School Finance Litigation

Background

Education is not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Instead, because, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, it is governed by state law, every state constitution has a provision mandating, at a minimum, that the state provide a system of free public schools. Thus, in America, free public education is a constitutional value. Although free public education for all is a constitutional value, America's public schools remain unequal and often fail to provide students with the education they need. Moreover, because the failure of public schools is more frequent and better documented in cities than in suburbs or rural areas, the consequences are felt most among minority students, who are more likely to be urban dwellers. Many, perhaps most, of these inequalities are the direct result of significant financial disparities among the public schools. While local school boards receive funds from both federal and state sources, all local districts, except those in Hawai'i (which is a single district) and Michigan raise much of the money necessary for operations through a percentage tax, with the rate set by the local residents, on the value of the real property in the district. Due to differences in rates and in the value of real property, this system results in vast disparities. As a result, some districts have trouble providing even the basics, while others are able to offer educational luxuries. While the states' legislatures and executives have adopted various mechanisms to correct this financial inequality, the disparities remain.

Given the obvious conflict between the constitutional value of free public education for all and the funding disparities created by the states' school finance systems, it is not surprising that the courts have been asked to intervene and vindicate the constitutional value of free public education for all by declaring that the current system of financing the schools is unconstitutional. Indeed, over the last four decades, the supreme court of virtually every state has wrestled with the question of whether the state's school financing system is constitutional.

School finance suits have taken two forms. First, there are “equity suits,” where the plaintiffs assert that all children are entitled to have the same amount of money spent on their education and/or that children are entitled to equal educational opportunities. In effect, the plaintiffs believe that more money means a better education, and have little or no tolerance for any differences among districts in expenditures and/or opportunities. In an equity suit, the plaintiffs assert that education is a fundamental right and that any disparities in funding violate that right. The equity approach tended to be the dominant legal theory during the 1970s and 1980s.

...