Litigation Update: Compliance in Kansas and Montana, Decision in New Jersey, Appeal in New York

Supreme Court in Kansas Hears Arguments on Compliance

Following a heated legislative session in which Kansas lawmakers agreed to send $541 million in new money to schools over three years, the plaintiffs in the Montoy v. State case have asked the court to declare their efforts inadequate, and to mandate that a more substantial effort to comply with the court’s earlier rulings in the case be made.

The legislature’s activities followed a ruling by the Supreme Court last year that the state was failing in its constitutional duty to fund an adequate education for all students in the state. After a partial fix to the funding system in 2005, the court ordered the legislature to return to the question in the 2006 session, and legislate a cost-based funding level. The Legislative Division of Post Audit conducted a cost study that found Kansas schools were being shortchanged by $400 million each year, especially those schools educating low-income, ELL, and special education students.

The plaintiffs have declared the legislature’s actions insufficient because their plan phases in over three years not much more (after adjustment for inflation) than the amount the study determined was needed for the upcoming school year. Plaintiffs also argued that the legislature’s chosen distribution of the additional state aid actually worsens inequities and fails to solve inadequate funding for high-need school districts. According to the Lawrence Journal-World, plaintiffs’ attorney Alan Rupe told the court, “We’re asking for substantial compliance, and they have not come close to substantial compliance.”

Montana Back in Court Over Remedy

The Columbia Falls plaintiffs have filed a motion for supplemental relief, asking the district court to schedule a hearing for the spring of 2007 in order to assess legislative compliance following the 2007 legislative session. Montana’s legislature convenes every other year.

The Montana Supreme Court found in 2005 that the state was not funding its schools at constitutionally adequate levels, and ordered the state to define a quality education and fund schools based on “educationally relevant factors” needed to provide students with the defined quality education. In its regular 2005 session, the legislature did create a “quality education” definition and increased funding levels by almost ten percent, the first significant increase in many years. Plaintiffs’ request for a hearing was accompanied by statements by school district leaders from across the state, who said that the 2005 boost in education funding, while nice, has not come close to funding a quality education for their students.

Responding to plaintiffs’ motion, the state argues that the 2005 regular and special legislative sessions fulfilled the court’s mandate, and that any further review in the case would be moot given how different the current funding system is from the one challenged by the original lawsuit. Any challenge to the current or 2007 funding levels should come in the form of a new lawsuit, the Attorney General said.

New Jersey Supreme Court Grants State Motion to Freeze Funding

In response to a state motion, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on May 9 that the state could freeze its funding to the Abbott districts for one year. However, the court rejected the state’s further request that the Abbott districts be prevented from appealing the Department of Education’s decisions on their budgets during the year, responding to the Education Law Center’s argument that the state’s request would result in “reductions to or elimination of mandated programs, positions, and services.” The DOE and Governor Jon Corzine requested the freeze citing a “fiscal crisis” in the state. A clarifying order followed on May 22, requiring that the state expedite any Abbott district appeals of DOE budget decisions, and guaranteeing funding for any new schools or buildings scheduled to open during the year in which the funding freeze is in effect.

The decision, the latest in the state’s long-running Abbott v. Burke school funding case, reflects a growing concern within the state over rising property taxes and a long-standing structural deficit in state finances. In a related matter, ELC has been fighting for measures that would hold the state accountable for properly overseeing and evaluating the Abbott initiatives and has mounted its own detailed analysis of the reform’s gains and challenges, the Abbott Indicators Project.

Plaintiffs Seek Final Remedy in New York

The plaintiffs in CFE v. State have appealed to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to issue an “enforceable order” that will finally force the state’s legislature to comply fully with the court’s 2003 CFE ruling. This appeal follows a March decision from an intermediate-level Appellate Division court that ordered the state to provide New York City schools with between $4.7 billion and $5.63 billion in annual operational funding, as well as at least $9.6 billion in additional capital funding. The 2006 legislative session brought major progress in on these issues, as the legislature appropriated $11.2 billion in facilities funding to the city schools and additional facilities funding to schools across the state. Nonetheless, the battle over operational funding continues in court. In its appeal, CFE also asks the court to mandate a thorough accountability program that would ensure the additional funding is targeted to the effective programs and resources that will help the students who most need it. Oral argument is scheduled for October 10, 2006.