Overview
Is there a correlation between
dollars spent on public education and positive results in
student academic mastery and achievement? In my opinion, “the
jury is out on this question.” This past year, the professional
literature and popular media have contained numerous articles
discussing the fiscal impact of No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB) requirements on state and local budgets, rising
costs of providing public education and the tax burden on local
citizens, and the mixed results of student statewide academic
testing data. As one writer recently opined, “Not surprisingly,
performance remains mediocre—despite enormous increases in
school spending” Hinkle (2006) He then goes on to cite the
following statistics showing changes in per pupil spending: “In
1960 the average per-pupil expenditure was $375—about $2,376 in
today’s dollars. The per-pupil expenditure in 2005 was $8,554—a
260 percent increase in constant dollars. Yet every few years
Washington rolls out another reform aimed at correcting the
lamentable fact that Johnny can’t read.” Hinkle (2006)
The Continuing Search for Adequacy.
In April 2005, I devoted my commentary to educational finance
issues and the quest for adequacy in public school
funding. The central purpose of last year’s commentary was to
demonstrate a shift in judicial attitude away from an emphasis
on achieving fiscal neutrality and equality (sameness)
in public school funding and toward the establishment of
adequacy of funds available to all local school districts
within a state. As I suggested last year, the goal was the
establishment of a fiscally equitable (fair) opportunity
for all children of school age, whatever their socio-economic
status or geographical location in a state, to have access to a
basic education. Vacca (2005) Thus, the task became one
of determining the cost of providing basic and
meaningful educational opportunities for all children.
Not intended to rehash the continuing
controversy over NCLB and federal funding (or the lack
thereof), the purpose of this year’s April commentary is
threefold. First, the commentary will briefly restate the law
involving public school finance. Second, recent case law on
point will be presented in an effort to up-date the school
finance scene over the past twelve months--- as the courts have
continued on their quest to establish adequacy in funding.
Third, the last section will suggest legal and policy
implications facing local public school officials in 2006.
Historical Antecedents
Over the past forty years school finance
has remained a constant source of litigation in this nation’s
courts. As Alexander and Alexander observed, “Although the
volume of cases is relatively small compared to other fiscal
matters, the issue of the constitutional rights of students and
the resulting impact on state school finance has probably been
the most widely publicized area of school finance.” Alexander
and Alexander (2005)
Beginning with such early cases as
McInnis v Shapiro (N.D. Ill. 1968) and Serrano v Priest
(Cal. 1971), and reaching a high point in the United States
Supreme Court’s landmark decision in San Antonio v Rodriguez
(1973), judges struggled with issues raised by plaintiffs who
claimed that a direct connection existed between levels of state
funding available to local school systems and resulting
disparities in student academic performance and achievement.
The early cases focused on the fact that
state school funding formulas heavily relied on local real
property taxes. In essence plaintiffs claimed that a reliance on
the value of local property created an inherent discrimination
against children who happened to be born in communities with low
real property values. Plaintiffs claimed that the quality of
educational opportunities available to children of school age
was determined by the wealth of their parents and neighbors.
Vacca and Bosher (2003) To put it another way, the emphasis in
early case law was on connecting the differences in the amounts
of state funds made available to local school districts (input),
the disparities in local spending per student, and levels
of student academic progress and productivity (output).
The claim was that increased funding promoted increased spending
(per student in average daily attendance), and increased
spending produced increased educational quality.
The Impact of Rodriguez. The United
States Supreme Court’s decision in San Antonio I.S.D. v
Rodriguez (1973) initiated a new era in public school
finance litigation. As Justice Powell stated: (1) the importance
of education does not in and of itself bring school finance
issues under the Equal Protection Clause, (2) wealth
discrimination alone does not trigger a strict scrutiny
analysis, and (3) solutions to public school finance problems
where they exist must come from state legislative bodies. Thus,
a new wave of finance litigation was spawned as the locus of
litigating school finance issues and efforts to bring about
finance reform moved to the states.
Decisions from state appellate courts, in
the months following Rodriguez, revealed a new trend in
school finance litigation. Such cases as Robinson v Cahill
(N.J. 1973), Milliken v Green (Mich. 1973), Horton v
Meskill (Conn. 1977), Hernandez v Houston, I.S.D.
