Trials, Appeals, and Compliance Questions in South Carolina, New Jersey, Montana, Massachusetts, Kansas, and Arkansas

In many states across the country, plaintiffs are challenging the adequacy of state school funding systems in state courts. These litigations are currently active in about 25 of the 50 states, and recent events in six states highlight the trials and the many after-trial phases that can be involved in these cases.

Trial On-going in South Carolina

In Clarendon County -- the same county where one of the Brown v. Board of Education lawsuits was filed over 50 years ago -- testimony continues in Abbeville v. State, the school funding "adequacy" case on behalf of low-income, minority students in under-funded rural schools.

Testimony for plaintiffs revealed shockingly low achievement in the plaintiff school districts and claimed that "there are programs . . . available to 'close the education gap' for these children; it is a matter of providing these children with the proper resources." As reported in The State, the director of the state Education Oversight Committee testified that South Carolina has moved into the era of accountability where results matter, yet the education funding system has not been adjusted to reflect that shift. He also testified that hundreds of millions of dollars are needed. Plaintiffs report that the state "has argued that because forty percent of the students in the plaintiff districts score basic or above the state is fulfilling its obligations."

The trial is expected to conclude in June.

Trial Court Decisions Expected Soon in Massachusetts and Montana

In Massachusetts, the trial court is expected to release its decision in that state's school funding case, Hancock v. Driscoll, during the week of April 5.

In Montana's school funding case, Columbia Falls v. State, the trial ended in February, the state and plaintiffs have submitted briefs to the court, and the trial court will hear oral arguments on April 1. Plaintiffs are asking the court to force the Legislature to "determine the components of a quality education, figure out how much they cost, and then provide the necessary funding," as reported recently on NPR's Morning Edition. The trial court may issue its decision as early as the end of April. An appeal to the Montana Supreme Court is anticipated.

Appeal and Legislative Action in Kansas

In Kansas, the trial court declared the state education finance system unconstitutional in Montoy v. State, and issued an Order which the state could not appeal because it was "preliminary." But, the legislature passed a special law to enable the state to appeal immediately, and the state Attorney General did so on March 8, 2004.

While the appeal moves forward, the legislature is in the midst of considering and passing various proposals for funding increases. Plaintiffs have asked the trial court to impose an interim remedy for the 2004-05 school year that would provide more funding for "at-risk" students and to appoint a special master to assess the legislature's progress on enacting a remedy.

Special Masters in Arkansas Assess Compliance with Supreme Court Ruling

In Arkansas, the special masters in the Lake View v. Huckabee case have held hearings and received briefs from the state and the plaintiffs as they analyze the state's recently enacted changes to the school funding system. The special masters were appointed to see if the funding system now meets the state constitution's requirements, as articulated in the supreme court's order of November 2002. They are expected to report their findings to the court on April 3, 2004.

New Jersey Must Restore Funding for High-Need Districts

On March 18, 2004, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered the state Department of Education to restore an estimated $78 to $100 million in funding for certain programs in many of the state's 30 high-need school districts. In a series of court decisions over the years, plaintiffs in New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke litigation have won a comprehensive set of programs and reforms for students in high-need districts, called the Abbott districts. For the 2003-04 school year, the state failed to fund some of these programs, and the Abbott districts followed administrative procedures, followed by appeals in the courts, to secure the funding necessary for specific programs for their "at-risk" students.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, March 30, 2004