document resume ed 357 443 author fulton, … resume ed 357 443 ea 024 858 author fulton, mary;...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 357 443 EA 024 858
AUTHOR Fulton, Mary; Long, DavidTITLE School Financial Litigation: A Historical Suuzary.INSTITUTION Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colo.SPONS AGENCY Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, New York, N.Y.PUB DATE Apr 93NOTE 44p.AVAILABLE FROM ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street, Suite 2700,
Denver, CO 80202-3427 (Stock No. SF-93-1; $5 pluspostage and handling; quantity discounts).
PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090)
EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Constitutional History; *Constitutional Law; *Court
Litigation; *Educational Equity (Finance);Educational Finance; Elementary Secondary Education;*Equal Education; School Law; State Courts
IDENTIFIERS Rodriguez v San Antonio Independent School Dist;Serrano v Priest
ABSTRACT
Two landmark cases, "Serrano v Priest" (1971) and"Rodriguez v San Antonio" (1973) catapulted school finance litigationonto the political and educational scene. In their aftermath, 11state supreme courts had ruled school funding systemsunconstitutional while 12 state systems have been upheld as
constitutional. Many plaintiffs have argued that states rely tooheavily on local property taxes and distribute funding unequally.Defendants often argue that local control is the cause of fundingdisparities and that state educational clauses do not requireequalizing per student spending. A 19-page chart is provided forrelevant cases before state supreme courts that includes a briefhistory of case names, court activity, and plaintiffs. The chart alsodetails court rulings on constitutionality under state equalprotection and educational clause. A high degree of legal scrutinythat shifts the burden of proof to states often exists whereplaintiffs argue that funding inequalities violate a constitutionalright to education. The chart includes a brief historical andcontextual analysis describing the particular claims of eachplaintiff and subsequent legal developments. (TEJ)
***********************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
***********************************************************************
4.:
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
U $ DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOthce oI Educatronsi Airessrch and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INrORMATIONCENTER (MC)
Mita document has been reproduced esreamed troth the person Or awn:shortorounahnp n
0 Minor champs Nye been made 1... woretetnodoctan Quality
Ponds*, mew or opener% stated trt thts deco,men, do not necesserrly represent othemlOEM DOctron or policy
04
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
5'. F: at ----
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC1"
SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION:A HISTORICAL SUMMARY
Prepared by Mary FultonEducation Commission of the States
andDavid LongAttorney at LawState Bar of California
April 1993
This publication was supported by a grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
Copies of this book are available for $5 from the ECS Distribution Center, 707 17th Street,Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado 80202-3427, 303-299-3692. Ask for No. SF-93-1.
© Copyright 1993 by the Education Commission of the States (ECS). All rights reserved.
The Education Commission of the States is a nonprofit, nationwide interstate compact formedin 1965. The primary purpose of the commission is to help governors, state legislators, stateeducation officials and others develop policies to improve the quality of education at alllevels.
Forty-nine states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and the VirginIslands are members. The ECS offices are at 707 17th Street, Suite 2700, Denver, Colorado80202-3427.
It is the policy of ECS to take affirmative action to prevent discrimination in its policies,programs and employment practices.
Postage and handling charges:
Up to $10 $ 2.50 Generous discounts are available for bulk orders of single$10.01-$25.00 $ 3.90 publications. They are: 10-24 copies, 10% discount; 25-49$25.01-$50.00 $ 5.50 copies, 20% discount; 50+ copies, 30% discount.$50.01-$100.00 $ 8.00Over $100.01 $10.50
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
School Finance Litigation Summary 3
School Finance Litigation Chart 5
INTRODUCTION
School finance litigation appeared on the political and education scene more than 20
years ago with the landmark cases, Serrano vs. Priest in California (1971) and Rodriguez vs. San
Antonio (1973) in Texas. Since then, numerous court cases have challenged education finance
systems. Eleven state supreme courts have ruled funding systems unconstitutional
(Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Montano, New Jersey, Tennessee, Texas,
Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming). Another 12 state systems have been upheld as
constitutional (Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).
