EDITOR'S NOTE: Among Charlestown politicians, the CCA Party's Dan Slattery has been the most adamant opponent of fair funding for public education. This court ruling must have made Dan smile. That is, if he is capable of smiling.
Almost
sixty years to the day of the U.S. Supreme court’s historic Brown decision, the
Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against the state’s inequitable
funding system.
The court said it was “deeply concerned” and acknowledged that
the funding disparities hurt poor urban children most, but passed the buck.
“Not our problem,” the court said.
Here
is a summary from the Education Law Center.
RI
SUPREME COURT IS “DEEPLY CONCERNED” BUT DENIES RELIEF TO SCHOOL CHILDREN
May
15, 2014
On
May 3, 2014, the Rhode Island Supreme Court dismissed the fair school funding
case, Woonsocket v. State. The Court concluded that conditions in the
plaintiffs’ schools “make a strong case” against the current funding system.
Nonetheless, the justices denied plaintiffs the chance to present their
evidence in a trial on the merits of the case.
The
Court wrote, “We emphasize that we are deeply concerned by the conditions of
the schools in Pawtucket and Woonsocket as alleged by plaintiffs, as well as by
the alleged predicaments of those municipalities regarding their inabilities to
allocate the funding required to meet state mandates.
Installing a means of
providing adequate educational opportunities to every child in the state is not
only an admirable goal; it is ‘perhaps the most important function of state and
local governments.’”
(quoting the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown
v. Board of Education)
In
its written opinion, the Court summarized plaintiffs’ allegations, which detail
the state’s adoption of higher and higher standards while failing to align
funding to those standards. Insufficient resources mean students do not have
the opportunity to reach the standards, plaintiffs assert. More recently, the
state went so far as to cap local taxing authority so that municipalities
attempting to make up for state shortfalls were not allowed to do so,
plaintiffs add.
The
Court also quoted plaintiffs’ complaint with regard to the most recent funding
formula adopted by the state in 2010, noting that the formula “fails to provide
adequate resources to allow children, especially in poor, urban communities, to
obtain a quality education [and] a reasonable opportunity to meet the [state's]
academic standards.” The Court summarized plaintiffs’ description of the dire
state of school facilities, books, and supplies, and the low test scores that
flow from the state’s allegedly inadequate funding.
The
state defendants filed a motion to dismiss this case, and the Court explained
that its decision on the motion depended on interpretation of the Rhode Island
Constitution’s Education Clause, which states that:
“The
diffusion of knowledge, as well as of virtue among the people, being essential
to the preservation of their rights and liberties, it shall be the duty of the
general assembly to promote public schools, and to adopt all means which they
may deem necessary and proper to secure to the people the advantages and
opportunities of education.”
Although
earlier precedent held that the Rhode Island General Assembly has exclusive
authority over school funding, plaintiffs argued that repeal of a particular
clause in the state constitution rendered that precedent irrelevant for the
Woonsocket case. Plaintiffs also claimed that changes since the earlier
precedent meant the state had replaced local control with state mandates.
However, after an analysis of the impact of that repeal and other changes, the
Supreme Court ruled that the General Assembly’s broad discretion in how it
complies with the Education Clause was not impaired.
The
Court indicates that the political branches could solve the problem of school
funding without a court order by improving the states’ system. But the justices
appear to ignore the General Assembly’s history of allocating inadequate
funding for schools in low-wealth communities.
Based
on that history and the current ruling, it appears that meaningful relief and
educational opportunity will come to the students in under-resourced Rhode
Island communities only if and when voters amend and strengthen the state
constitution’s education clause. Only then will future plaintiffs with similar
claims finally be granted their day in court. Some education advocates are
proposing such an amendment.
Education
Justice Press Contact:
Molly A. Hunter, Esq.
Director, Education Justice
email: mhunter@edlawcenter.org
voice: 973 624-1815 x19
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org
Molly A. Hunter, Esq.
Director, Education Justice
email: mhunter@edlawcenter.org
voice: 973 624-1815 x19
http://www.edlawcenter.org
http://www.educationjustice.org