Litigation Update: Arizona, Alaska, California, Indiana, New York, Oregon, Oklahoma

As a new school year begins, many states face education finance "adequacy" litigations that seek adequate resources in schools, especially those schools educating low-income and minority students, which often lack these resources. While Kansas recently enacted remedial measures that ended the Montoy v. State case, three states have filed motions to dismiss new cases filed this year, other states are in the midst of discovery, summary judgment motions, appeals, or compliance proceedings, and the Ninth Circuit recently decided a case brought by English language learners.

Arizona: Ninth Circuit Decision

In the context of rising emotions around immigration issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, on August 23, 2006, overruled the Arizona District Court in the appeal of the Flores v. State case, which is based on the federal Equal Educational Opportunity Act (EEOA). While the Ninth Circuit panel did not reverse the District Court's 2000 decision that found the State of Arizona was violating the rights of students learning English, it reversed $21 million in fines that the lower court had imposed on the state early this year. Noting that "the landscape of [ELL] educational funding has changed significantly" since the 2000 District Court decision, the Circuit Court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether "changed circumstances" required modification of the original court order or a different remedy.

Effects of this decision include the delay of any additional increase in funding for ELL programs and reinstatement of the requirement that ELL students pass the state's high school exit exam in order to get a diploma. Plaintiffs, represented by Tim Hogan of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, said they will not appeal.

Alaska: Standard of Review

The trial court, in Moore v. State, responded to the State's Motion to Establish a Standard of Review by holding that "it is the court's responsibility to determine 'a constitutional floor with respect to educational adequacy' and to determine if that constitutional floor is currently being met" (internal quotes from CFE v. State of New York). The state had requested a standard that would require the court to find that the legislature's actions "shock the universal sense of justice" in order to find the state education finance system unconstitutional and also sought a definition of the right to education that only entitled children to attend whatever schools the legislature established. The court stated that "the focus at trial with respect to [the education clause] claim should be on defining the constitutional right to an education under Alaska's Constitution and determining whether . . . that constitutional right" is being fulfilled.

California: Williams Compliance

On August 17, 2006, Public Advocates issued a report and recommendations regarding its finding that "a significant number of California school districts have not complied with their School Accountability Report Card obligations," including aspects of the Williams v. California settlement. The Williams case challenged the state's failure to provide basic educational necessities to all students and was settled in August 2004 in an agreement that increased state and school district accountability for providing basic school resources and required nearly $1 billion in funding to help remedy resource disparities. On August 17, Public Advocates also issued demand letters to several school districts and threatened to take legal action against them.

Based on a six-week investigation, Public Advocates is calling for legislative action and better monitoring by the State Board of Education and the California Department of Education. The investigation found that many school districts: continue to issue their report cards late; fail to translate them into languages other than English, when required; and do not report important data on qualified teachers and needed school repairs as required by the Williams settlement.

Appeal in New York

Oral arguments in the state's highest court (the Court of Appeals) are scheduled for October 10, 2006 in the appeal of an intermediate appellate court ruling in Campaign for Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State. Defendants addressed the capital side of funding during the 2006 legislative session, with over $11.2 billion to be phased in over five years. However, more than two years after the court-ordered 2004 deadline, defendants continue to be out of compliance with the Court of Appeals' order on operational funding. During compliance proceedings, the trial court ordered an additional $5.6 billion in annual funding for operations for the New York City school district (of 1.1 million students), to be phased in over four years. The intermediate appellate court revised that order to a range between $4.7 and $5.6 billion.

Indiana, Oregon and Oklahoma

All three states have answered plaintiffs' complaints and filed motions to dismiss. The Oklahoma trial court granted the state's motion, while briefing has been completed and oral argument scheduled for September in Oregon's Pendleton v. State case, and briefing is underway in Indiana's Bonner v. Daniels case.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, August 29, 2006