Connecticut

Useful Resources

Historical Background

The Connecticut Supreme Court was one of the first of the state high courts, along with California's and New Jersey's, to invalidate a state education finance system, in Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (1977). The court found that the Connecticut Constitution requires the state to "provide a substantially equal educational opportunity" and declared the existing system unconstitutional because it was based primarily on local property taxes with no significant equalizing state support and, therefore, generated large per-pupil spending disparities.

In response, the legislature enacted a percentage equalizing formula and a local minimum expenditure requirement. Although the Horton decision apparently reduced the disparity in educational expenditures among school districts, two decades later, the court was faced with a related case, Sheff v. O'Neill, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996), 678 A.2d 1267 (1996), in which plaintiffs argued that students in Hartford were not receiving a minimally adequate education under the state constitution. The Connecticut Supreme Court finessed the adequacy claim and, instead, issued a path-breaking decision which outlawed de facto racial segregation.

Desegregation Decision

In a decision which clearly deviated from U.S. Supreme Court precedents which have held that only intentional or de jure segregation is unconstitutional, the court read the Connecticut Constitution's education clause together with a clause added in 1965 which specifically prohibited “segregation” to hold that racial segregation, whether or not it resulted from intentional state action deprived the plaintiff schoolchildren of their right to a substantially equal educational opportunity and required the state to take remedial measures. The Court deferred to the legislature to develop a remedy consistent with the Constitutional requirements. The legislature subsequently developed a remedy which called for additional spending on magnet schools , voluntary interdistrict transfer programs and interdistrict co-operative programs, but no re-drawing of district boundaries.

Dissatisfied with the rate of integration achieved by these methods, the plaintiffs returned to the Superior Court. In 2003, plaintiffs and the governor reached a temporary, four-year settlement in Sheff v. O'Neill, which, among other things, required the state to spend $45 million over four years to establish eight additional magnet schools in Hartford, and established targets for proportions of Hartford students who would “have educational experiences with reduced isolation.” The agreement was approved by the General Assembly and the trial court. In 2007, plaintiffs returned to Court, claiming that the defendants had failed to carry out their obligations under the stipulation.

Filing of New Adequacy Suit

In late 2005, a coalition of plaintiffs filed a school funding suit which contained both “equity” and “adequacy”claims., Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. (CCJEF) v. Rell. They asked the court to declare the state's education finance system unconstitutional and order the state to create a system that provides “suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities” as required by the state constitution. Largely in response to this pressure, in 2006, the state created the Governor’s Commission on Education Finance, and in 2007, the State Legislature approved increases in education funding.

In September 2007, the Connecticut Superior Court dismissed plaintiffs’ adequacy claims, while permitting their equity claims to proceed to trial. The Connecticut Supreme Court has agreed to give expedited consideration to Plaintiffs’ appeal. Oral arguments were heard on April 22, 2008. Case materials, including amicus briefs and state responses, can be found at www.ccjef.org. The Court’s decision is expected in late summer.

In upholding equity claims in Horton, the Connecticut Supreme Court had held in 1977 that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution. The Connecticut Supreme Court also held that Article eighth § 1 of the Connecticut Constitution, which declares that “[t]here shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state” creates an “affirmative constitutional obligation.” Sheff v. O’Neill, 238 Conn. 1, 25 (1996). Based on these precedents, plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that the “affirmative obligation” under Article eighth § 1 includes an obligation to prepare students to obtain gainful employment, participate fully in our democracy, advance to higher education, and meet state standards.

The Superior Court agreed that these claims were “justiciable”, but it ruled at the same time that the allegations were “legal conclusions,” which, if accepted would constitute “an intrusion by the court into the constitutional prerogatives of other branches of state government.” Plaintiffs’ appeal argues, among other things, that since the court deemed the adequacy claims “justiciable,” it was improper to then dismiss the claims for raising “political questions,” which is the core reasoning of courts which hold these types of claims to be “non-justiciable”. The vast majority of state courts have determined that education adequacy claims are justiciable because, as the Montana Supreme Court recently put it, “[a]s final guardian and protector of the right to education, it is incumbent upon the court to assure that the system enacted by the Legislature enforces, protects and fulfills the right.” Columbia Falls Elementary Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. State, 109 P.3d 357 (Mont. 2005).

NCLB Lawsuit

Also in 2005, the state of Connecticut filed suit in federal district court against U.S. Secretary of Education Spellings, claiming that NCLB is an unfunded mandate, in violation of the NCLB statute itself. Other states and organizations have weighed in on both sides.

In September 2006, the court dismissed all of Connecticut’s claims, except for a claim that Secretary Spellings’ denial of Connecticut’s requested plan amendments violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ January 2008 judgment in favor of the National Education Association, which also challenged NCLB as an unfunded mandate, prompted Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut’s Attorney General, to press forward with his suit.

According to Blumenthal, “If the Secretary of Education has any shred of respect for the law, she should now reverse course to revise and reform the federal government's misguided unfunded mandates. If she fails to heed this court of appeals ruling - binding on her - she is deliberately disregarding and defying federal law.”

Blumenthal continued, “We will immediately ask the U.S. District Court in our case to strongly consider [the Sixth Circuit] decision and to rule on the merits of our claims. If necessary, we will ask for immediate permission to appeal to our U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, so that an eventual ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court may be sought as soon as possible.”

In the ensuing U.S. District Court case decided on April 28, 2008, the Court held that the state had not adequately raised the unfunded mandate issue in the administrative proceedings before the Secretary of Education and, therefore, the issue was not before the Court. The Court did rule on the state’s other claims regarding the Secretary’s denial of Connecticut’s two proposed plan amendments regarding the method for assessing special education and ELL students. The state contended that the NCLB provision requiring that “the same academic assessments [must be] used to measure the achievement of all students” should be applied “flexibly” to certain students with disabilities and English language learners. The Court decided in favor of the U.S. Department of Education, despite the judge’s acknowledgement that the requirements and regulations for such students “may not be a particularly sensible way to determine the level of the students’ academic achievement or knowledge.”

Useful Resources

Michael A. Rebell and Robert L. Hughes, Efficacy and Engagement: The Remedies Problem Posed by Sheff v. O'Neill – and a Proposed Solution, 29 Connecticut Law Review 1115 (Spring 1997).

Last updated: July 2008