Overview
In the mid-1960’s, public school finance
became a growing source of research and scholarship among
experts in education law. The consistent recommendation of these
studies and writings was to totally reform statewide systems of
public school finance. More specifically, experts called for the
removal of fiscal barriers to equal educational opportunities
caused by a direct and almost total reliance on local
property tax revenues. The slogan of the era was and remains
today, “No child should be destined to a level of educational
quality by accident of their birth.” Vacca and Bosher (2003)
Suffice it to say, the quest for fiscal neutrality
continues, and in 2005 public school finance remains a matter of
serious discussion in the legislative chambers of every
statehouse in this nation.
The purpose of this commentary is twofold.
First, to briefly review the past history of public school
finance litigation to demonstrate the gradual legal and policy
shift from equality, to equity, to adequacy of expenditures per
student. Second, to examine a sampling of more recent issues and
case law in an effort to identify current implications for local
school system policy makers.
Early Case Law: In Search of Equality.
As public education moved through the late-1960’s,
plaintiffs sought equality (equal dollar amounts per pupil) in
state funding. In these early cases petitioners followed a
similar judicial path. As a general rule, they took their cases
into federal court where they claimed that public school finance
formulas in their respective states (the foundation of which was
the local property tax) were not “fiscally neutral.” Petitioners
relied on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and argued that state finance formulas (supported by
state law) actually create a form of “wealth discrimination”
between classes of children living in the same state. McInnis
v Shapiro (Ill.1968) and Burruss v Wilkerson
(Va. 1968)
Petitioners in the early cases did not
prevail in their quest for fiscal equality. The major reasons
for their lack of success were clear. The 1960’s judges were
convinced that: (1) the existing disparities in per pupil
expenditures between public school districts were not the direct
result of an invidious discrimination, (2) the existing
financial disparities between local school districts were
directly ascribable to the abundance or lack of local taxable
values available to produce funds for schools, and (3) state
legislative bodies and courts of law are the proper places to
remedy existing problems in public school finance.
The Mid-1970’s and the Quest for Equity.
Different from equality (i.e., sameness)
equity means fairness. In the early 1970’s the
locus of litigation changed from the federal courts to the state
courts where plaintiffs successfully claimed that the public
school finance formulas in their respective states (which relied
heavily on local property tax revenues) violated their state
constitution’s education mandate. Plaintiffs were able to show
that the finance formula and relevant statutes in their state
unfairly caused substantial disparities in per pupil
expenditures between local school systems. Evidence presented
convinced the court that the state’s finance scheme was not
fiscally neutral, and actually discriminated against poor
school districts, because per pupil expenditures were dependent
on local wealth. Access to educational opportunities, they
argued, should not be conditioned by local wealth. Serrano v
Priest (Cal. 1971) and Robinson v Cahill (N.J.
1973)
The United States Supreme Court Speaks.
In a Texas public school finance case, the United States Supreme
Court, by a vote of 5 to 4, continued the trend away from the
federal courts as sources of remedy. Public education, stated
Justice Powell, is not an explicit right under the United States
Constitution. Public education is a basic responsibility of each
state. San Antonio v Rodriguez (1973) While acknowledging
that financial disparities did exist between the local school
districts in Texas, the high court nevertheless did not hold
that the Texas finance system was unconstitutional. The United
States Supreme Court is not the proper forum in which to seek
resolution of such problems, said Justice Powell. The resolution
of fiscal disparities in public school finance, he said, “must
come from the lawmakers and from the democratic pressures of
those who elect them.” Rodriguez (1973)
Finance Litigation Post-Rodriguez.
Consistently citing Rodriguez, the emphasis in state
court decisions was to put the responsibility for fashioning a
constitutional system of public school finance back in the hands
of state legislators. The New Jersey Supreme Court, for example,
held that New Jersey’s school finance system, which heavily
relied on local taxation and created disparities in per pupil
expenditures, violated that State’s constitutional mandate to
furnish all children of school age with a “thorough and
efficient system of public schools.” Robinson v Cahill
((1973). To remedy this situation, the court ordered the
legislature to “immediately devise a new financial scheme for
public education in that state.” Vacca and Bosher (2003)
Another good example is Horton v Meskill
(1977), where the Connecticut Supreme Court focused on the
guarantees of that State’s constitution. In Connecticut, said
the high court, public education is a right of all children of
school age. What is more, the right to education is so basic and
fundamental that any infringement of it cannot be justified. It
therefore follows that a statewide system of public school
finance that depends primarily on a local property without
regard to the disparity in financial ability must be
legislatively remedied. Horton (1977)
The 1970’s also were the decade in which
the accountability movement in education took hold. As
one expert accurately forecast, “Although the term
‘accountability’ is too new in the educational vocabulary to
have acquired a standard usage, there is little doubt about its
general meaning and import for schools. The basic idea it
conveys is that school systems and schools, or, more precisely,
the professional educators who operate them, should be
responsible for educational outcomes—for what children learn.”
