|
Louisiana
Historical Background
In 1992, parents and school districts filed complaints
alleging that the state was not providing "a minimum
foundation of education to all children in the public
schools of the state, as required by the Louisiana Constitution"
and pointing to a "plethora of deficiencies"
in buildings, textbooks, quality of teachers, curriculum,
student achievement, and other areas to support their
claims. In 1998, in the consolidated action Charlet
v. Legislature of the State of Louisiana, 713 So.2d
1199, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit,
granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and
the state supreme court denied plaintiffs' writ for
review. The Appeal Court emphasized the constitution's
use of the term "minimum" in concluding that
the state was meeting its constitutional obligations.
The State of Louisiana, in its defense of the funding
system in the Charlet suit, provided the affidavit
of a nationally known education finance consultant who
had been retained by the state to study its school funding
system. The consultant had recommended formula changes
designed to eliminate some of the spending disparities
among the state's school districts by distributing relatively
less state money to the high-wealth districts and relatively
more to the low-wealth districts. The appellate court
concluded that this revised formula, which became law
in 1992, had realized its goal of reducing disparities.
Plaintiff parents and school boards again filed suit
alleging violation of the Louisiana Constitution, in
Jones v. State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
(BESE), 927 So.2d 426 (La. App. 1 Cir. Nov. 4, 2005).
Plaintiffs claimed that the state’s failure to
include the cost of facilities in its formula “ignores
the Constitution’s mandate that the formula be
used to determine the cost of a minimum program of education”
and stated that their school facilities “are inadequate,
deteriorating, and unsafe.” Defendants moved for
summary judgment, a motion which the trial court, affirmed
by the appeals court, granted.
Last Updated March, 2008
|