(Tex. 1977), Pauley v Kelly (W.Va. 1979), and others are
examples of the new breed of school finance case. At one time
more than twenty states had public school finance cases before
their highest court. Vacca and Bosher (2003)
Public School Finance in the 1980s and
1990s. Experts in public education tell us that
“the twin themes of efficiency and measurement
characterized the approach of the
schools during the second half of the 20th century just as they
did during the first half.” Short and
Greer (2002) These authors stress that the objectives remained
the same;
namely, “guaranteed results in student achievement and efficient
use of resources.”
As public school finance litigation and
subsequent legislative reform efforts moved through the 1980s
and into the 1990s, a shift occurred in judicial philosophy and
a new judicial standard of analysis emerged. When deciding a
public school finance dispute judges consistently focus on the
constitution of the state involved and ask the following
questions: (1) What is the meaning of the language contained in
the education clause of the state’s constitution? A good example
can be found in the Constitution of Virginia where it says, in
part, that the General Assembly shall “seek to ensure that an
educational program of high quality is established and
continually maintained.” VA. Constitution, Article 8, Section 1
(July 1, 1971) (2) Based on that interpretation, what is that
state’s constitutional duty to fiscally support education for
all school-age children in that state? (3) Is that state meeting
its constitutional obligation? Dayton (1992)
State court judges became less inclined to
focus on disparities in funding and inequities in student
expenditures (input), and more inclined to search for
fiscal formulas that achieved adequacy in educational
opportunities made available to all students of school age,
as demonstrated by increased student academic progress and
achievement (output). The roots of the shift can be
observed in such cases as Rose v Council for Better Education,
Inc. (Ky. 1989), Edgewood I.S.D.v Kirby (Tex.
1989), Tennessee Small School Systems v Mc Wherter
(Tenn. 1993), Abbott v Burke (N.J. 1994), Scott v
Commonwealth (Va. 1994), and De Rolph v State (OH.
1997).
Public School Finance
Litigation: 2000 to 2006
Legal experts agree that contemporary
public school finance cases are best characterized as
“educational adequacy” cases. Educational adequacy lawsuits,
states one source, “seek to overturn state educational finance
systems that do not, in the eyes of plaintiffs, provide
sufficient funding for school districts to provide an ‘adequate’
level of support for their students. Unlike the prior generation
of ‘equity’ cases dating back to the 1970’s, these new cases
seek to expand the education ‘pie’ and not merely slice it in a
more equitable manner.” Testani and Munich (2006)
Examples of Recent Court Decisions.
The judicial attitude that the adequacy of a child’s
education (i.e., basic education) must be measured
against the specific constitutional mandate of a given state was
evident in recent case from New York State. R.V. v New York
Department of Education (E.D.N.Y. 2004). In 2005, the State
Supreme Court of Texas was again called upon to judge the
adequacy of that State’s public school finance system. That
year, similar challenges were taken in Vermont, Brigham, et
al.v State of Vermont (Vt. 2005), Massachusetts, Hancock
v Commissioner of Education (Mass. 2005), and in Michigan,
Adair v State, (Mich. App. 2005). Most recently, the
Florida Supreme Court held that a State of Florida voucher
program violated the Florida constitutional education mandate
regarding public schools. Bush v Holmes (2006).
The March 23, 2006, issue of NSBA Legal
Clips reports that six school districts and three families
have filed a lawsuit against the State of Oregon, “alleging law
makers have failed in their constitutional duty to adequately
fund schools.” The suit asks that the court order the state
legislature to appropriate sufficient funding to make state-set
academic goals in reading, writing, math, science, and other
subjects available. That same issue of NSBA Legal
Clips also reports a lawsuit in New Hampshire in which the
“adequate funding of an adequate education” for all children in
that State is before the court. The March 30, 2006, issue of
NSBA Legal Clips reports a New York appellate court’s ruling
that the State of New York “must provide between $4.7 billion
and $5.63 billion in additional operating funds to New York City
to satisfy the state’s ‘constitutional education funding
obligations.’”
