Chapter 5 in Guthrie

1
Chapter 5 in Guthrie
Judicial Review of State Financing Plans

• Dr. Len Elovitz

2
STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF STATE FUNDING

• 1. EQUAL PROTECTION
•  
• A. PEOPLE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS MUST BE TREATED
• EQUALLY
•  
• B. PEOPLE MAY ONLY BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IF
• THE CLASSIFICATIONS CREATED BY THE LAW ARE NOT
• ARBITRARY OR IRRATIONAL
•  
• 2. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CLAUSES
• A. UNIFORM
• B. ADEQUATE
• C. THOROUGH AND/OR EFFICIENT
•  

3
MCINNIS V OGILVIE (SHAPIRO)

• 1. 1969 US DISTRICT COURT ILLINOIS
•  
• 2. COMPLAINT - THAT THE SCHOOL REVENUES BE
  ALLOCATED IN PROPORTION TO STUDENT NEEDS.
  CURRENT SYSTEM IN ILL. VIOLATED EQUAL PROTECTION
•  
• 3. DENIED COURT RULED THAT NO STANDARDS COULD
  BE DEVELOPED THAT WOULD MAKE A DECISION
  JUDICIALLY MANAGEABLE. HOW CAN YOU CONSTRUCT AN
  OBJECTIVE MEASURE OF A CHILDS EDUCATIONAL NEEDS?

4
SERRANO V PRIEST

• 1. 1967 LOS ANGELES AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
•  
• CASE BEFORE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
• TESTIMONY - 1968-69
•  
• 4. CASE WASNT DECIDED UNTIL 1971

5
Serrano Facts

• A. J. SERRANO COMPLAINED TO THE PRINCIPAL ABOUT
  THE QUALITY OF SERVICES OFFERED AT SONS SCHOOL
•  
• B. PRINCIPAL ADVISED THAT DISTRICT COULD NOT
  AFFORD BETTER SERVICES AND COUNSELED A MOVE TO A
  WEALTHIER DISTRICT
•  
• C. COULD NOT AFFORD A MOVE AND BROUGHT SUIT
•  
• D. SINCE ONE CAN ONLY SUE THE LEGISLATURE WITH
  ITS PERMISSION, SUIT WAS BROUGHT AGAINST IVY
  BAKER PRIEST, THE CA TREASURER

6
COMPLAINT

• FUNDING SCHEME WHICH MAKES THE QUALITY OF A
  CHILDS EDUCATION DEPENDENT UPON THE WEALTH OF
  HIS PARENTS AND NEIGHBORS INVIDIOUSLY
  DISCRIMINATES AGAINST THE POOR IS IN
  CONTRAVENTION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF
  THE 14TH AMENDMENT AND PARALLEL CLAUSE IN THE CA
  CONSTITUTION.

7
BEVERLY HILLS BALDWIN PARK
PROPERTY WEALTH 50,000/PUPIL 3,706/PUPIL
EXPENDITURE 1,232/PUPIL 577/PUPIL
TAX RATE 2.38 5.48
STATE AID 125 307
8
DECISION

• A. FAVORED SERRANO
•  
• B. AFFLUENT DISTRICTS CAN HAVE THEIR CAKE AND
  EAT IT TOO THEY CAN PROVIDE A HIGH QUALITY
  EDUCATION FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHILE PAYING LOWER
  TAXES. POOR DISTRICTS, BY CONTRAST HAVE NO CAKE
  AT ALL.
•  
• C. COURT RULED THAT SCHOOL SPENDING IN EXCESS OF
  100/PUPIL COULD NOT BE WEALTH RELATED.
•  
• D. CALIFORNIA BEGAN TO REDUCE DISPARITIES UNTIL
  THEY WERE DEEMED INSIGNIFICANT BY THE COURT
•  
•  
• E. PROPOSITION 13 - CALIFORNIA TODAY

9
RODRIGUEZ V SAN ANTONIO

• 1. 1973
•  
• 2. SUIT BROUGHT BY PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN
  ATTENDED SCHOOLS IN SAN ANTONIO
•  
• 3. COMPLAINT THE TEXAS SYSTEM OF SCHOOL
  FINANCE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL
  PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT
•  
• 4. DECISION IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF BY
  DISTRICT COURT IN 1971 WAS REVERSED BY THE US
  SUPREME COURT IN 1973 IN A 5-4 DECISION

10
EDGEWOOD ALAMO HEIGHTS
STUDENTS 22,000 5,000
SCHOOLS 25 6
MINORITY 96 19
MEDIAN INCOME 4,686 8,001
PROPERTY WEALTH 5,960/PUPIL 49,000/PUPIL
STATE AID 222/PUPIL 225/PUPIL
DISTRICT CONTRIBUTION 26/ CHILD 333/CHILD
FEDERAL AID 108/PUPIL 36/PUPIL
EXPENDITURE 356/PUPIL 594/PUPIL
TAX RATE 1.05 0.85
11
COURT HELD