Many cases have claimed that states rely too heavily on local property taxes to fund
education and fail to distribute state education aid equitably and adequately. Plaintiffs often
contend that spending levels are related to a district's property wealth which determines the
quality of education offered. Defendants, on the other hand, sometimes argue that local
control is the cause of spending disparities, that the state's constitution's education clause
does not require equal expenditures per child and that every district has sufficient funds to
meet basic requirements.
Finding patterns among these cases is difficult. School funding decisions are
influenced by the court's interpretation of constitutional clauses, the evidence presented,
existing case law and the jurisdiction the court defines for itself.
About the ChartThe following chart summrizes state supreme court decisions regarding the
constitutionality of school finance systems over the past two decades. The chart also is a tool
to identify common elements and differences among the cases listed and those filed
subsequently. Included is information on dates, procedural history, case names, plaintiffs
and their claims, rulings and the context of the cases.
The column called Case /Plaintiffs and Procedural History indicates the case name,
chronology of court activity and the plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit.
The Ruling column identifies the basis on which the finance system was upheld as
constitutional or ruled unconstitutional. Lawsuits generally are brought on the grounds that
a state's funding mechanism violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution
and/or state constitutional provisions related to education. Because eqt!al protection clauses
do not prohibit unequal treatment, only unjustified unequal treatment, a state may be able to
Page 1
justify its funding system even if spending disparities between districts exist (in the interestof
local control, for example). Plaintiffs have used the language of education clauses, e.g.,
"thorough and efficient," "uniform and basic," to argue that disparities in available resources
or lack of adequate funds do not allow the state to provide such an education, therefore
violating the constitution. Additionally, plaintiffs have argued that education is a
fundamental right. This claim sometimes leads to a higher level of legal scrutiny by the
court and places the burden on the state to defend its financing schem e. If the court does not
apply strict scrutiny, the state typically need only provide a rational and reasonable basis for
the way it distributes funds, e.g., to preserve local control.
The last column, History /Context/Developments, briefly describes particular claims made
by plaintiffs, case details and related developments.
This chart is not meant to be exhaustive, but should provide a basis for readers who
want to examine the history of school finance litigation. Please contact Mary Fulton at ECS,
303-299-3679, with comments or questions.
In March .1993, the Montgomery County (Alabama) Circuit Court ruled the state'sentire education system unconstitutional, similar, to the Kentucky deCision described in thisreport. Because the'dccisioit did not occur at the state supreme court level, it is not includedin this chart. However, the tweepingnatute of the tuling Makes the case worth noting. Thestate of Alabama will not seek an appeal,' but haabeeit ordered by the court to 7reinvent" thestate educationrsystent: The particulars of the case are:
Case name:- Harper vs. Hunt
Year filed: 1990 and 1991 (two cases were Combined)
Plaintiffs: The Alabama Coalition for Equity filed a lawsuit on behalf of 22property-poor school districts, parents and students. '7,rshe American CivilLibetres Union also filed, a lawsuit requesting (and receiving) class- actionstatus to4eptesent all 'Children attending pripiiirpoOr schiiola in Alabama.Riding: Alabama's education system violates the state constitution's educationprovision by not providing equal and adequate educational opportunities toall children in the state.
Page 2
Education Commission of the States
SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION SUMMARYFall 1992
State
Equal Protection
Constitutional Unconst.
