蜜桃影视

After plaintiffs waged a decade-long legal fight to alter the way Connecticut pays for schools, a loss before the state Supreme Court Wednesday illustrates the uphill battle advocates face in efforts to prove state funding systems leave poor districts scrambling for cash.

As they did in Connecticut, education advocates and school districts frequently turn to the courts in efforts to force more state dollars to flow to the poorest school districts. Though several equity lawsuits are still pending in state courts across the country 鈥� from to 鈥� a history of similar litigation shows the success rate for equitable funding advocates is mixed.

State court rulings often differ because state constitutions offer a variety of education priorities, said Marguerite Roza, director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University. It is therefore hard to predict how one state funding lawsuit will end based on previous court rulings. And though some courts have 鈥渃ome closer to touching policy鈥� than others in identifying a funding fix, she said judges should stick to determining whether an equity problem exists but stop short of prescribing remedies.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 think a court is any better off than anybody else that鈥檚 trying right now to figure out what鈥檚 the best way to solve these problems,鈥� she said.

In released on Wednesday, Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers punted Connecticut鈥檚 school funding issue to the state legislature, striking down a lower court鈥檚 ruling that called for sweeping changes. Rogers noted that the court 鈥渏oins the voices of those who urge the state to do all that it reasonably can鈥� to ensure students receive the 鈥渕inimally adequate education鈥� required under the state constitution, and that 鈥渢he neediest children have the support that they need to actually take advantage of that opportunity.鈥� Ultimately, however, the court ruled in a split 4鈥�3 decision the state had met its legal obligations.

鈥淚t is not the function of the courts … to create educational policy or to attempt by judicial fiat to eliminate all of the societal deficiencies that continue to frustrate the state鈥檚 educational efforts,鈥� Rogers wrote. Beyond determining whether constitutional obligations are met, 鈥渃ourts simply are not in a position to determine whether schools in poorer districts would be better off expanding scarce additional resources on more teachers, more computers, more books, more technical staff, more meals, more guidance counselors, more health care, more English instruction, greater preschool availability, or some other resource.鈥�

Wednesday鈥檚 news is part of an ongoing battle 鈥� played out for decades between judges, legislatures, and education researchers 鈥� over the effects of school funding on student performance, and whether a fiscal increase is the proper tool to close the achievement gap between poor students and their affluent peers. Too often, advocates say, poor schools get the short end of the stick.

鈥淲e are seeing across the country this pattern of high-need districts getting underfunded relative to low-need districts,鈥� said Ary Amerikaner, director of P12 resource equity at The Education Trust, a national advocacy group. 鈥淗igh-need districts, we know, need more, not less. Equal isn鈥檛 equitable.鈥�

Though that education problems can鈥檛 be fixed through increased funding alone, one found that a 10 percent increase in education dollars over the course of a child鈥檚 schooling increased student outcomes 鈥� and those gains were most notable for children from low-income households.

In Connecticut, a reversal from the state鈥檚 highest court follows a sweeping decision in late 2016 by a lower-court judge, which ordered the state 鈥� among the nation鈥檚 wealthiest 鈥� to reconfigure its school funding scheme. Though an outlier on the global stage, Connecticut鈥檚 school funding system, which relies on a combination of state aid and local property taxes, isn鈥檛 structurally different than that in other states 鈥斅爌art of a national system where school funding is highly correlated with ZIP codes.

That lower-court decision didn鈥檛 simply stop with the way the state distributes education dollars, however. It also ordered changes to the way the state evaluates and pays teachers, defines primary and secondary education, and pays for special education. Even the plaintiffs in the lawsuit 鈥� who brought the case 12 years ago 鈥� were surprised by the far-reaching decision.

In its ruling Wednesday, the Connecticut Supreme Court majority noted that the plaintiffs 鈥渃onvincingly demonstrated鈥� that an achievement gap exists between the state鈥檚 poorest and richest students 鈥� but failed to prove the disparity was based on unlawful discrimination against needy students, rather than a 鈥渃omplex web of disadvantaging societal conditions over which the schools have no control.鈥� In fact, the court noted, low-income districts receive a larger chunk of state aid than wealthy schools.

Although Connecticut does direct a higher portion of state dollars to its neediest schools, Amerikaner said the state鈥檚 system is far from progressive. In of state funding allocations, The Education Trust found that Connecticut falls near the middle of states in terms of the gap between low- and high-poverty schools. Connecticut provides low-income districts roughly 5 percent more in state funding than wealthier districts, the analysis found. That state-level increase for low-income schools has a limited effect because the state funding formula relies heavily on local property taxes; Connecticut鈥檚 state-level aid is minimal compared to that in almost every other state, the report found.

Meanwhile, the group that brought the Connecticut lawsuit 鈥� the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding 鈥� called the Supreme Court鈥檚 reversal a 鈥渄eep disappointment.鈥� The coalition, which includes cities, local education boards, and teachers unions, said in a statement it plans to pursue 鈥渁ll legal remedies鈥� to have the court鈥檚 decision 鈥渞econsidered and overturned.鈥�

鈥淭he Connecticut Supreme Court was closely divided by a 4鈥�3 margin against a new trial that would have clarified many of the still disputed and unresolved issues of the case,鈥� James Finley, the coalition鈥檚 principal consultant, said in a statement. 鈥淎 case of this landmark magnitude should not be left dangling on such a close vote but requires instead the kind of clarity for the future of the state鈥檚 educational system that only a new trial and a definitive majority can establish.鈥�

Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, however, said the lower court had overstepped its authority and was 鈥済rateful鈥� for the Supreme Court鈥檚 reversal. Though changes to the state鈥檚 education funding system rest in the hands of the legislature, he said in a statement, the case did bring to light 鈥減rofound educational challenges that deserve continuing significant and sustained action.鈥� Gov. Dannel Malloy offered a similar analysis.

鈥淭he urgency to continue the fight to distribute greater educational dollars where there is the greatest need has not demised,鈥� Malloy said in a statement. 鈥淭he truth is that no court can mandate political courage, and it is my hope that current and future policymakers continue to make progress with a more fair distribution of educational aid.鈥�

---

---

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.