Litigation Update: Missouri Plaintiffs Testify; Motions in Kentucky, Indiana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma

Testimony is continuing in Missouri’s school funding lawsuit, at least through February. Meanwhile, trial courts in Kentucky and Indiana dismissed lawsuits this month, and plaintiffs in Nebraska and Oklahoma are in the process of appealing similar rulings.

Trial Continues in Missouri

Trial started on January 3 in Committee for Educational Equality v. State, Missouri’s current school funding lawsuit. Over the first four weeks of trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs called numerous witnesses to testify about the inadequacy of school funding in Missouri. One assistant superintendent from a rural district testified about the inadequacy of funding for programs in her district and how the district does not have enough money to rebuild after being devastated by a tornado last year. Another superintendent testified about the expensive and unmet needs of her district: interpreters for the 600 students in the district who speak 42 different languages, resources to provide preschool to all low-income students, enough classroom space to stop children from having to attend classes in trailers, and lab facilities that would allow the school to comply with the state’s recently increased high school science requirements.

In addition, attorneys for the plaintiffs have called several expert witnesses to testify about the amount of funding needed for adequacy. Three different experts have said that state schools need $600 million, $800 million, and even $1.3 billion in additional funding to achieve adequacy. The superintendent of St. Louis Public Schools testified that her district alone needs $200 million more to address the affects of poverty, youth violence, teen pregnancy, lead poisoning, and other social problems.

Attorneys for the defendants have repeatedly challenged the assertion that additional school funding is linked to better academic performance. In addition, Senator Charlie Shields rejected the idea that the school funding formula was arbitrary, testifying that when the legislature developed the formula in 2005, it defined an adequate education and determined the amount needed to pay for it. Senator Shields said that funding increases are being phased in over seven years, because to do otherwise “would be almost fiscally impossible for the state.” Arguments in the trial are expected to conclude this month.

Lawsuits Dismissed in Kentucky and Indiana

On February 13, Judge Thomas Wingate of the Franklin Circuit Court dismissed Young v. Williams, Kentucky’s school funding lawsuit. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the school funding system in Kentucky is “inadequate and arbitrarily determined,” and asked the court to order the state to use a “specific, systematic method” to determine the appropriate level of state funding. Plaintiffs relied on the famous 1989 case Rose v. Council for Better Education, in which the Kentucky Supreme Court declared education a fundamental right and mandated equitable and adequate funding for public schools.

Judge Wingate, while saying that the Kentucky General Assembly’s failure to commission a cost study was “puzzling,” and that perhaps the legislature is merely “afraid of the results that study will produce,” also said that the Kentucky Constitution’s strong separation of powers clause prevents him from ordering a study. In addition, he ruled that there was no “objective evidence of shortcomings in Kentucky’s education system,” and that the significant improvement in student output measures following the legislative response to Rose is evidence in itself of the adequacy of Kentucky schools. Roger Marcum, the president of the Council for Better Education, the coalition of districts that brought the lawsuit, told the Louisville Courier-Journal that they would likely appeal the court’s decision.

Similarly, an Indiana judge earlier this month granted - in an extremely brief opinion - the state’s motion to dismiss a school funding lawsuit brought against the state, ruling that school funding is a political question that is not appropriate for the courts. Plaintiffs in Bonner v. Daniels argue that the state’s school funding system is insufficient to provide all students an adequate education, as required by the state constitution.

Named defendants in the case were Governor Mitch Daniels, Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen K. Reed, and the Indiana Board of Education. Judge Cale Bradford, the presiding judge, ruled that Governor Daniels and Superintendent Reed are not responsible for the funding formula and thus were not valid defendants. As for the plaintiff’s claim against the remaining defendant, Judge Bradford noted that it “seems to be, in reality, dissatisfaction with how the formula is weighed and implemented by the State Board of Education, not the formula itself.” Saying that such decisions were political and did not lend themselves to a likely judicial remedy, Judge Bradford ruled that he could not order a remedy out of respect for separation of powers. Plaintiffs attorneys have said they will appeal.

Oral Argument in Nebraska

On February 6, a coalition of 40 rural Nebraska school districts argued before the Nebraska Supreme Court that a judicial remedy is necessary to address inadequacies in the state’s public school funding system. The plaintiffs in Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy (NCEEA) v. Johanns were appealing the October 2005 district court ruling that dismissed the case as raising “non-justiciable political questions.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit allege that the state’s school funding system does not provide adequate funds for education, particularly for low-income students and English language learners. Lawyers for the state, however, argued that the state constitution does not guarantee adequate education.

A similar case, brought by Omaha Public Schools and other urban districts, was filed in 2003 and is scheduled for trial in the autumn of 2008.

Appeal Progresses in Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s school funding lawsuit progressed closer to a state supreme court ruling this month. The case, Oklahoma Education Association (OEA) v. State, was dismissed in July by a trial court, which ruled that the lawsuit raised “political questions” not appropriate for the judiciary. Plaintiffs appealed in August. In an unusual move, the state Supreme Court – which normally assigns appeals out to appellate level courts – retained jurisdiction over the case and asked for additional briefs.

Both sides filed appellate briefs with the Supreme Court in January and early February and must now wait for a ruling from the Court, which does not usually hear oral arguments in this type of proceeding. Attorney for the plaintiffs Richard Wilkinson said that he is confident the court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs; plaintiffs’ arguments relied on the 1987 case Fair School Finance Council v. State, in which the Court rejected a claim for school funding equity but said that students still have a right to a “basic adequate education.”

While the state legislature has not released a 2005 costing-out study, the OEA commissioned its own costing-out study, which found that the state needs to provide approximately $1 billion more in school operations funding and approximately $3 billion in facilities funding.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, February 20, 2007