Education Clause
Constitutional Unconst. Fundamental Right' Rational Basis'
Arizona (1973) X X yes X
Arkansas (1983) X No RB
California (1971) X yes
Colorado (1982) X no X
Connecticut (1977) X X yes
Georgia (1981) X X no X
Idaho (1975) X X no X
Kentucky (1989) X X yes
Maryland (1983) X X X
Michigan (1984) X X no X
Montana (1989) X X
New Jersey (1973)
(1989)
X X
Xcertain poorer
districts
New York (1982) X X no X
Ohio (1979) X X no
Oklahoma (1987) X X
Oregon (1'6)
(1991)
X X X
X
Tennessee (1993) X X
Texas (1989)* X X
Washington (1974)
(1978)
X X
X X
West Virginia (1979) X X yes
Wisconsin (1989) X yes X
Wyoming (1980) X X yes X
1. Court found education to be a fundamental right.2. Court found a rational basis for funding system.* 1973 Texas case not included because tried in federal courts.
Page 3
Mar
y Fu
lton
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
onof
the
Stat
es
Dav
id L
ong
Atto
rney
at:
Law
Stat
e B
ar o
f C
alif
orni
a
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
AZ
1973
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(110
Ari
z. 8
8, 5
15, P
.2d
590)
1972
, Cou
nty
Supe
rior
Ct. 1971
, file
d
Shof
stal
v.
Hol
lins
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*E
duca
tion
fund
amen
tal r
ight
*"R
atio
nal &
rea
sona
ble
basi
s" te
st s
uffi
cien
tto
uph
old
syst
em
*T
axpa
yers
not
unc
onst
itutio
nally
dis
crim
inat
-ed
aga
inst
by
high
er ta
x bu
rden
s
*T
rial
cou
rt g
rant
ed s
umm
ary
judg
men
t tha
t fin
ance
sys
-te
m d
iscr
imin
ated
aga
inst
Mar
icop
a C
ount
y ta
xpay
ers
unde
r eq
ual p
rote
ctio
n cl
ause
; jud
gmen
t too
k ef
fect
at
clos
e of
197
4 le
gisl
ativ
e se
ssio
n; e
ffec
tive
July
1, 1
974,
legi
slat
ure
repe
aled
ent
ire
scho
ol f
inan
cing
sta
tuto
ryfr
amew
ork
*T
rial
cou
rt d
enie
d st
uden
ts' c
laim
of
deni
al o
f ri
ght t
o an
educ
atio
n
*St
ate
Supr
eme
Cou
rt r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rt's
ord
er to
rev
ise
fina
nce
syst
em a
nd u
phel
d sy
stem
; rem
ande
d ca
se f
orfu
rthe
r pr
ocee
ding
s
*A
dded
pup
il w
eigh
ting
elem
ent t
o ex
istin
g fo
unda
tion
prog
ram
(19
74, 1
980
refo
rms)
stud
ents
& p
ar-
ents
fro
mM
aric
opa
Cou
nty
AR
1983
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(279
Ark
. 340
, 651
SW
2d
1981
, St.
Cha
ncer
y C
t.
1977
, file
d
Alm
a Sc
hool
Dis
tric
t No.
3v.
