Pending Litigation

The following pending school finance cases include a claim for increased state funding for preschool education:

Alaska: Moore v. State,
Superior Court of Alaska, Anchorage

Case brought in 2004 by parents of Alaska schoolchildren, three school districts, a nonprofit advocacy group, and the state teachers' union. Plaintiffs claim that the State does not provide schools with enough money to provide an adequate education for all students, and that the money that is provided is distributed inequitably. Results of the inadequate funding include: high teacher turnover; schools that are unable to offer high school math and science courses; high percentages of schools without counselors, nurses, social workers and access to psychologists; and many schools lacking textbooks, libraries and teaching supplies. Plaintiffs also allege that most schools are unable to offer pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten, despite research showing that such programs help at-risk students succeed in school.

Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the inequitable funding, the schools educating the most low-income and minority children have the greatest resource deficits, and these deficits lead to students in these schools scoring below minimum standards of achievement. They ask the court to declare the current funding system unconstitutional, to declare what elements an adequate education must include, to order an analysis of the costs of providing an adequate education, and to order that the State fund the educational system in accordance with the results of the cost study.

In August 2005, the trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ education clause claims, finding these were justiciable. In November 2005, the court denied the State’s motion to dismiss based on various jurisdictional and standing issues. In June 2006, the court denied the State’s third motion to dismiss, which was premised on the theory that any actions by the legislature to establish and fund schools are constitutionally adequate unless they "are so irrational or arbitrary … as to shock the universal sense of justice."

Trial in the case began in October 2006. In its June 2007 decision, the trial court found that a lack of state oversight and remedial efforts in school districts with weak outcomes violated the state’s constitutional duty to provide an adequate education, although state funding, standards, and assessments were held to be constitutionally adequate. Education for children younger than five was found not to be required under the state constitution, although the court acknowledged the “considerable evidence” of the benefits of prekindergarten programs.

The court enjoined the state from denying a high school diploma to students who fail the high school assessment, until the state proves it is providing adequate oversight and ensuring adequate remedial programs in districts with low pass rates. The court stayed its decision until June 2008 to allow the state to address the issue of oversight for these districts. Hearings were held, and in June 2008 the court ordered the parties to enter into mediation to attempt to reach an agreement on the adequacy of oversight.

Significantly, the court appeared to reconsider its June 2007 ruling on prekindergarten, stating that it anticipated further evidence on the use of preschool education as a remedy to “adequately maintain” schools, particularly in underperforming school districts.

The remedy phase of the trial is scheduled to begin in October 2000.

Arizona: Espinoza v. State of Arizona
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County

Case filed in September 2006, challenging Arizona’s high stakes high school exit exams on behalf of low-income, minority, and ELL students. The case also alleges that the state educational finance scheme is arbitrary, insufficient, and discriminatory. Among the deficiencies in the state’s educational system, the plaintiffs point to its failure “to provide additional funds for resources and programs to address the special needs of economically disadvantaged students … [and] racial and ethnic minority students[.]” Plaintiffs further assert, “There are known and effective programs to assist economically disadvantaged students in overcoming those barriers to success in school and achieving the state’s prescribed academic standards. Those programs and strategies include … preschool programs[.]”

The case went to trial in June 2008. A copy of the complaint is available here.

Colorado: Lobato v. Colorado
District Court, City and County of Denver

Case filed in June 2005 by parents and school districts in Colorado alleging violation of the right to a "thorough and uniform" education under the State's constitution. Plaintiffs challenge the school finance system, alleging that it is not based on a valid determination of the actual cost of an adequate, quality education. Plaintiffs are also challenging the inadequacy of funding for programs and services for at-risk students, English language learners, students with disabilities, gifted and talented students, transportation and capital construction. In addition, plaintiffs have made increased funding for preschool an important component of their case, claiming that "[p]reschool and full-day kindergarten programs are necessary to assure all at-risk students an opportunity for quality education" under the State constitution, state school reform laws, and the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

The complaint further alleges that two provisions in the Colorado Constitution prevent the state and school districts from raising and expending the funds necessary to provide a constitutionally adequate education: the Taxpayers Bill of Rights, or TABOR, which limits by formula the amount of money the state and local governments can collect each year and requires voter approval for any new taxes; and the Gallagher Amendment, which ties the assessed valuation of residential property to that of non-residential property and has resulted in a depressed property tax base in many districts.

On March 2, 2006, the trial court entered an order granting the state's motion to dismiss the complaint. The trial court found: (1) the state constitution grants the legislature exclusive authority to set education appropriations and determine educational adequacy, thereby precluding the court from exercising jurisdiction over the case; (2) local school districts, as political subdivisions of the state, lack standing to challenge a state statute that directs their performance; (3) plaintiffs claim that the funding system violates the state constitutional requirement of uniformity of taxes is without merit because local school districts, not the state, set school tax levies; and (4) Amendment 23 to the constitution, which mandates a minimum yearly increase in education funding—annual growth at the rate of inflation plus one percent—is consistent with the education clause in the constitution. The state Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal on January 24, 2008. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the state Supreme Court. Education Law Center has filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

Connecticut: Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell (Carroll-Hall v. Rell)
Superior Court of Connecticut, Hartford

Case filed in November 2005 by the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) against Governor Jodi Rell and other state officials, alleging that Connecticut schoolchildren are being denied suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities under the State Constitution due to the State’s flawed education funding system. CCJEF represents dozens of school districts and their school children, including children in the sixteen lowest performing districts. The complaint asserts that full-day kindergarten and high quality preschool are educational inputs that are "essential components of a suitable educational opportunity." Other essential educational inputs for which plaintiffs seek increased levels of state funding include programs and services for at-risk students, highly qualified teachers, and a rigorous curriculum.

