|
Florida
Recent Events
Historical Background
In 1995, plaintiffs filed an "adequacy" case,
Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding
v. Chiles, to challenge the state's system of funding
its public schools. In its 1996 decision affirming the
lower court's dismissal of the case, the Florida Supreme
Court was deeply concerned about the separation of powers
doctrine and found that plaintiffs had "failed
to demonstrate . . . an appropriate standard for determining
‘adequacy' that would not present a substantial
risk of judicial intrusion into the powers and responsibilities
of the legislature."
After losing the Coalition for Adequacy case,
education advocates in Florida turned to the state's
initiative and referendum process. Voters approved an
amendment to the state constitution in the November
1998 election and dramatically strengthened the education
clause. The new language makes Florida's education clause
one of the most strongly worded in the nation:
The education of children is a fundamental value
of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore,
a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision
for the education of all children residing within
its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law
for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality
system of free public schools that allows students
to obtain a high quality education...
Recent Events
In October 2006, a Florida appellate court affirmed
a trial court’s dismissal in School Board
of Miami-Dade County v. King. Plaintiffs had challenged
the legislature’s adoption of “amenities-based
indices” for the calculation of district cost
differentials, a decision that cost the Miami-Dade school
district $88 million in 2006-07. According to plaintiffs,
the legislation violated the state constitution’s
guarantee of a uniform high quality education, in addition
to discriminatorily denying equal funding opportunity.
On March 18, 2008 Florida's ACLU tested
a new adequacy theory by filing a class action lawsuit
for poor graduation rates. The lawsuit, Schroeder
et al v. Palm Beach Co Sch. Bd et al, sued
the district for failing to provide a "uniform,
efficient, safe, secure and high-quality education"
for all students. The Circuit Court ruled in the summer
of 2009 that there is no private right of action against
individual school boards for enforcement of the right
to an adequate education under Art IX, sec 1.
In November 2009, two lawsuits were filed alleging that
the state has failed to provide an adequate education
in accordance with the enhanced requirements of the
1998 constitutional amendment.
In Citizens
for Strong Schools, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Education,
plaintiffs, two non-profit advocacy organizations and
five families, state that the new constitutional amendment
is the only one in the United States that mandates all
of the following: a high quality education, specific
characteristics of the educational system; and the elevation
of education above other governmental functions. They
allege that the state has failed to meet each of these
mandates. Plaintiffs have requested that the Court declare
that the defendants have contravened their constitutional
obligation to provide an adequate, high quality education,
and order the defendants to craft a remedial plan.
Alleging that the low graduation rates for minority
students in Palm Beach County evidence a failure to
provide the “uniform, efficient, safe, secure
and high quality education” guaranteed by Art.
IX, sec. 1 of Florida’s state constitution, plaintiffs
in the second case, Aho
v. State of Florida have amended and re-filed
a complaint that they previously filed in the Circuit
Court for Palm Beach County. In contrast to the first
complaint, which listed only the Palm Beach County School
Board and Superintendent as defendants, this complaint
also joins as defendants the state, the governor, legislative
leaders and the Florida State Board of Education and
Department of Education. The innovative approach taken
by the plaintiffs in this case alleges a constitutional
deficiency based on the inadequacy of schooling outputs
( i.e. low graduation rates for minority students) rather
than on inadequacies in educational inputs ( i.e. funding,
teacher quality, facilities, etc.). The relief requested
is to require the defendants to “improve the overall
graduation rate” rather than, as in most adequacy
cases, to reform the state education finance system
to provide additional resources to high needs districts.
Last updated: December 2009 |