Dup
ree
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Und
er e
qual
pro
tect
ion
prov
isio
n, ta
x ba
sere
late
d di
spar
itite
s in
fin
anci
ng s
yste
m b
ear
no r
atio
nal r
elat
ions
hip
to e
duca
tion
need
s of
indi
vidu
al d
istr
icts
*L
ocal
con
trol
not
pro
mot
ed b
y w
ealth
- r
elat
eddi
spar
ities
*B
are
and
min
imal
suf
fici
ency
in p
oor
dist
rict
san
d ge
nero
usly
end
owed
edu
catio
n pr
o-gr
ams
in o
ther
s is
not
equ
al e
duca
tion
op-
port
unity
*E
duca
tion
clau
se r
equi
ring
"ge
nera
l, su
itabl
ean
d ef
fici
ent s
yste
m o
f fr
ee p
ublic
sch
ools
"re
info
rces
app
licat
ion
of e
qual
pro
tect
ion
clau
se to
sch
ool f
inan
ce s
yste
m
*C
onst
itutio
nal a
utho
rity
for
dis
tric
ts to
levy
taxe
s do
es n
ot a
utho
rize
vio
latio
n of
equ
alpr
otec
tion
*Pl
aint
iffs
cla
imed
ineq
uitie
s in
dis
trib
utio
n of
fun
ds &
educ
atio
nal
educ
atio
naJ
oppo
rtun
ities
*Pl
aint
iffs
com
plai
ned
abou
t sta
te n
ot p
rovi
ding
aid
for
capi
tal c
onst
ruct
ion,
str
ict l
imit
on b
onde
d in
debt
edne
ss,
met
hod
of f
undi
ng v
ocat
iona
l edu
catio
n
*C
ourt
fin
ding
s: (
1) h
ighe
r pr
iori
ty to
be
plac
ed o
n eq
uity
than
loca
l con
trol
, (2)
dis
pari
ties
in s
taff
, cla
ss s
ize,
cur
ric-
ulum
, rem
edia
l ser
vice
s, f
acili
ties,
mat
eria
l, eq
uipm
ent
*A
fter
cir
cuit
cour
t inv
alid
ated
fin
ance
sys
tem
, leg
isla
ture
esta
blis
hed
Gov
erno
r's C
omm
issi
on o
n Pu
blic
Sch
ool
Fina
nce
to d
evel
op p
ropo
sals
for
mor
e va
lid f
inan
ceto
be
impl
emen
ted
in '8
3 se
ssio
nsy
s-te
rn
*C
omm
issi
on r
ecom
men
ded:
inco
rpor
ate
cate
gori
cal p
ro-
gram
s in
to g
ener
al a
id s
yste
m th
roug
h pu
pil w
eigh
ts;
loca
l fis
cal c
apac
ity to
incl
ude
mea
sure
of
inco
me
&w
ealth
prop
-er
ty
*L
egis
latu
re p
asse
d st
atew
ide
educ
atio
n re
form
pac
kage
in19
83; p
art o
f pa
ckag
e co
mbi
ned
exis
ting
foun
datio
n pr
o-gr
am w
ith p
upil
wei
ghtin
g sy
stem
11 s
choo
l dis
-tr
icts
, stu
dent
sfr
om o
ne o
f th
edi
stri
cts
& m
em-
hers
of
the
loca
lsc
hool
boa
rds
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
5
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
TSt
ate
Cas
e/Pl
aint
iffs
& P
roce
dura
l His
tory
Rul
ing
His
tory
/Con
text
/Dev
elop
men
ts
CA
1971
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(5C
a1.3
d 58
4, 4
87 P
.2d
1241
)
1969
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.
(dis
mis
sed)
1963
, file
d
Serr
ano
v. P
ries
t
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Dis
mis
sal o
f co
mpl
aint
rev
erse
d an
d ca
sere
man
ded
for
tria
l*
Cou
rt c
ould
pro
perl
y he
ar c
laim
that
edu
ca-
tion
fina
nce
syst
em m
akes
the
educ
atio
nqu
ality
a f
unct
ion
of w
ealth
of
child
's p
aren
tsan
d ne
ighb
ors
as m
easu
red
by th
e di
stri
ct ta
xba
se (
fisc
al n
eutr
ality
sta
ndar
:)*
Und
er f
eder
al a
nd s
tate
equ
al p
rote
ctio
npr
ovis
ions
, edu
catio
n is
a f
unda
men
tal i
nter
-es
t and
dis
t. w
ealth
a s
uspe
ct c
lass
ific
atio
n;th
eref
ore,
res
ultin
g fi
scal
ineq
ualit
ies
subj
ect
to s
tric
t scr
utin
y to
see
if n
eces
sary
toac
hiev
e co
mpe
lling
sta
te in
tere
st
*L
andm
ark
case
; cou
rt d
ecis
ion
base
d pa
rtly
on
"fis
cal
neut
ralit
y" s
tand
ard;
pro
vide
d co
urts
with
"ju
dici
ally
man
agea
ble"
sta
ndar
d to
det
erm
ine
cons
titut
iona
lity
ofsc
hool
fin
ance
sys
tem
s
*Fi
rst s
tate
pub
lic s
choo
l fin
ance
sys
tem
dec
lare
d un
cons
ti-tu
tiona
l; fi
rst m
ajor
sch
ool f
inan
ce c
ase
file
d in
sta
te r
athe
rth
an f
eder
al c
ourt
*19
72, l
egis
latu
re in
crea
sed
stat
e ai
d as
par
t of
new
fin
ance
form
ula;
mov
ed to
fou
ndat
ion
prog
ram
stud
ents
& p
ar-
ents
fro
m L
AC
ount
y sc
hool
dist
rict
s
CA
1976
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(18
Ca1
.3d
728,
557
P.2
d92
9)
1974
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.
