The burden of equality in public education 

The U.S. Constitution’s silence on education has sent battles on education funding into state courts.  

 

More than 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made a startling pronouncement: The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a public education for America’s children. 

The context was a school finance case from San Antonio, Texas. Upset parents said the state’s system of funding schools was so skewed it violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which requires Texas (and indeed all states) to treat students equitably. Members of the Edgewood Concerned Parents Association insisted that relying on local property taxes gave some students an outstanding school experience while others learned in squalor and deprivation.  

Nearly every state constitution guarantees students a free public education. 

The parents lost 6-3 at the high court. But that was not the end of it. The legal battle over whether public schools are equitably financed continues to this day. But there is a big difference: Now, the fight has shifted from federal courts to sometimes decades-long clashes in state courts based on a state’s constitution.   

Nearly every state constitution guarantees students a free public education. That responsibility often translates to having suitable money and resources to deliver quality. The conflict arises when plaintiffs believe the state has devised an unfair system for divvying up dollars.  

Money makes a difference   

Discussions about public education inspire intense disagreement; yet few would debate that money matters greatly. Appropriate budgets provide the means to pay for great teachers, effective technology, attractive learning spaces, visionary administrators, safe transportation, a multitude of extracurricular activities, and more. Stark and unjustifiable differences in financial capacity create searing gaps in opportunity and ultimately achievement.   

Significantly, many of the state court cases challenging school financing structures have prevailed. What have been elusive, however, are permanent, sweeping changes that institutionalize a better education for kids in poverty.  

The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics reports that governments nationwide spend a half trillion dollars annually on education. States typically provide about half, local governments supply about 45%, and the remainder comes from the federal government through complex formulas and grants. 

On the defensive 

More than 10 states have active school finance lawsuits, and more than 40 states overall have endured court challenges. Let’s examine four states now embroiled in litigation:  

Connecticut: A trial court judge ruled in December 2013 that a school finance case by the Coalition for Justice in Education Funding was weighty enough to justify a trial. The judge rejected the state’s contention that the suit was outdated due to profound education funding changes since the case was originally filed. The Coalition filed its original claim in 2005 and won at the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2010. The trial to hear the new complaint is scheduled to begin in September 2014.  

Kansas: In March, the Kansas State Supreme Court ruled that funding disparities between school districts violated the state’s constitution and ordered the legislature to close that gap. However, the Court in Gannon vs. Kansas stopped short of telling the legislature how much it should spend to achieve that goal. The lower court had originally ordered the state to increase funding by more than $400 million a year. Instead, the unanimous decision asked the trial court to re-examine the issue of whether the proposed base aid of $4,492 per student — a 17% increase over current funding — would provide an adequate education for all children.  

Although the Kansas decision is not binding on other states, the ruling still could influence courts elsewhere. The Kansas constitution doesn’t expressly call for equitable student funding, instead saying “The Legislature shall make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state.” 

Texas: In early 2013, a state judge declared the Texas school funding system unconstitutional because it failed to provide all children with the same opportunity for a good education. In response, the legislature added $3 billion in state funding for schools and took other measures. Yet, in January 2014, the case was argued once again in court because a group of 600 school districts said that was a good start but not enough. Analysts predict that, whatever the ruling, the decision is almost certain to be appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. This is the sixth school finance case in Texas since 1984.  

New York: Most recently, in February 2014, the advocacy group New Yorkers for Students’ Educational Rights, along with 15 parents of students, filed suit against the state on behalf of New York’s public school students alleging the state is neglecting its state constitutional obligation to ensure that every school has sufficient funding to provide all students a meaningful educational opportunity.   

Active Texas 

Texas has long been a hotbed of activity. The 1973 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court provides an elegant explanation about the roots of the education funding controversy and why education is merely a state right and not federally protected.   

Texas schools were funded by a combination of state aid and local property taxes. A group of Mexican-American parents from Edgewood Independent School District asserted that students living in communities with low property values had been shortchanged. The federal trial court ruled for the parents, saying education is a fundamental right, and the state could offer no rational basis for treating citizens differently based on wealth.  

To what extent can one branch of government, the judiciary, tell the governor and state legislature how to spend taxpayer money? 

That victory was short-lived. Supreme Court justices overturned the ruling, concluding that income is not a “suspect class” and could not be the basis of a court challenge. Then, in a dramatic turn, the Court delivered the stroke that has generated activity since.  While acknowledging the essential nature of education, the Court said public schooling is not a right that can be enforced by the U.S. Constitution.  

“Though education is one of the most important services performed by the State, it is not within the limited category of rights recognized by this Court as guaranteed by the Constitution,” the opinion explained. In fact, the U.S. Constitution is silent on the government’s responsibility to provide an education. 

While admitting the system was flawed, the Court refused to strike it down. In four decades since, conflicts have raged over how much legislatures must spend to meet their obligations under state constitutions. Lurking in the background is a basic civics question: To what extent can one branch of government, the judiciary, tell the governor (executive) and state legislature (legislative) how to spend taxpayer money?  

Race, poverty, and fairness 

Ironically, this battle over funding has caught fire precisely 60 years after the U.S. Supreme Court issued Brown v. Board of Education. While that case primarily focused on destroying a system of racially separate schools, it was also about how state resources were greater in certain schools.  

The unanimous decision written by Chief Justice Earl Warren in Brown explained simply that, “Today, education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments  . . . It is the very foundation of good citizenship . . .  In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.” Notably, that case was brought under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 

That intersection of race, poverty, and fairness was again on trial in a federal case involving Alabama’s school funding method. On Jan. 10, 2014, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that race was not a substantial motivating factor in constructing the Alabama constitution’s property tax formula for distributing education dollars. Therefore, the framework did not discriminate and violate the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.  

What is crystal clear is that no state has perfected a system for parceling out precious funds to schools. But equally transparent is that resources translate to opportunity. Courts are caught in the middle. When dollar distribution formulas are so lopsided that they give some lucky students a superior chance at academic success (and the disparity happens to coincide with neighborhood wealth), that is a step too far. It amounts to cherry-picking which youngsters are more deserving. Such an approach not only defies logic but possibly the law. 

 

More resources 

The Education Law Center (Newark, N.J.) has a compilation of education clauses in individual state constitutions at http://pabarcrc.org/pdf/Molly%20Hunter%20Article.pdf  

For an earlier assessment of socioeconomic education equity issues, see:  

Rebell, M.A. & Wolff, J.R. (2012, March). R&D: Educational opportunity is achievable and affordable. Phi Delta Kappan, 93 (6), 62-65.  

For an earlier legal assessment of school funding equity, see:  

Rebell, M.A. (2008). Adequacy: Equal opportunity and the courts. Phi Delta Kappan, 89 (6), 432-439.  

 

Citation: Darden, E.C. (2014). Ed law: The burden of equality in public education. Phi Delta Kappan, 95 (7), 70-71.