Indiana Plaintiffs File Adequacy Lawsuit

On April 20, 2006, nine students, represented by their parents, filed an education adequacy lawsuit against the governor and other Indiana state officials, alleging that the state’s current system of financing education fails to fund the state’s standards and accountability and violates the Indiana State Constitution. In announcing the Bonner v. Daniels suit, plaintiffs emphasized the benefits to Indiana’s children and to the state’s future if all students have the educational opportunity to become capable citizens and successful competitors in the global economy.

Education Clause

The suit was brought under the education clause of the Indiana Constitution which states that “Knowledge and learning, generally diffused throughout a community [are] essential to the preservation of a free government.” Based on this critical need for education, the clause also makes it “the duty of the General Assembly to encourage . . . moral, intellectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement and to provide . . . for a general and uniform system of Common Schools . . . equally open to all.”

Reactions

Few of the defendants, who include Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen Reed, and the state’s Board of Education, have publicly reacted to the lawsuit, which had long been expected. According to the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette, Kevin McDowell, the Indiana Department of Education’s General Counsel, released a statement saying, “Adequate funding and equity are issues of considerable concern to all. Although the suit is brought in a legal forum, the legislative forum is implicated. I do not anticipate that resolution of these issues will be achieved quickly.” He went on to note that school funding formulas are notoriously complex. Jeff Spalding, fiscal analyst for Indiana House Republicans who was interviewed by the Indianapolis Star, expressed doubt that the legislature could afford to substantially increase education funding, stating, "As a citizen, it almost seems inappropriate to me that the judicial branch would be the one deciding how much should be spent for education.”

The Bonner v. Daniels plaintiffs attend eight school corporations (that is, school districts) across the state, including Indianapolis, South Bend, and Hammond, which is in northwestern Indiana. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment of their rights and a declaratory judgment that the current funding system is unconstitutional. In addition to the education clause, they challenge the current system on the basis of the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the state constitution

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, April 24, 2006