Policy Implications
A look at recent case law makes it clear
that issues of public school finance issues are state and local
matters to solve. While the fiscal implications and demands
associated with the implementation of such comprehensive federal
statutes as the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act (IDEA 2004) are stretching state and local education
budgets, the legal responsibility of providing every school-age
child with an adequate and basic education none the less
belongs to state and local governments. Suffice it to say, in an
era of rising operating costs and fiscal accountability the
policy implications for local public school officials are many.
In the twelve months between last year’s
finance commentary and this one, the implications have remained
constant. Thus, the suggestions for policy development and
implementation made in 2005 remain relevant and warrant
repeating in 2006.
In an era of fiscal accountability and
student academic standards, one in which school accreditation is
linked to student test results, local school officials must make
it clear in policy that:
- All
budgetary decisions are data-driven and strategically
planned.
-
Expenditures are directly linked to the educational program,
and are intended to improve and enhance student learning and
academic progress.
- School
officials, administrators, teachers, and staff are held
directly accountable for all funds allocated to them.
-
Expenditures are continually monitored and audited
(internally and externally) and are reported as required by
law.
- The
community will be kept fully and regularly informed
regarding school system budgetary matters and student
achievement.
Local school boards must be prepared to
demonstrate that (1) all funds allocated are wisely and
efficiently spent, and (2) students have developed and
progressed educationally as a result of all funds spent on the
curriculum.
Resources Cited
Abbott v Burke, 693 A.2d 417 (N.J. 1997)
Adair v State, 705 N.W,2d 541 (Mich App.
2005)
Alexander, Kern and Alexander, M. David,
AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL LAW, Sixth Edition (Thompson-West, 2005)
Brigham, et al., v State of Vermont, 899
A.2d 715 (Vt. 2005)
Bush v Holmes, 919 So.3d 392 (Fla. 2006)
Constitution of Virginia, Art.8, Sec 1
(July 1, 1971)
Dayton, John, An Anatomy of School
Funding Litigation, EDUC. LAW REP. 627 (Dec.3, 1992)
DeRolph v State, 678 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio 1997)
Edgewood I.S.D. v Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391
(Tex. 1989)
Hancock v Commissioner of Education, 822
N.E.2d 1134 (Mass. 2006)
Hernandez v Houston I.S.D., 558 S.W.2d 121
(Tex. 1977)
Horton v Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (1977)
Individuals with Educational Disabilities
Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C.A. 1400, et seq. (2004)
Hinkle, A. Barton, Public Education
Arrives at Its Stakhanovite Moment, Richmond Times Dispatch
(Friday, April 22, 2006)
Milliken v Green, 203 N.W.2d 457 (Mich.
1972)
McInnis v Shapiro, 293 F.Supp.327 (N.D.
Ill. 1968)
NASB Legal Clips, Finance (March 23,
2006)
NASB Legal Clips, Finance (March 20,
2006)
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. 6301,et
seq. (2001)
Pauley v Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859 (W.Va. 1979)
Robinson v Cahill, 303 A.2d 273 (N.J. 1973)
Rose v Council for Better Education, Inc,
790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989)
R.V. v New York City Department of
Education, 321 F.Supp.2d 538 (E.D.N.Y. 2004)
San Antonio I.S.D. v Rodriguez, 411 U.S.1
(1973)
Scott v Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 138 (Va.
1994)
Short, Paula M. and Greer, John T.,
LEADERSHIP IN EMPOWERED SCHOOLS, THEMES FROM INNOVATIVE EFFORTS,
Second Edition (Merrill-Prentice Hall, 2002)
Serrano v Priest, 96 Cal Rptr. 601 (Cal.
1971)
Tennessee Small School Systems, Inc. v
McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn.1993)
Testani, Rocco E., and Munich, John R.,
Educational Adequacy Litigation: A Detour on the Road to
Reform. In CRITICAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION LAW (LexisNexis
2006)
Vacca, Richard S., Public School Finance
2005: The Quest for Adequacy, CEPI Education Law Newsletter
(April 2005)
Vacca, Richard S., and Bosher, William C.,
Jr., LAW AND EDUCATION: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES AND COURT DECISIONS,
Sixth Edition (LexisNexis 2003)
Richard S. Vacca
Senior Fellow CEPI
Note: The views expressed in this
commentary are those of the author. |