Serr
ano
v. P
ries
tII
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Aff
irm
ed tr
ial c
ourt
fin
ding
that
sch
ool f
i-na
nce
syst
em w
as u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l und
ereq
ual p
rote
ctio
n pr
ovis
ions
of
stat
e co
nstit
u-L
ion,
una
ided
by
14th
Am
endm
ent
*Fo
und
that
edu
catio
n qu
ality
rem
aine
d fu
nc-
tion
of lo
cal s
choo
l dis
tric
t wea
lth
*A
ffir
med
tria
l cou
rt ju
dgm
ent t
hat w
ealth
-re
late
d di
spar
ities
bet
wee
n sc
hool
dis
tric
ts in
per-
pupi
l exp
endi
ture
s m
ust b
e re
duce
d to
insi
gnif
ican
t dif
fere
nces
, i.e
., le
ss th
an $
100
per
pupi
l
''19
74, t
rial
cou
rt d
ecla
red
curr
er t
fina
ncin
g sy
stem
unc
on-
stitu
tiona
l des
pite
197
2 in
crea
s2 in
sta
te a
id; q
ualit
y of
educ
atio
n re
mai
ned
func
tion
of lo
cal s
choo
l dis
tric
t wea
lth*
Leg
isla
ture
una
ble
to im
plem
ent A
ssem
bly
Bill
65
(197
7)ne
w f
inan
ce f
orm
ula
mea
sure
due
to P
ropo
sitio
n 13
(197
8) w
hich
lim
ited
prop
erty
tax
rate
s to
1%
of
full
cash
valu
e of
rea
l tax
able
pro
pert
y &
red
uced
ava
ilabl
e re
ve-
nue
CA
1986
, App
ella
te C
t.Se
rran
o v.
Pri
est
III
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*St
ate
had
com
plie
d w
ith S
erra
no I
I m
anda
te to
impr
ove
equi
ty -
95%
of
scho
ol d
istr
icts
fel
l with
in m
axim
umex
pend
iture
dis
pari
ty o
f $2
00 p
er p
upil
in 1
982-
83
1 1
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
6
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
CO
1982
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(649
P.2
d 10
05)
1979
, Dis
tric
t Ct.
1977
, fi.e
d
Luj
an v
. Col
on-
do S
tate
Boa
rd o
fE
duca
tion
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*R
t...