The State's motion to strike three counts of the complaint was granted on September 17, 2007, leaving only Count 3 of the complaint viable (failure to provide plaintiffs with substantially equal educational opportunities). Plaintiffs appealed this dismissal to the state Supreme Court, and oral argument was heard on April 22, 2008. Education Law Center has filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.

Copies of CCJEF’s cost study, plaintiffs’ complaint, pleadings, and briefs are available on CCJEF’s website.

Georgia: Consortium for Adequate School Funding v. State of Georgia
Superior Court of Georgia, Fulton County

Case filed in September 2004 by the Consortium for Adequate School Funding in Georgia (CASFG), a consortium of 51 rural school systems, along with 5 of its member systems and 33 students and 17 parents in these systems. The complaint seeks adequate funding for Georgia's schools under the education and equal protections clauses of the Georgia constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs seek an increased level of state financing for the basic education program for all of Georgia's schools in order to meet higher educational standards and new systems of accountability; increased funding for programs for students at risk for academic failure; funding for capital construction; and increased state funding for special education and preschool education.

In October 2005, the trial court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The court rejected the State’s argument that the separation of powers doctrine precluded the court from hearing the case, citing the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling in McDaniel v. Thomas. McDaniel found a constitutional duty on the part of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the education finance system. Referring to the language in the Georgia Constitution providing that "[t]he provision of an adequate public education for the citizens shall be a primary obligation of the State of Georgia," the trial court also rejected the argument that the State could not be held accountable for the inadequacy of the school finance system because education is solely a local responsibility. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that the education funding system violated the state equal protection clause, again citing McDaniel, which held that the equal protection clause does not impose a duty on the State to equalize every student’s opportunity to obtain an adequate education.

In January 2006, the Georgia Supreme Court denied the State’s motion for interlocutory review of the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The State moved for summary judgment, and the trial court will hear oral argument on that motion on July 22, 2008. Trial is set to begin on October 21, 2008.

A copy of plaintiffs’ complaint, brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, the trial court’s ruling on the motion, and other legal documents relating to the case are available on CASFG’s website.

Indiana: Bonner v. Daniels
Superior Court, Marion County

Class action lawsuit filed in 2006 by nine Indiana schoolchildren and their parents challenging for the first time the constitutionality of Indiana’s school finance system. The students, who reside in low-income, low-performing school districts with high concentrations of minority students, allege that the state system for funding public schools fails to allow Indiana’s most vulnerable students—those disadvantaged by poverty, disability and limited English proficiency, and members of racial and ethnic minorities—the opportunity to acquire the minimum knowledge and skills mandated by the Indiana Constitution and essential to successful and productive citizenship. The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Indiana State Teachers Association (ISTA), claims that the State’s foundation aid and "complexity index" for additional funding for at-risk students bear no rational relationship to meeting achievement of the State’s education standards or the complexity of a school district’s student population. Plaintiffs also allege that funding for full-day kindergarten and preschool are integral components of a public education. The complaint seeks a judgment declaring that the state system of financing elementary and secondary public education violates the education, due process and equal protection clauses of the Indiana Constitution.

Prior to trial, the case was dismissed in January 2007 on standing and separation of powers grounds, but plaintiffs appealed. Education Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. On May 2, 2008, the Indiana Court of Appeals overruled the trial court’s dismissal, relying extensively on the amicus brief, and found plaintiffs’ claims “clearly justiciable.” The court also held that the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution “provides Indiana’s children with the right to a public education…” The State is appealing to the Indiana Supreme Court.

New Jersey: Abbott v.Burke
New Jersey Supreme Court

In New Jersey’s long running Abbott v. Burke case, filed in 1981, the Supreme Court of New Jersey has ordered the state to provide children in the state's 31 low-wealth, urban school districts—known as the Abbott districts—with a thorough and efficient system of education. The Court has repeatedly found the state’s education funding laws to be unconstitutional as applied to the Abbott districts because they fail to guarantee sufficient funds to enable students in those districts to achieve the requisite academic standards. In 1998, in the fifth Abbott decision issued by the Court, the Court ordered the state to provide students in the Abbott districts with safe and adequate facilities and appropriate supplemental, or at-risk, programs, including intensive early literacy, small class size, social and health services, and “well-planned, high quality preschool” for all three- and four-year-olds.

By 2006-2007, as a result of the Abbott rulings, New Jersey was serving 25% of its four-year-olds and 15% of its three-year-olds in its state preschool programs. New Jersey ranks first in the country in the amount of state resources expended on preschool, spending an average of $11,831 per child in the Abbott preschool program.