• A. ABSENT A SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE,
  EDUCATION WAS NOT A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
•  
• B. THE STATE WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DEMONSTRATE A
  COMPELLING INTEREST TO JUSTIFY FISCAL DISPARITIES
  
•  
• C. AS LONG AS THE STATE HAD A REASONABLE
  JUSTIFICATION FOR ITS SYSTEM OF FUNDING, IT WAS
  NOT ILLEGAL
•  
• D. ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT MIGHT BE UNJUST
•  
• E. STUDENTS OF PROPERTY POOR DISTRICTS WERE NOT
  HOMOGENEOUS ENOUGH TO COMPRISE A SUSPECT
  CLASSIFICATION
•  
• F. WAS NOT PERSUADED THAT EXPENDITURE
  DISPARITIES RESULTED IN DAMAGE TO STUDENTS
•  

12
ROBINSON V CAHILL - 1970

• SUIT BROUGHT IN SUPERIOR COURT BY A NUMBER OF
  PEOPLE FROM SEVERAL MUNICIPALITIES CHALLENGING
  THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE NJ SYSTEM OF SCHOOL
  FINANCE
•  
• PLAINTIFFS CHARGED THAT THE SYSTEM WAS
  UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT RELIED TOO HEAVILY ON
  LOCAL PROPERTY TAXES AND RESULTED IN GREAT
  DISPARITY IN THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION OFFERED
•  
• PLAINTIFFS ARGUED THAT THE METHOD OF FINANCE
  VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION DIRECTED THAT
•  
• THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE
  MAINTENANCE OF A THOROUGH AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM OF
  FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLS FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF ALL
  CHILDREN IN THE STATE BETWEEN THE AGES OF FIVE
  AND EIGHTEEN YEARS

13
THE SUPREME COURT ON APPEAL

• A. INTERPRETED THE TE CLAUSE AS A MANDATE THAT
  THE STATE MUST PROVIDE AN EQUAL EDUCATIONAL
  OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CHILDREN
•  
• B. HELD THAT THE CURRENT METHOD OF FINANCE WAS
  NOT GEARED TO MEET THAT MANDATE
•  
• C. AGREED THAT THE HEAVY RELIANCE ON LOCAL
  PROPERTY TAXES PRODUCED A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP
  BETWEEN A COMMUNITYS WEALTH AND THE AMOUNT OF
  FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
•  
• D. ACCEPTED THE VIEW THAT THE QUALITY OF
  EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY DEPENDS SUBSTANTIALLY
  UPON THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS EXPENDED
•  
• E. NOTED THAT THE STATE NEVER DEFINED TE
•  
• F. DID NOT STRIKE DOWN THE USE OF LOCAL PROPERTY
  TAXES IN THE FORMULA

14
NJ AT THE TIME

• A. STATE 28
•  
• B. LOCAL 67
•  
• C. FEDERAL AND MISC. 5
•  
• D. CONTAINED MINIMUM AID, SAVE HARMLESS
• FOUNDATION
•  
• E. RESULTED IN VAST DISPARITIES OF AMOUNT
• EXPENDED
•  
• F. DID NOT GUARANTEE THAT THE COMBINATION OF
  LOCAL EFFORT AND STATE AID WOULD YIELD A THOROUGH
  AND EFFICIENT EDUCATION

15
THE LEGISLATURES RESPONSE THE PUBLIC SCHOOL
EDUCATION ACT OF 1975 (TE LAW)

• A. DEFINED IN GENERAL TERMS WHAT CONSTITUTES A
  TE SYSTEM OF PUBLIC EDUCATION
•  
• B. ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES AND MONITORING
  PROCEDURES TO INSURE PROGRESS TOWARD TE
  EDUCATIONAL GOALS
•  
• C. ESTABLISHED A FUNDING STRUCTURE TO INSURE
  ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT A TE
  SYSTEM OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

16

• JANUARY 1976 SUPREME COURT HELD THE ACT TO BE
  CONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT IT MET THE MANDATE
  ASSUMING FULL FUNDING
•  
• LEGISLATURE COULD NOT AGREE ON A METHOD OF
  FUNDING
•  

17

• IN MAY, 1976 SUPREME COURT ENJOINED THE
  EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES
  EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1976
• TWO DAYS LATER THE STATE LEGISLATURE APPROVED A
  TAX PACKAGE THAT INCLUDED THE GROSS INCOME TAX
•  
• THE SUPREME COURT DISSOLVED THE INJUNCTION

