Budget Cuts Rip Holes in School Funding
Education Advocates Challenge State Financing Decisions in Court
by Debra Miller and Jennifer Burnett
In a trend sweeping the country, states are again in court, pitted against school districts, parents and education advocates. The current fiscal crisis has generated a new wave of litigation over state budget cuts to education.
In New Jersey, proposed cuts to education spending led to court battles over the constitutionality of those cuts. After New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie slashed $819.5 million in school aid from the 2011 fiscal year budget—a 7 percent decrease in the state’s largest expense—education advocates filed a motion to restore the funding.
Attorney David Sciarra, executive director of the Newark-based Education Law Center, said the governor’s cuts violate the state funding formula upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2008.
“The key point in the New Jersey case is that the court not only ordered a new funding formula, they also set as a condition that the formula be fully funded,” said Sciarra.
In 1973, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared the state’s school funding law was unconstitutional because it violated the “thorough and efficient education” requirement in the state constitution. Since then, the high court has revisited New Jersey school finance more than a dozen times, delivering decisions on equitable financing for students in 30 low-wealth districts.
While in New Jersey litigants are calling for full funding based on formulas already established by the legislature and based on prior court decisions, advocates in other states are now bringing the adequacy of spending on education into question.
The second of two education-funding lawsuits filed in California this year—Californians for Quality Education, et al. v. California—claims the state “is failing to provide all children with an equal opportunity to obtain a meaningful education. It is failing to appropriately and adequately fund the public school system.”
California’s per student expenditures are among the lowest in the nation. According to the National Education Association, the state’s per pupil spending was $8,520 for the 2009–10 year. Compare that to New Jersey and Rhode Island, which spent $16,967 and $18,729 per pupil respectively in the same year. Arizona, Mississippi, Idaho, Nevada and Oklahoma join California with the lowest per pupil funding levels, with Arizona—now also involved in litigation similar to California—spending the least at $6,170. The national average hovered around $10,500 in 2009–10.
In Washington, a lower court ruled in February that the state does not provide ample funding for basic education. Further, the judge directed the legislature to determine the cost of basic education and develop a plan to fully fund education with stable and dependable state sources. The state has appealed the decision and the state Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in September.
In the first lawsuit directly calling into question the legality of recent budget cuts, the Kansas Supreme Court in February refused to reopen a school finance case originally settled in 2006. Chief Justice Robert Davis addressed how courts should respond to these cases in his order: “The power to recall a mandate is an extraordinary power to be used as a last resort. It should only be used to accomplish something that, without it, cannot otherwise be remedied.”
Kansas has cut spending on education by $287 million during the current recession.
Given the stress placed on the state to close budget gaps, some lawmakers welcomed the court’s decision. “I do think the decision reinforces the fact the legislature is complying with the constitution in its school funding,” Kansas Rep. Kevin Yoder told the Topeka Capital-Journal.
The current fiscal crisis is hitting education spending hard. Since the beginning of the recession, at least 30 states and Washington, D.C., have cut aid to K–12 schools and other education programs, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. And more cuts may be coming, which could lead to significant layoffs.
“If states don’t find a way to close their budget gaps without cuts to education, we will be losing 157,000 teachers this year—and that’s a conservative estimate,” said Michael C. Petko, senior policy analyst at the National Education Association.
And while teacher layoffs may not be the primary cause of the current stream of litigation hitting states like California, Petko said they are a symptom of more egregious issues.
“The real cause of litigation is the declining revenue streams within the states caused by years of poor tax policies. States are expecting education to produce more with less,” said Petko.
While states are struggling to fund basic programs, if advocates prevail in lawsuits challenging state education budget cuts, state leaders may have to find funding sources regardless of difficult budget conditions.
That may be the case in Arizona, where a coalition of education groups filed a lawsuit in June charging that the state has not fully funded Arizona’s K–12 system for the 2011 budget year, violating the state constitution and a referendum approved by voters in 2000 requiring the state to adjust spending for state aid to education and “other components” by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.
If the case moves forward and the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean the legislature will be forced to find another $61 million even in the face of budget shortfalls.
The Arizona Supreme Court has scheduled an initial hearing for Sept. 21 to decide whether to accept the special action.