,:sed
dis
tric
t cou
rt d
ecis
ion
whi
ch h
eld
scho
ol f
inan
ce s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l
*D
id n
ot v
iola
te e
duca
tion
clau
se r
equi
rem
ent
that
sta
te m
ust e
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n "t
hor-
ough
and
uni
form
sys
tem
of
free
sch
ools
" or
equa
l pro
tect
ion
prov
isio
ns o
f th
e C
olor
ado
or U
.S. C
onst
itutio
ns
*W
ealth
not
sus
pect
cla
ssif
icat
ion
and
educ
a-tio
n no
t fun
dam
enta
l rig
ht
*L
ocal
con
trol
fur
ther
ed b
y ed
ucat
ion
fina
nce
syst
em
*E
duca
tion
clau
se d
oes
not m
anda
te e
qual
per-
pupi
l exp
endi
ture
*Su
it at
tack
ed u
se o
f fl
at g
rant
s &
Aut
hori
zed
Rev
enue
Bas
e (A
RB
)su
m o
f st
ate
equa
lizat
ion
aid
and
loca
lpr
oper
ty ta
x au
thor
ized
for
a d
istr
ict
*Su
prem
e co
urt r
ever
sed
dist
rict
cou
rt r
ulin
g th
at f
inan
cesy
stem
was
unc
onst
itutio
nal
*L
ocal
con
trol
vie
wed
as
ratio
nal b
asis
for
exi
stin
g di
spar
i-tie
s &
as
legi
slat
ive
purp
ose
of e
duca
tion
fina
ncin
g st
at-
utes
*E
duca
tion
clau
se d
id n
ot m
anda
te e
qual
per
-pup
il ex
pen-
ditu
re
*L
egis
latu
re e
nact
ed H
B13
41, P
ublic
Sch
ool F
inan
ce A
ct o
f19
88; m
oved
fro
m g
uara
ntee
d yi
eld
to f
ound
atio
n pr
o-gr
am w
ith 8
dis
tric
t "se
tting
cat
egor
ies"
; pen
ding
law
suit
was
with
draw
n
*L
egis
latu
re e
stab
lishe
d C
olor
ado
Com
mis
sion
on
Scho
olFi
nanc
e to
rev
iew
, ana
lyze
and
eva
luat
e H
B13
41
68 s
tude
nts
from
16 lo
w-w
ealth
dist
rict
s
CT
1977
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(172
Con
n. 6
15, 3
76A
.2d
359)
1974
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.
Con
n. S
app.
377
,33
2 A
.2d
813)
1973
, file
d
Hor
ton
v.M
eski
ll
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Aff
irm
ed tr
ial c
ourt
judg
men
t tha
t sys
tem
viol
ated
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n an
d ed
ucat
ion
pro-
visi
ons
("fr
ee p
ublic
ele
men
tary
and
sec
ond
ary
scho
ol"
and
"Gen
eral
Ass
embl
y sh
all
impl
emen
t thi
s pr
inci
ple
by a
ppro
pria
tele
gisl
atio
n")
*E
duca
tion
is a
fun
dam
enta
l rig
ht u
nder
equ
alpr
otec
tion
clau
se
*St
ate
mus
t ass
ure
all p
ublic
sch
ool s
tude
nts
subs
tant
ially
equ
al e
duca
tion
oppo
rtun
ity
*N
ot "
appr
opri
ate
legi
slat
ion"
for
sta
te to
rel
ypr
imar
ily o
n lo
cal p
rope
rty
tax
base
with
out
rega
rd to
loca
l abi
lity
to f
inan
ce e
duca
tion
prog
ram
*C
ourt
dec
lare
d it
was
not
app
ropr
iate
to r
ely
on lo
cal
prop
erty
tax
to f
inan
ce e
duca
tion
with
out r
egar
d to
loca
lab
ility
to s
uppo
rt a
dequ
ate
educ
atio
n; a
lso
caus
ed ta
xdi
spar
ities
disp
ariti
es
*19
78tr
ial c
ourt
set
May
1, 1
979,
dea
dlin
e fo
r en
actm
ent
of c
onst
itutio
nal p
lan
for
fina
ncin
g sc
hool
s
*Pu
blic
Act
79-
128
enac
ted
Apr
il 19
79, i
nclu
ded
guar
ante
edta
x ba
se f
orm
ula
& m
inim
um e
xpen
ditu
re r
equi
rem
ent,
repl
aced
fla
t gra
nt p
rogr
am
stud
ents
in C
an-
ton,
CT
CT
1982
-Ior
ton
v.M
eski
ll H
*M
unic
ipal
ities
wer
e de
nied
inte
rven
tion
in r
emed
ial p
ro-
ceed
ings
.C.)
