Litigation Update: Constitution Satisfied in Arkansas, Mixed Ruling in Alaska, Suit Dropped in Kentucky, New Hampshire Meets Court Deadline

Constitution Satisfied in Arkansas

The Arkansas Supreme Court closed the Lake View school funding case on May 31, adopting a special masters’ report that found, “The state General Assembly addressed the need for state assistance with public schools and academic facilities in a substantial and commendable fashion.”

The decision ended court involvement dating back to 2002, when the state supreme court declared the state’s school funding system unconstitutional. In 2003, the Court gave the state until January 1, 2004 to perform a cost study and establish a constitutional funding system. After belated action from the legislature in June 2004 that increased state school aid by $400 million (17 percent), the court closed the case but reopened it a year later, after agreeing with plaintiffs that the 2005-2007 state budget again failed to deliver on promises made in 2004 to adequately fund schools.

In the 2007 legislative session that ended this spring, the Arkansas legislature added another $122 million in state aid, on top of $82.5 million added in the 2006 session. For construction and repair of school facilities, which were also deemed inequitable in the court’s earlier rulings, the legislature authorized $120 million in 2005, an additional $50 million in 2006, and, in this year’s session, passed Act 1237, which appropriated $456 million for facilities, on top of another $220 million in facilities funding from other funding sources and other legislation that implemented procedures for state oversight of facilities construction and renovation.

As part of the school funding reforms, the State forced districts with fewer than 350 students to consolidate. A number of schools in rural communities were closed – including the plaintiff Lake View district. In addition, the shutdown of the small rural schools resulted in the elimination of many African Americans from public office and leadership positions.

Alaska Mixed Ruling Nixes Exit Exam for Some

In an unusual decision, the trial court in the Alaska school funding case, Moore v. State, ruled on June 21 that “Alaska’s funding of public education…comports with the Education Clause” of the state constitution, but that “the State has violated the Education Clause” because it “has failed to identify those schools that are not according to children a meaningful opportunity” and has failed to provide “a concerted effort to remedy that situation.” The court also ruled that, “because the State has failed to meet this component of its constitutional responsibility,” it is an unconstitutional violation of due process to require students to pass the state exit exam to graduate from high school. “It is fundamentally unfair,” Judge Sharon Gleason wrote, “to hold students accountable for failing this exam when some students in the state have not been accorded a meaningful opportunity to learn the material on the exam.”

Judge Gleason said the state was failing to provide sufficient oversight of school districts with low test scores. Despite a tradition of local control of schools, she wrote, the Legislature is responsible under the State Constitution’s Education Clause for providing students “the opportunity to acquire the basic tools they need to succeed in both traditional and global societies.”

Bill Bjork, president of the National Education Association-Alaska, said in a written statement, “We’re pleased that the judge recognized that many of Alaska’s children are not receiving an adequate education. But as far as the funding piece is concerned, this appears to be a disappointing setback.”

The finding that schools are inadequate but that the state provides sufficient funding is unique, and it is unclear what the state’s next move will be. Judge Gleason stayed judgment in the case for one year, giving the state an opportunity to remedy the constitutional violations.

Lawsuit Dropped in Kentucky

After a February trial court decision that held that there was no “objective evidence of shortcomings in Kentucky’s education system” and subsequent denial, in May, of the plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider, the plaintiffs in Young v. Williams have dropped their lawsuit.

The Kentucky trial court ruling fits a recent trend. The landmark 1989 ruling in Rose v. Council for Better Education was one of the first adequacy lawsuits, and it was followed by a quick legislative response and positive outcomes. Plaintiffs filed Young in 2003, alleging that the state’s funding system had fallen back into inadequacy. Young is a “second generation adequacy case,” where plaintiffs have returned to court years after a favorable court ruling and remedy. Similar second generation cases have been ultimately unsuccessful in Massachusetts, Texas, and Arizona.

New Hampshire Legislature Meets Court Deadline

The New Hampshire Legislature this month met the June 30 deadline for defining an adequate education that was imposed by the state supreme court in its September 2006 ruling in Londonderry School District v. State. The definition provides content standards that schools have to meet and requires all school districts to offer kindergarten to every student. Thirteen New Hampshire districts do not currently offer kindergarten to all students.

The legislation also directs a legislative committee to identify “enhanced needs” schools and propose additional resources for those schools. While the original definition proposed in the Senate would have required lawmakers to direct specific additional resources to “enhanced needs” schools, a compromise with the House scaled this back. In addition, a new committee, made up of lawmakers and a representative from the Governor’s office, will have the responsibility of determining the cost of an adequate education under the new definition by February 1, 2008.

The definition of adequacy is a welcome development to some in New Hampshire, a state where lawmakers and many residents stand in strong opposition to an increase in taxes. After the Londonderry ruling, Governor Lynch proposed a constitutional amendment that would have limited the authority of the judicial branch in regards to school funding. The state House overwhelmingly rejected the amendment in early June.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, July 3, 2007