18
ABBOTT V BURKE I - 1984

• COURT FOUND THAT THE TE LEGISLATION ACTUALLY
  WIDENED DISPARITIES IN SPENDING
•  
• RESPONSE WAS THE QUALITY EDUCATION ACT OF 1990
  WHICH SOUGHT TO
• A. EQUALIZE TAX BURDEN
• B. DISTRIBUTE STATE AID MORE EQUITABLY
• HOWEVER, REVISIONS ACTUALLY LOWERED THE
  FOUNDATION LEVEL AND DIVERTED FUNDS TO PROPERTY
  TAX RELIEF

19
ABBOTT II 1990

• NJSC HELD QEA TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ONLY AS IT
  EFFECTED THE SPECIAL NEEDS DISTRICTS
• QEA DIDNT WORK BECAUSE
• BASING AID ON PREVIOUS YEARS BUDGET PERPETUATED
  PAST INEQUITIES
• RESTRICTING ANNUAL INCREASES BY A SPECIFIED
  PERCENTAGE INHIBITS THE LEVELING UP OF LOWER
  SPENDING DISTRICTS DISCUSS BUDGET CAPS
• C. PAYING CATEGORICAL AID REGARDLESS OF WEALTH
  WORKED AGAINST THE PROVISION THAT CUT OFF
  EQUALIZATION AID TO HIGH SPENDING DISTRICTS

20

• COURT ORDERED EXPENDITURES TO BE BROUGHT UP TO
  THE LEVEL OF I J DISTRICTS DISCUSS DFG
•  
• 4. FURTHER TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT IS
  ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL
  NEEDS OF THESE POORER URBAN DISTRICTS IN ORDER TO
  REDRESS THEIR EXTREME DISADVANTAGES
• 5. RESULT OF FURTHER ABBOTT LITIGATION WAS CEIFA
•  

21
Abbott IV - 1997

• The NJ State Supreme Court found that the funding
  provisions of CEIFA were unconstitutional as
  applied to the Abbott districts (also referred to
  as special needs districts or SNDs).
• Although the CEIFA formula included provisions
  for districts and schools with high
  concentrations of poverty, the Supreme Court
  stated The amount of aid provided for those
  programs is not based on any actual study of the
  needs of the students in the SNDs or the costs of
  supplying the necessary programs (Abbott IV at
  180).

22

• In the absence of documentation demonstrating
  that the CEIFA model provided sufficient
  resources to educate students in districts with
  high concentrations of poverty, the Court
  required an interim remedy Abbott districts
  would receive parity aid, or an amount equal to
  the average regular education per pupil
  expenditures in the States wealthiest districts.

23
Abbott V - 1998

• The Court held that Abbott districts could also
  seek supplemental funding over parity to support
  particularized needs.

24

• The CEIFA formula was calculated from fiscal year
  1998 through fiscal year 2002. Since that year,
  the formula has not been run and State aid has
  been distributed based on district demographics
  and other characteristics existing in FY 2002.
  During that time period, litigation over various
  aspects of funding for the Abbott districts
  continued, and in May 2006, the Department
  informed the Court that the creation of a new
  funding formula was a Departmental priority and
  that it was committed to develop a funding
  formula that would meet the needs of all students
  and would address the inequities that had
  resulted from the imbalance of increased funding
  targeted primarily to Abbott districts.

25
SCHOOL FUNDING REFORM ACT (SFRA) - 2008

• Introduced in December 2007
• Current NJ Funding Formula

26
HOBSON V HANSEN -1967, 1969Washington,D.C.

• JULIUS HOBSON SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER SUED BECAUSE
  SCHOOLS IN THE SAME DISTRICT WITH PREDOMINATELY
  WHITE POPULATIONS APPEARED TO HAVE A
  DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF HIGH-PAID TEACHERS AND
  SUPPLIES.
• SCHOOL DISTRICT CLAIMED
• NO POLICY TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DISCRIMINATION _ DE
  FACTO
• CAUSED BY SENIORITY TRANSFER RULES WHICH
  PERMITTED SENIOR STAFF TO WORK WHERE THEY WANTED

27

• JUDGE SAID TOO BAD REDISTRIBUTE
•  
• DISTRICT ATTEMPTED TO COMPLY BUT ENCOUNTERED
  EXTRAORDINARY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES
•  
• HOBSON SUED AGAIN IN 1971 JUDGE WROTE AN EVEN
  STRONGER OPINION

28

• AN EVALUATION OF SEVERAL LARGE DISTRICTS TURNED
  UP SUBSTANTIAL INTRADISTRICT RESOURCE DISPARITY
•   THE US OFFICE OF EDUCATION ISSUED
  COMPARABILITY REGULATIONS
• DEMANDED THAT DISTRICTS DISTRIBUTE RESOURCES
  EQUITABLY TO REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDS
• B. MINIMAL SERVICES MUST BE DISTRIBUTED EQUALLY
• C. ADDED RESOURCES FAVORING ONE GROUP MUST BE
  EDUCATIONALLY JUSTIFIABLE