I t./
Edv
cstin
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
7
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase
/Pla
intif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
CT
1985
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(195
Con
n. 2
4, 4
86 A
.2d
1099
)
Hor
ton
v.M
eski
ll (H
orto
nII
I)
Part
ially
uph
eld
(rul
ed c
onst
itutio
nal)
*o
titut
iona
lity
Cou
rt u
phel
d co
nstit
utio
nalit
y of
bas
ic d
e-si
gn o
f st
ate
educ
atio
n fi
nanc
e sy
stem
ado
pt-
ed in
197
9 in
res
pons
e to
Hor
ton
I (g
uara
n-te
ed ta
x ba
se w
ith m
inim
um e
xpen
ditu
rere
quir
emen
t)
*E
duca
tion
fina
nce
plan
s m
ust b
e st
rict
lysc
rutin
ized
usi
ng a
3-s
tep
proc
ess:
pla
intif
fsm
ust m
ake
prim
a fa
cie
case
sho
win
g ed
uca-
tion
disp
ariti
es m
ore
than
de
min
imis
; sta
tebu
rden
to ju
stif
y su
ch d
ispa
ritie
s as
adv
anc-
ing
legi
timat
e st
ate
polic
y an
d no
t so
grea
t as
to b
e un
cons
titut
iona
lfi
nanc
e pl
an a
sw
hole
mus
t fur
ther
pol
icy
of p
rovi
ding
sig
-ni
fica
nt e
qual
izin
g st
ate
supp
ort.
*A
gree
d co
ntin
uing
exp
endi
ture
dis
pari
ties
re-
quir
ed s
tric
t scr
utin
y, b
ut r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rtfi
ndin
g th
at p
ost-
1979
sta
tute
s w
ere
unco
nsti-
tutio
nal b
ecau
se tr
ial c
ourt
had
not
app
lied
3-st
ep te
st n
oted
abo
ve; r
eman
ded
for
tria
lco
urt's
app
licat
ion
of th
is te
st to
giv
e ad
di-
tiona
l par
ties
oppo
rtun
ity to
par
ticip
ate
*Pl
aint
iffs
cha
lleng
ed P
ublic
Act
79-
128
(197
9) o
n ba
sis
oflo
ng p
hase
-in
peri
od, "
hold
-har
mle
ss"
clau
se f
or w
ealth
yto
wns
and
con
tinue
d di
spar
ities
in lo
cal e
xpen
ditu
re*
In 1
986,
Sta
te S
upre
me
cour
t rem
ande
d to
sup
erio
r co
urt
with
gui
delin
es f
or d
eter
min
ing
cons
titut
iona
lity
of s
ubse
-qu
ent a
men
dmen
ts
*N
eith
er s
ide
cont
inue
d to
pur
sue
case
*19
89, l
egis
latu
re p
asse
d ed
ucat
ion
enha
ncem
ent a
ctin
crea
sed
educ
atio
n sp
endi
ng a
nd c
reat
ed n
ew f
inan
cefo
rmul
a (S
B53
9) w
hich
rep
lace
d gu
aran
teed
tax
base
with
foun
datio
n fo
rmul
a
GA
1981
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(248
Ga.
632
, 285
S.E
.2d
156)
1981
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.
1974
, file
d
McD
anie
l v.
