|
Pending school finance cases in ten states include a claim for increased state
funding for preschool education. In recent months, there have been notable
developments in several of these cases. Trials will begin later this year in
a few of these cases, and some important appellate decisions are also expected.
Education Law Center, through the Starting
at 3 and
Education Justice initiatives, has been and will continue to be involved in
many of these cases—representing "friends of the court" and
writing amicus briefs, advising counsel, and helping to prepare for trial.
Here is an update on the status of these cases. More details can be found here.
Starting
At 3 will continue to provide the latest accurate information as litigation
proceeds.
Alaska
In June 2007, following a trial, the court in Moore v. State 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. Preschool education was found not to be required under the state constitution.
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, anticipating further evidence on the use of preschool education as a remedy to "adequately maintain" schools, particularly in underperforming districts. The remedy phase of the trial is scheduled to begin in October 2008.
Arizona
Espinoza v. State of Arizona, filed in September 2006 on behalf of low-income, minority, and ELL students, challenges Arizona’s high stakes high school exit exams and the state’s school funding scheme. In enumerating the deficiencies in the state’s educational system, and suggesting remedies, the plaintiffs assert, "There are known and effective programs to assist economically disadvantaged students in overcoming … barriers to success in school and achieving the state’s prescribed academic standards. Those programs and strategies include … preschool programs[.]" Trial began in June 2008. A copy of the complaint is available here.
Colorado
Plaintiffs in Lobato v. Colorado, filed in June 2005, challenge the constitutionality of the school finance system, alleging that funding is inadequate and not based on the actual costs of an adequate, quality education. Funding for preschool is sought as a remedy: Plaintiffs assert that "[p]reschool and full-day kindergarten programs are necessary to assure all at-risk students an opportunity for quality education[.]"
On March 2, 2006, the trial court granted the state's motion to dismiss the complaint. The state Court
of Appeals affirmed this dismissal on January 24, 2008. Plaintiffs have appealed the decision to
the state Supreme Court, and Education Law Center has filed an amicus brief in
support of the plaintiffs.
Connecticut
This case, now known as Carroll-Hall v. Rell, was filed in November 2005 by the Connecticut
Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) against the Governor and
other state officials, alleging that the State’s flawed education funding system denied schoolchildren suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities under the State Constitution. CCJEF’s complaint asserts that full-day kindergarten and high quality preschool are "essential components of a suitable educational opportunity."
The State's motion to strike most of the complaint was granted on September
17, 2007, leaving only the claim that the state fails to provide schoolchildren
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 filed an amicus
brief in support of the plaintiffs.
Georgia
The Consortium for Adequate
School Funding in Georgia (CASFG), a consortium of 51 rural school systems, filed a lawsuit in September 2004 against the State of Georgia, seeking adequate funding for Georgia's schools under the education and equal protections clauses of the Georgia constitution. Among other remedies, the plaintiffs specifically seek increased state funding for preschool education. The State has 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.
Indiana
Bonner v. Daniels, filed in 2006, challenges the constitutionality
of Indiana’s
school finance system. Among other claims, plaintiffs allege that funding for
full-day kindergarten and preschool is an integral component of a public education.
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 ELC 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
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. In 1998, in the fifth Abbott decision issued by the Court, the Court ordered the state to provide students in the Abbott districts with "well-planned, high quality preschool" for all three- and four-year-olds.
The School Funding Reform Act of 2008 (SFRA), passed in January 2008, 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. Education
Law Center’s brief and amici briefs have been filed, and the Court
has scheduled oral argument for
September 22, 2008.
South Carolina
The plaintiffs in Abbeville Cty. Sch. Dist. v. State allege that the state’s system of school funding violates the state constitution's education clause, the state and federal constitutions' equal protection clauses, and the state Education Finance Act. 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 court stated that "effective early childhood intervention from prekindergarten through grade 3 is essential…," and in response, the legislature instituted a pilot program of full-day preschool for at-risk four-year-olds in the plaintiff school districts, beginning in the 2006-2007 school year. The trial court denied plaintiffs’ claims for relief respecting school facilities, qualified teachers and supplemental programs.
Cross-appeals of the trial court’s decision were filed with the state
Supreme Court, and Education Law Center represented and wrote an amicus
brief for the League of Women Voters of South Carolina and the South Carolina
Conference of the NAACP urging the Court to uphold the trial court’s early
childhood remedy.
Education Justice at Education Law Center also filed an amicus
brief in
support of the plaintiffs’ appeal. Oral argument was heard on June 25,
2008.
South Dakota
South Dakota Coalition of Schools v. State was filed in 2006, claiming that insufficient school funding through the state formula has made caused many districts to cut programs and services, denying children in the state their constitutional right to an adequate and quality education. The complaint 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 there is insufficient funding for necessary prekindergarten programs. The case is in the discovery phase and is scheduled for trial in September 2008.
Washington
In McCleary v. State, parents, students, and a statewide coalition of advocacy groups, school districts, and teachers’ unions allege that the state has been reducing its funding of K-12 education, and as a result, classes are large, teachers are underpaid, and funds aren’t available for supplemental programs for at-risk populations and other important reforms. One educational failure asserted by the plaintiffs is the lack of kindergarten readiness programs necessary to provide a "basic education" as mandated by the state constitution.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion on August 24, 2007, and trial is expected to begin in the Spring of 2009. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint is available here.
For more information about the Starting At 3 project and litigation strategies
relating to state-funded prekindergarten programs, contact Project Director
Ellen Boylan, Esq., at eboylan@edlawcenter.org or (973) 624-1815, ext. 18.
Prepared: July 2008
|