In January 2008, the state legislature passed the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), which ends the Abbott district designation and eliminates many of the reforms ordered by the Supreme Court. SFRA maintains preschool funding in the 31 Abbott districts and incrementally expands funding to other districts, but also replaces needs-based funding, which has supported the Abbott preschool program’s success, with a flat per pupil amount. The statute also fails to incorporate Court-mandated preschool quality standards.

On March 17, 2008, the state filed a motion with the Court for “a determination that the School Funding Reform Act of 2008 is constitutional and therefore the remedial remedies [sic] previously ordered in [Abbott v. Burke] are no longer required[.]” Education Law Center, on behalf of the children in the Abbott districts, opposed the state’s motion and has asked the Court to maintain the Abbott district designation and the Court’s remedial orders, including preschool. Plaintiffs assert that without the Abbott designation, there is no assurance that the state will continue to meet its constitutional obligation to adequately fund the high quality preschool program in the state’s low-income urban districts. Briefs of the parties and amici have been filed, and the Court has scheduled oral argument for September 22, 2008.

South Carolina: Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. State
South Carolina Circuit Court, Lee County

Forty school districts, their students and their taxpayers brought this action against the state and various government officials, seeking a declaratory judgment that the state’s system of school funding violated the state constitution's education clause, the state and federal constitutions' equal protection clauses, and the state Education Finance Act.

In 1999, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that the state constitution requires the General Assembly to provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education. It defined this standard as requiring the provision of adequate and safe facilities in which children receive the opportunity to acquire: "1) the ability to read, write, and speak the English language, and knowledge of mathematics and physical science; 2) a fundamental knowledge of economic, social, and political systems, and of history and governmental processes; and 3) academic and vocational skills."

The State Supreme Court remanded the case for trial, and in December 2005, the trial court ruled that South Carolina’s schoolchildren were being denied their right to an education under the South Carolina Constitution because of the State’s failure to develop and fund early childhood intervention programs "designed to address the impact of poverty on children’s educational abilities and achievements."

The trial court found that the State’s failure to adequately fund programs "to deal with specific needs of children in poverty in their early childhood years" deprives those children of their right to an education. The trial court stated that "effective early childhood intervention from prekindergarten through grade 3 is essential…," although it did not specify the types of programs the State should provide. In response to the court’s order, the legislature instituted a two-year pilot program of full-day preschool for at-risk four-year-olds in eight of the plaintiff school districts, beginning in the 2006-2007 school year.

Plaintiffs and defendants both filed motions for reconsideration, which the court denied in July of 2007. Cross-appeals were filed with the state Supreme Court, and Education Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. Education Law Center also represented and wrote an amicus brief for the League of Women Voters of South Carolina and the South Carolina NAACP. Oral argument was heard on June 25, 2008.

South Dakota: South Dakota Coalition of Schools v. State
South Dakota Circuit Court

Case filed in 2006 by a coalition of 59 school districts, elementary and high school students in those districts, and their parents, suing as taxpayers and on behalf of their children. Plaintiffs claim that the state constitution guarantees all children in the state the right to an adequate and quality education, but that insufficient funding through the state formula has made it necessary for many districts to cut programs and services. The school finance formula places undue restriction on districts. State aid increases are limited to 3% a year, and the law strictly limits the local property tax rates for school funds, at levels too low to enable property-poor districts to support their schools adequately. Plaintiffs rely on an independent cost study commissioned by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota that found the annual school funding shortfall was between $133.6 million and $405.7 million. Plaintiffs seek an order declaring that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution; the current education finance system is unconstitutional; and education funding must be based on the actual costs of providing an education that allows all children to meet state standards and achievement requirements and to function productively in society.

The complaint further asserts that "high-quality early childhood and pre-school services" are among the "essential resources that South Dakota students need to acquire" the knowledge and skills necessary "to be effective citizens and workers[.]" The complaint also points out that school districts can’t offer necessary pre-kindergarten programs due to insufficient funding.

The case is in the discovery phase and is scheduled for trial in September 2008.

Washington: McCleary v. State
Washington Superior Court, King County

Representative parents and students from Washington public schools, along with a statewide coalition of advocacy groups, school districts, and teachers’ unions, sued the state, alleging that the state has been reducing its funding of K-12 education, and now ranks about 42nd in spending per pupil among the 50 states. Because of the lack of funding, classes are large, teachers are underpaid, funds aren’t available for supplemental programs for at-risk populations, professional development and up-to-date technology are lacking, special subjects and extracurricular activities have been cut, high school graduation rates are low, and test scores on basic skills are poor.

One of the state’s educational failures asserted by the plaintiffs is the lack of kindergarten readiness programs necessary to provide a “basic education” as mandated by the state constitution. The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the state to fully fund, with stable and dependable resources, a broad and comprehensive basic education for all Washington children, as mandated by the state constitution. The plaintiffs also want the state to be required first “to promptly determine the complete, actual dollar cost of providing that Constitutionally required basic education[.]”

The court denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion on August 24, 2007. Trial is expected in the Spring of 2009. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is available here.