Education Justice News

The Connecticut Supreme Court held on March 22, 2010 that the state constitution gives all Connecticut schoolchildren the right to an effective and meaningful education, in Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell. "This is a huge win for Connecticut's schoolchildren," said Dianne Kaplan deVries, project director of CCJEF, the group of municipal and education organizations that brought the suit together with students and parents across the state.

In its 4-3 decision, the court stated that, "the fundamental right to an education is not an empty linguistic shell" and must meet "modern educational standards." The court said these standards must prepare students to "participate in democratic institutions," "attain productive employment," and "progress on to higher education." The decision allows the case to move to trial to determine whether the state is providing all students with a constitutionally adequate education.

The Connecticut constitution already entitled students to equal enjoyment of the right to education, according to the 1977 decision in Horton v. Meskill. In CCJEF, filed in 2005, the plaintiffs argued that they were not receiving equal educational opportunities, but further argued that a constitutional education needs to be "suitable" as well. The trial court dismissed most of the plaintiffs' claims in 2007, concluding that the state constitution did not require a standard of quality, such as "suitable," for public education. The supreme court's holding reverses that decision.

Coalition leaders hope state legislators will work with their communities to negotiate a settlement on standards for educational opportunity and funding to reach the standards, rather than continuing to litigate. State Senator Thomas Gaffey suggested that the state income tax is a more equitable way to fund education than local property taxes, but said that making such a shift is "going to take an awful lot of political courage."

Students in three Los Angeles middle schools are plaintiffs in Reed v. State, a class action filed recently against both the state of California and the Los Angeles Unified School District. Plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU of Southern California and Morrision and Forrester, challenge the state's cuts in education funding and the district's implementation of a Reduction in Force (RIF) that allegedly decimated the teaching corps at their schools, causing severe disruption.

Plaintiffs point to research establishing that "teachers are the single most important resource" for learning and that faculty stability is key to success. Teachers with the least experience were the first to be let go through the RIF. And because schools like the plaintiffs', which serve high concentrations of low-income students, students of color, and English learners, have high concentrations of less-experienced teachers, they bore a disproportionate burden under the RIF, plaintiffs argue.

New Strategy in Indiana

Three Indiana school district plaintiffs brought a suit, Hamilton Southeastern Schools v. Daniels, challenging the state's school funding system in February 2010. Unlike most school finance cases, which are filed on behalf of disadvantaged students or low-wealth school districts and seek equitable school funding, this case is the first to argue against the part of the state's formula that weights funding to address the educational needs of students from poverty backgrounds.

Plaintiffs are rapidly growing districts alleging that the system unconstitutionally harms them because schools with increasing enrollment receive funding based on their actual enrollment, while those with decreasing enrollment receive funding based on an adjusted enrollment that is higher than their actual enrollment. State legislatures frequently face the many issues raised by growing and declining enrollments because these shifts occur among school districts within all states.

However, plaintiffs' singling out the state's two lowest wealth districts and state funding intended to help meet their higher educational needs is a new strategy. Plaintiffs appear to be asking the court to declare that funding equity violates the Indiana constitution.

Fifth Circuit English Language Learners Decision

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's ruling in favor of middle and high school English Language Learner students in the long-standing school desegregation case, US v. Texas, and ordered the trial court to determine "the cause of [ELL] student failure and how best to remedy it." Recognizing "that [ELL secondary] student performance is alarming," the court stated that adding individual schools districts as defendants on remand will allow the court to better determine which entities may be liable for violating the rights of ELL students under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.

"This is a disappointing decision in that the Court of Appeals should have let the lower court decision stand. The evidence in the case showed that middle and high school ELL students are failing across the state and Texas Education Agency (TEA) has done virtually nothing to ensure these students are learning English," said co-lead counsel David Hinojosa of MALDEF. "But the door remains open for us to present further evidence supporting the civil rights violations and we intend to do just that."