Major
Plaintiff Victory in CFE v. State: Court Affirms that Money Matters, State
Must Undertake Need-Based Costing Out
On June 26, 2003, the New York State Court of Appeals,
the state's highest court, ruled in Campaign for
Fiscal Equity (CFE) v. State that all children in
New York State are entitled
to a "meaningful high school education." The 4-1 decision
overturned an intermediate appellate court ruling that
said the state constitution only requires an education
encompassing the skills "imparted between grades
eight and nine." The decision also reinstates a
large part of State Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse's
2001 trial
court ruling which ruled that all children have
the constitutional right to a "sound basic education"
that prepares them for capable citizenship and competitive
employment, and that New York's current funding system
fails to meet that standard. (See the CFE
website for more information on the case's 10-year
history and for legal documents pertaining to the case).
Remedy: The remedy laid out by the Court
of Appeals requires a costing-out
study to determine the actual cost of providing a sound basic education, which
the Court defines as a "meaningful high school education," in New York City. CFE
and the New York School Boards Association have partnered with 32 other organizations
across the state to conduct such a study, the New
York Adequacy Project, for all New York school districts, and the results
are expected in March 2004. Once the dollar amount is known, the State, the Court
said, must "ensure" that all New York City schools have the resources they need,
and that there is a system of accountability "to measure whether the reforms actually
provide the opportunity for sound basic education." Although this part of the
decision technically only applies to New York City schools, the "meaningful high
school constitutional standard applies statewide, and it is unlikely that the
State would be able to change the funding system for the nearly 40% of New York
State students that the City educates without changing it statewide. This
remedy was carefully crafted by the court, which expressed concern during the
May 8, 2003 oral arguments that the remedy
reflect the separation of powers and avoid long-term involvement by the courts,
as has occurred in New Jersey.
The decision provides a 13-month deadline (July 30, 2004) for the Legislature
and Governor to do their work. Separation of Powers: The
court also laid down detailed reasons for its intervention in what the State argued
is a legislative issue. Partially in response to the dissent, by Judge Susan P.
Read, the majority opinion, written by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and joined by
Judges George Bundy Smith, Carmen B. Ciparick, and Albert M. Rosenblatt, asserted
that courts are "well suited to interpret and safeguard constitutional rights
and review challenged acts of our co-equal branches of government--not in order
to make policy but in order to assure the protection of constitutional rights."
Only three states--Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, and Illinois--have had court majorities
declare education finance cases non-justiciable. Other States: By
specifying costing-out, resources, and accountability, the court seeks to give
"more detailed remedial instructions" than those in New
Jersey, in order to forestall additional litigation. The court cited the case
of Kentucky's 1989 Rose v. Council for Better Education
decision as an example of a situation in which more direction led to swifter implementation
and no further litigation. The mandate to determine the cost of an adequate education
echoes recent rulings in Arizona, Wyoming,
and Tennessee and policy in Maryland, where, in
early April 2002, the Legislature, without being specifically ordered to do so
by a court, adopted
a new funding system based on the costing-out research of the Maryland Commission
on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence (the "Thornton" Commission).
The CFE ruling should be helpful to plaintiffs
in other state education advocacy cases, including Student
v. Driscoll, currently at trial in Massachusetts,
Abbeville v. State, currently at trial in South
Carolina, Crane Elementary School District v.
State, scheduled to start trial in March 2004, and
California's Williams
v. State, scheduled to start in August 2004. The
court declared in no uncertain terms that "money matters,"
i.e. that resources spent on quality teachers,
facilities, small classes, libraries, etc. are likely
to improve achievement, regardless of the socioeconomic
background of the students. Some State defendants in
school funding lawsuits--California
is a prime example--claim that minority and low-income
students cannot learn. In response, the court said,
"we cannot accept the premise that children come to
the New York City schools ineducable, unfit to learn."
Needs-Based:
In focusing repeatedly on the needs of New York City students and how
to address them, the court's decision was reminiscent of the April 2002 order
of North Carolina Superior Court Judge Howard Manning, who ruled
in Hoke v. State that "at-risk children can learn with effective, individualized
and differentiated instruction delivered by a certified, well-trained, competent
teacher with high expectations" and that "at-risk children require more resources,
time and focused intervention to learn." Updated July 8, 2003 |
