Litigation Update: South Carolina, New Hampshire, Alaska and Others

South Carolina plaintiffs are appealing the trial court’s ruling, and the state has filed a cross-appeal. New Hampshire has asked the supreme court to end the adequate education case, which is not surprisingly opposed by plaintiffs. The State of Alaska has filed motions that essentially ask the trial court to reconsider its ruling. Also, the Indiana plaintiffs have appealed the trial courts’ dismissal of the Bonner case, while the Pendleton plaintiffs in Oregon have appealed the trial courts’ decision to grant the state’s motion for summary judgment.

At the same time, the parties in Georgia, Nebraska, and South Dakota are in the midst of discovery, preparing for trials currently scheduled to begin in 2008. As part of that process in Nebraska, plaintiffs have filed a motion to submit an amended complaint.

South Carolina: “no recourse but to handle it judicially” Abbeville Appeal

The Abbeville v. State case was brought by 36 low-wealth, rural districts and focused primarily in three education resource areas in those districts: inadequate facilities; the alleged inability to attract and retain qualified teachers; and the lack of programs to address the needs of their many students from poverty backgrounds. The trial court ordered the state to fund programs from preschool through third grade to help children overcome the impacts of poverty on their opportunity to learn. However, the court ruled that the facilities and teaching in these districts were “minimally adequate.”

After the trial court’s decision, the legislature failed in its 2007 session to provide the preschool to third-grade programs ordered, and one plaintiff superintendent claimed the lack of legislative action “gave us no recourse but to handle it judicially.” Briefing of the appeal will occur through the winter, and oral argument is anticipated in May 2008.

New Hampshire: Londonderry Memos to Supreme Court

Recently, the state supreme court directed the parties to submit memoranda on the question whether the court should remand the Londonderry v. State case to the superior court for further proceedings. The court has ordered the state, first in the Claremont v. State case, and more recently in Londonderry, to define, cost out and fund an “adequate education” for all New Hampshire students.

In response to the last supreme court order, the legislature adopted a definition of an adequate education, signed into law by the governor at the end of June. It also established a legislative committee to study the costs of the defined level of education and report its recommendations to the legislature by February 1, 2008. The state contends, in its memorandum to the court, that the legislature should have until June 30 to work with the committee’s recommendations and establish the costs of providing the educational opportunities in the definition. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, urge the court to push the legislative and executive branches to not only cost out an adequate education but to also develop a school funding system that will fund it for the 2008-09 school year.

Alaska: Motions for a Hearing and Reconsideration in Moore

The State defendant has submitted motions to the trial court claiming that it was already in compliance with the court’s order at the time of trial. Alternatively, the state requests clarification of its responsibilities of oversight and assistance vis-à-vis the local control afforded the state’s school districts. The trial court stayed (put on hold) its June 2007 order for one year to give the state time to reform its system of oversight, assistance, and accountability for school districts where students are not receiving the constitutionally required meaningful educational opportunity.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, September 14, 2007