Washington State plaintiffs scored a strong trial court victory, Rhode Island plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit alleging that their state's system of education funding is unconstitutional, and Kansas plaintiffs plan to file a new case.

Washington State Trail Court Finds Education Funding Inadequate

In what plaintiffs in McCleary v. State, a landmark school funding lawsuit, called "a huge victory for Washington school children," in early February a Washington State trial court found the state's school funding system to be unconstitutional because it neither determines nor provides the amount of resources actually required to equip all children in the state with the basic knowledge and skills mandated by the state's minimum education standards.

As Judge John Erlick observed:

"Thirty years have passed since our state Supreme Court directed the state to provide stable and dependable funding for basic education. The State has made progress toward this Constitutional obligation, but remains out of compliance. State funding is not ample, it is not stable and it is not dependable."

The court therefore ordered the state to ascertain the actual cost of amply educating all Washington children and establish how the state will fully fund that cost with stable and dependable state sources.

The state is expected to appeal the decision, though more than 30 state legislators signed a letter asking the governor and attorney general not to appeal, writing:

"The Legislature is not giving schools the money they need to provide the quality of education we want. The court has rather bluntly reminded us that we are required under our state's constitution to make the education of our children our number one priority ... We hope that the savings from not pursuing the appeal process will be applied and focused on efforts to solve our state's education financing problem. McCleary v. State is our opportunity to create a world-class education system. Our children deserve no less."

Foster Pepper PLLC is representing the McCleary plaintiffs.

Rhode Island Plaintiffs File Suit Challenging State Funding System

Two Rhode Island school districts, along with parents and students from the districts, filed Woonsocket v. Carcieri, challenging the constitutionality of the state's current school aid distribution program.

Although the Rhode Island Supreme Court acknowledged more than 15 years ago, in Pawtucket v. Sundlun, that education is a right guaranteed under the state constitution, it also ruled that the state constitution prohibits courts from reviewing legislative education funding decisions. However, plaintiffs argue that subsequent changes to the constitution, combined with more glaring evidence of the states' failure to provide adequate educational opportunities, make their new case strong.

The plaintiffs argue that the state has persistently failed to provide the resources necessary to afford to all Rhode Island children the minimally adequate education the state has defined and mandated, and that the current scheme for funding schools lacks any rational relationship to student or community need. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result of this irrational, inequitable, and inadequate scheme for school funding, many of Rhode Island's public schools (particularly those located in the State's urban core) lack sufficient resources to provide children with a minimally adequate education. As a result, they claim, many of Rhode Island's children have been deprived of an essential tool they need to live as full citizens in today's society.

Plaintiffs will soon file an amended complaint.

New Case Planned after Kansas Supreme Court Does Not Reopen Montoy

Kansas plaintiffs asked the Kansas Supreme court to re-open the previously-dismissed education funding case, Montoy v. State of Kansas, and send the case back to the trial court to determine whether the state's current school finance scheme is constitutional, especially in light of recent cuts to education funding. However, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected plaintiffs' motion, concluding that it would be more appropriate for plaintiffs to file a new lawsuit.

John Robb, general counsel for Schools For Fair Funding, said in response to the decision, "we are disappointed in the ruling but certainly not deterred. The problem still exists. Kids are still being shortchanged. The constitution still requires suitable funding for education. Today's ruling was a procedural one which will just slow us down a bit." Alan Rupe, trial counsel for Schools For Fair Funding, explained, "It was a long shot. There was no statutory procedural mechanism to re-open a closed case. And there was very little court precedent to support re-opening the case. But the school districts and Schools For Fair Funding are committed to fight for their schoolkids' right to adequate funding. The future of public education demands a new lawsuit."

Prepared: February 26, 2010

Copyright © 2010 Education Justice. All Rights Reserved.