For district leaders, suing states over school finance formulas may seem like a high-stakes gamble on where judges will come down, as high-profile decisions with very different outcomes in Texas, Kansas, and Washington state suggest.
But in reality, the fate of these challenges is far from random, hinging instead on plaintiffs鈥� ability to prove that those formulas abide by the specifics鈥攁nd ambiguities鈥攐f each state鈥檚 constitution, legal scholars say.
Both Kansas鈥� and Washington鈥檚 Supreme Courts ruled their school aid formulas unconstitutional, while the Texas high court said that its state formula met constitutional standards, and that the specifics of education funding were for the legislature to decide.
Such highly charged cases can set up fierce battles between courts and legislators, including proposals to strip courts of their authority over funding matters, calls for elected rather than appointed justices, and constitutional amendments addressing the school finance debate.
And the lawsuits highlight the knotty definitions of such terms as 鈥渟uitable鈥� and 鈥渆fficient鈥� education funding embedded in state constitutions.
Legal Landscape
In at least 23 states since 1950, judges have ruled that the state鈥檚 school finance formula was unconstitutional, according to Michael Rebell, a professor at Teachers College, Columbia University, who tracks such cases. In 17 other states, judges have found that the formulas passed constitutional muster or that it was not their role to figure that out.
鈥淚 think there鈥檚 a clash of cultures from the judicial perspective and the world from which politicians live,鈥� said Richard E. Levy, a legal scholar at the University of Kansas who studies constitutional law. 鈥淐onstitutional law is full of principles and following things to their logical conclusions. You find a constitutional deficiency and you fix it.
鈥淏ut legislators don鈥檛 like being told that they have to come up with additional money, raise taxes, or cut programs,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not desirable from a political point of view.鈥�
Legislators increasingly argue that school funding formulas鈥攃omplex calculations that delineate how many tax dollars are delivered each year to which districts鈥攕hould be solely crafted by the legislature, and that judges are ill-equipped to scrutinize the academic impact of state aid formulas.
鈥淚鈥檝e seen what鈥檚 going on across the states, where judges are stepping in and trying to become the legislative branch and the school board,鈥� said Tennessee Rep. Bill Dunn, a Republican who proposed a bill this year to change that state鈥檚 constitution so that judges can鈥檛 weigh in on the constitutionality of the state formula. The bill came in response to a lawsuit filed by several urban districts last year.
鈥淪chool districts don鈥檛 have to make a case to the voters for more money,鈥� Dunn said in criticizing finance lawsuits. 鈥淭hey just have to make it to one judge.鈥�
New Approach
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that school districts can鈥檛 challenge finance formulas under the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Districts instead began arguing in state courts that aid formulas violated state constitutions鈥� equal-protection clauses, though those cases were rarely successful.
In 1979, Ohio鈥檚 Supreme Court determined in a funding-equity case brought by the Cincinnati board of education that the state鈥檚 formula would only violate the constitution if the district proved that it 鈥渨as receiving so little local and state revenue that the students were effectively being deprived of educational opportunity.鈥� (The state constitution requires 鈥渁 thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state.鈥�)
While Cincinnati鈥檚 board lost the case, other districts across the country saw an opening.
鈥淧eople realized that that鈥檚 the argument they should be making,鈥� said Michael Griffith, a policy analyst with the Education Commission of the States, who has studied state funding formulas. 鈥淚t shouldn鈥檛 just be that 鈥榃e鈥檙e equal,鈥� district leaders said. 鈥業t should be that we [as a district] have sufficient resources to fund an education.鈥� 鈥�
The language on public school systems in state constitutions varies widely, but most of them guarantee children a 鈥渟uitable鈥� or 鈥渆fficient鈥� education. Districts have argued that those phrases should mean that districts have an adequate level of funding that鈥檚 allocated equitably among districts.
While those terms may seem ambiguous, districts have used a growing body of research and data collected in recent years to prove that funding formulas prevent school leaders from reaching legislatures鈥� own standards.
In Kansas, for a suit filed in 2010, lawyer Alan Rupe said he used the state鈥檚 academic standards and student-achievement gaps as measured by the state鈥檚 standardized tests to argue that the funding formula left poor districts without enough money to meet those standards.
Rupe鈥檚 argument in that case, Gannon v. Kansas, was bolstered by two studies, one of which was commissioned by the legislature, that determined that a 鈥渟uitable鈥� education in Kansas should cost around $6,000 per student. Using that calculation, he argued the state was about $400 million short in annual funding. In 2014, the state supreme court ruled the formula is inequitable. It soon will rule on whether it also is adequate.
鈥淏asically, we beat the Kansas legislature with their own stick,鈥� Rupe said.
Does Money Equal Success?
In 2012, Washington鈥檚 high court ruled in McLeary v. State of Washington that because the funding formula there disproportionately relied on local property taxes, the legislature had failed to make education a 鈥減aramount duty,鈥� as the state constitution requires. The Washington court has fined its state legislature $100,000 a day until it comes up with a new aid formula.
In defending against finance cases, state attorneys general often argue that giving districts more money doesn鈥檛 equate to academic success.
The latest Texas funding lawsuit was first filed by several districts in 2011. Other districts later filed suit; eventually, more than half the state鈥檚 districts were combined into a single lawsuit, which wound up before the state supreme court.
In defending the state in that case, Texas Assistant Solicitor General Rance Craft argued that money alone can鈥檛 fix achievement gaps.
鈥淔unding is no guarantee of better student outcomes,鈥� Craft said during oral arguments last September. 鈥淢oney is not pixie dust.鈥�
In five of the seven previous cases brought before the state鈥檚 supreme court over the years regarding the constitutionality of the state鈥檚 funding formula鈥攕ome of them stretching back decades districts had won. This time, however, the court determined that while there were certainly achievement gaps, and that the system required 鈥渢op to bottom reform,鈥� the aid formula met 鈥渕inimal鈥� constitutional standards.
鈥淥ur judicial responsibility is not to second-guess or micromanage Texas education policy or to issue edicts from on high increasing financial inputs in hopes of increasing educational outputs,鈥� Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett wrote in his opinion.
And in a Florida case decided May 24, Circuit Judge George Reynolds came to a similar conclusion on a challenge to the constitutionality of that state鈥檚 finance formula. In his ruling, Reynolds said that 鈥渢here is a not a constitutional lack of resources available in Florida schools.鈥�
鈥淭hat doesn鈥檛 mean that everything is perfect,鈥� he wrote, 鈥渋t simply means that there is not a constitutional-level crisis sufficient to warrant judicial intervention.鈥� To Levy, the University of Kansas legal scholar, such rulings are the judges鈥� way of saying: 鈥淓nough is enough. This formula is close enough. We鈥檒l take it. We鈥檙e going to wipe our hands of this process.鈥�
Even if judges agree that a state鈥檚 funding formula is responsible for academic disparities, courts often don鈥檛 want to get involved in the process of determining what is constitutional.
鈥淭hese cases don鈥檛 ever seem to end,鈥� Levy said. 鈥淲hat would they do if the legislature says no? You can鈥檛 jail legislators, because they have legislative immunity.鈥�
