is, subject to judicial review.

State Defense

The state argued that Montana students’ test scores, which compare favorably with students in other states, shows that the funding system is constitutional. However, the court held that test scores “do not tell the whole story.” Analyzing this defense, the court recognized that education is cumulative and stated that the evidence at trial indicated the scores may not reflect the current under-funded system. The court also proclaimed that “a system of education includes more than high achievement on standardized tests.”

Interestingly, the supreme court vacated the lower court’s conclusion that the school funding system does not violate the state constitution’s equal protection clause.

The March 22 opinion supersedes the supreme court’s November 2004 preliminary Columbia Falls decision, which it issued shortly after oral argument. This was done “in the public interest,” to advise the other branches of state government of the court’s conclusions before the 2005 legislative session was convened “so they [would] have sufficient time” to fashion a remedy.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, March 25, 2005