Assessing Success In School Finance Litigation PDF Download

Over the past forty years, the highest court of virtually every State has confronted the same fundamental question - is our State's school finance system constitutional? The history of school finance litigation consists of three waves. During the first wave, which lasted from the late 1960s until the Supreme Court's decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, the plaintiffs relied on the federal Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, the plaintiffs asserted that all children were entitled to have the same amount of money spent on their education and/or that children were entitled to equal educational opportunities (“equity suit”). The second wave, which lasted from the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Cahill until early 1989, continued to pursue the equity theory, but focused on Equality Guarantee Clauses of the State Constitutions. In contrast, the third wave, which began with the Montana, Kentucky, and Texas decisions in 1989 and continues to the present, involves the adequacy theory of school finance litigation. Under the adequacy theory, the plaintiffs, relying on the State Constitutions' Education Clauses argue that the finance system is unconstitutional because some schools lack the money to meet minimum standards of quality. Given the volume of cases, one would expect that the courts would eventually develop a coherent doctrine to decide school finance litigation. Yet, despite substantial academic commentary, courts continue to struggle with issues concerning justiciability and the appropriate constitutional standard. Recent decisions illustrate the point. For example, in Florida, a state trial court determined whether broad amorphous claims were justiciable. In South Carolina, a trial court addressed the merits following remand from the State's highest Court. In Colorado, the State Supreme Court issued an opinion that resolved justiciability while also establishing a constitutional standard for the trial court and giving significant guidance on both merits and remedial issues. The purpose of this article is to review and comment on these recent cases.