Barro, (1970) This began an era in which money spent (input) on
public education would be directly linked to student achievement
and academic progress (output).
The Quest for Adequacy. As public
education moved into the late-1970’s, state legislatures enacted
statutes establishing mandatory programs of statewide student
academic competency testing. The intent of these new programs
was to ensure (through the use of standardized testing methods)
that all children in the public schools receive a basic,
adequate, and effective education. Spending alone, said the
proponents of statewide academic standards and testing, does not
guarantee increased student academic mastery. The State of
Florida’s literacy testing requirement was one of the first to
be taken into court. Debra P. v Turlington (1983)
During the 1980’s and 1990’s more than half
of the states had public school finance cases before their
highest court. The judicial analysis in these cases focused less
on unequal funding and more on resulting inadequacies in
educational expenditures and programmatic opportunities
available to school age children, when comparing one school
system to others in the same state. Vacca and Bosher (2003) As
the Supreme Court of Kentucky opined, “The system of common
schools must be substantially uniform throughout the state. Each
child, every child, in this Commonwealth must be provided
with an equal opportunity to have an adequate education…. The
children of the poor and the children of the rich, the children
who live in the poor districts and the children who live in the
rich districts must be given the same opportunity and access to
an adequate education.” Rose v Council for Better Education,
Inc. (Ky. 1989)
In 1994, the Supreme Court of Virginia
declared that education under the Virginia Constitution is a
fundamental right of all children of school age in that
Commonwealth. However, the court stated that “nowhere does the
Constitution require equal, or substantially equal, funding or
programs” in each public school division of the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Scott v Commonwealth (1994)
As public school finance litigation moved
into the late 1990’s the courts continued to emphasize,
“spending money was not the sole criterion of measuring equal
educational opportunity.” Vacca and Bosher (2003) Expenditures
must equate to improved student academic performance. The
measure of success is that children of school age within a
state, whatever their geographic location and/or socio-economic
status, “are being adequately educated so that they are able to
participate fully in society.” DeRolph v State (OH.
1997)
In 1997, for example, the North Carolina
Supreme Court held that the equal opportunities clause of that
state’s constitution does not require “equal funding or
educational advantages in all school systems.” Instead, the
court said that North Carolina’s system of public school finance
must provide all children of school with a “sound basic
education.” Leandro v State (N.C. 1997)
Recent Issues and Case Law
In 2002, the Alabama Coalition
for Equity challenged the State of Alabama’s system of public
school finance. Plaintiffs claimed that the finance system
violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution.
The court ruled against the Coalition. In doing so the court
assumed the traditional judicial reluctance to usurp the
authority of the Alabama Legislature. “School finance matters,”
said the court, “are the prerogative of the legislative branch
and not judges.” Ex Parte James (Ala. 2002)
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v New
York (2003) demonstrates the current emphasis on adequacy in
educational finance. The State of New York constitution mandates
that “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and
support of s system of free common schools, wherein all the
children of this state may be educated.” Plaintiff parties
claimed, among other things, that the State of New York fails to
support New York City’s public school children with the
educational opportunities mandated.
Interpreting New York’s constitutional
mandate the court stated that children of school age must be
given access to a “sound basic education, one that
prepares them to function productively as civic participants.”
The court equated a sound basic education to “the basic
literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable
children to eventually function productively as civic
participants capable of voting and serving on a jury.” The court
also stated that a sound basic education entitles
children to minimally adequate physical facilities and
classrooms, to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably
up-to-date curricula, and to sufficient personnel adequately
trained to teach reading, writing, mathematics, science, and
social studies. Moreover, just because a school system does not
meet minimal state standards does not equate to a constitutional
violation. Because so many children report for school with
socio-economic and cultural backgrounds that put them “at risk,”
said the court, “state and local school officials can’t be
blamed for poor results, they should be praised for success.”
Coalition for Fiscal Equity (2003)
More recently, Nagy v Evansville-Vandenburgh
School Corp. (2004) involved a related issue, student fees.
In this case a local school board charged students from
kindergarten through the twelfth grade a twenty-dollar activity
fee. The fee was decided upon and implemented as a means to
solve school system budget deficits without raising local taxes.
Two primary factors were cited as causing the deficit and these
were: (1) the state’s failure to provide anticipated funds, and
(2) rising operational costs. The school system was required by
law to balance the budget. The activity fees collected were
deposited in the school system’s general fund along with local
property revenues and state funds, and were to be solely used to
cover educational expenses.
The Indiana Court of Appeals saw the
activity fee as a form of tuition. Thus, the court held that the
fee violated the State of Indiana’s constitution. Because the
state constitution requires a “uniform system of public
schools,” students shall not be charged tuition. Nagy
(2004)
Policy Implications
In 2005, while the legal
authority and responsibility for providing public education
resides with each state, the lion’s share of money spent on
providing public education in each community still comes from
local property tax revenues. It therefore follows that local
school systems must keep the confidence of local taxpayers.
School officials must demonstrate that local taxpayers are
receiving a positive return for their growing financial
investment.
As the discussion above demonstrates, the
current era in public school finance can best be described as
one of in which the emphasis is on providing all children of
school age with access to a sound, basic, and adequate
education. Within this context parents and other taxpayers hold
school boards, administrators, teachers, and staff directly
accountable for results. Thus, whether a local school board is
fiscally dependent or fiscally independent the
legal ramifications and policy implications of school finance
litigation are many. It therefore behooves school boards to make
it clear in policy that:
·
Expenditures are linked to the educational program
(curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular) of each
school, and to the improvement of every student’s academic
performance.
·
Management of the fiscal affairs of the school
system is of paramount importance to the school board,
administration, teachers, and other staff.
·
Expenditures of all funds allocated for school
system maintenance and operation will be accurately monitored,
reported, and duly recorded.
·
All budgetary decisions are data-driven and the
results of strategic planning.
·
All expenditures are subject to regular and
continuous scrutiny by internal and external audits.
·
Administrators and staff members are required to
follow uniform procedures for purchasing and expenditure
reporting and are held directly accountable for funds allocated
to them.
·
The community will be kept fully and regularly
informed regarding school system budgetary matters.
In 2005, money spent (input) and student
educational progress (output) are inextricably linked. Thus, the
bottom line is that local boards of education, administrators,
teachers, and other staff must demonstrate: that (1) all funds
allocated (no matter what the revenue source) are wisely spent
and accounted for, and (2) all children have progressed
(especially in the academic subject subjects) and are
educationally better for what the school system has provided.
Resources Cited
Barro, Stephen M., An Approach to
Developing Accountability Measures for the Public Schools,
52 Phi Delta Kappan 196 (December 1970)
Burruss v Wilkerson, 301 F.Supp. 1237 (W.D.
Va. 1968)
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc., et al. v
State of New York, 2003 N.Y. Lexis 1678 (N.Y.Ct.App. 2003)
Debra P. v Turlington, 730 F.2d 1405 (11th
Cir. 1983)
DeRolph I v State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (OH.
1997)
Ex Parte James, 836 So.2d 813 (Ala. 2002)
Horton v Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (Conn. 1997)
Leandro v State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 19970
McInnis v Shapiro, 293 F.Supp. 327 (N.D.
Ill. 1968)
Nagy v Evansville-Vandenburgh, 808 N.E.2d
221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004)
Robinson v Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973)
Rose v Council for Better Education, Inc.,
790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989)
San Antonio v Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973)
Scott v Commonwealth, 433 S.E.2d 138 (Va.
1994)
Serrano v Priest, 487 P.2d 1241 (Cal. 1971)
Vacca, Richard S. and William C. Bosher,
Jr., LAW AND EDUCATION: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND COURT DECISIONS,
Sixth Edition (LexisNexis 2003)
Williams v School Board, 417 P.2d 376
(Ariz. 1966)
Richard S. Vacca
Senior Fellow CEPI
Note: The views expressed in this
commentary are those of the author. |