Tho
mas
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*G
eorg
ia S
upre
me
Cou
rt r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rtde
cisi
on w
hich
hel
d fi
nanc
e sy
stem
unc
onst
i-tu
tiona
l bas
ed o
n w
ealth
-rel
ated
exp
endi
ture
disp
ariti
es
*E
duca
tion
not a
fun
dam
enta
l rig
ht f
or e
qual
prot
ectio
n an
alys
is a
nd in
equa
litie
s in
fin
ance
syst
em ju
dged
by
ratio
nal r
elat
ions
hip
test
*A
gree
d w
ith p
lain
tiffs
that
ser
ious
dis
pari
ties
exis
ted
and
mor
e sh
ould
be
done
to e
qual
ize
oppo
rtun
ity, b
ut c
oncl
uded
sys
tem
not
invi
d-io
usly
dis
crim
inat
ory,
"fo
r pr
esen
t" s
olut
ions
mus
t com
e fr
om le
gisl
atur
e
*"A
dequ
ate
educ
atio
n" r
equi
rem
ent o
fco
nstit
utio
n's
educ
atio
n cl
ause
doe
s no
t re-
quir
e st
ate
to e
qual
ize
educ
atio
nal o
ppor
tuni
-ty
bet
wee
n di
stri
cts;
inte
rpre
tatio
n up
tole
gisl
atur
e
*St
ate
Supr
eme
Cou
rt r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rt d
ecis
ion
whi
chhe
ld f
inan
ce s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
lvi
olat
ed f
isca
lne
utra
lity
stan
dard
*E
qual
pro
tect
ion
lang
uage
not
pre
sent
in e
duca
tion
sect
ion
of s
tate
con
stitu
tion,
ther
efor
e, s
uch
anal
ysis
not
app
lica-
ble
*Pr
eser
vatio
n of
loca
l con
trol
vie
wed
as
ratio
nal b
asis
supp
ortin
g fi
nanc
e sy
stem
*A
lthou
gh s
yste
m w
as u
phel
d, c
ourt
con
clud
ed le
gisl
atur
esh
ould
take
ste
ps to
equ
aliz
e ed
ucat
iona
l opp
or-t
uniti
es,
legi
slat
ure'
s ro
le to
inte
rpre
t man
date
of
"ade
quat
e" e
du-
catio
n as
sta
ted
in e
duca
tion
clau
se
*T
he 1
985
Qua
lity
Bas
ic E
duca
tion
(QB
E)
law
, a s
tate
edu
-ca
tion
refo
rm a
ct, i
nclu
ded
fund
ing
equa
lizat
ion
mea
sure
s,dr
amat
ical
ly in
crea
sed
stat
e an
d lo
cal c
ontr
ibut
ion
toed
ucat
ion
1 r-
--:
mem
bers
of
3lo
cal s
choo
lbo
ards
and
stu
-de
nts
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
8
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
g.
His
tory
/Con
text
/Dev
elop
men
ts
'ID19
75, S
t. Su
prem
e C
t.(9
6 Id
aho
793,
537
P.2
d63
5)
1973
, St.
Dis
tric
t Ct.
1972
, file
d
Tho
mps
on v
.E
ngle
king
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*In
3-2
dec
isio
n, S
tate
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
re-
vers
ed tr
ial c
ourt
rul
ing
that
sys
tem
was
unco
nstit
utio
nal b
ecau
se it
fai
led
to p
rovi
deun
ifor
m s
yste
m o
f pu
blic
sch
ools
*A
ffir
med
tria
l cou
rt c
oncl
usio
n th
at e
qual
prot
ectio
n cl
ause
not
vio
late
d si
nce
educ
atio
nno
t con
side
red
fund
amen
tal i
nter
est;
uneq
ual
syst
em s
erve
s ra
tiona
l sta
te in
tere
st o
f fu
r-th
erin
g lo
cal c
ontr
ol
*R
ever
sed
1973
tria
l cou
rt d
ecis
ion
that
fin
ance
sys
tem
viol
ated
sta
te c
onst
itutio
n ed
ucat
ion
clau
se
stud
ents
& p
ar-
ents
fro
mPo
cate
llo S
choo
lD
istr
ict N
o. 2
5
1
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
la4
Page
9
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
TSt
ate
Cas
e/Pl
aint
iffs
& P
roce
dura
l His
tory
Rul
ing
His
tory
/Con
text
/Dev
elop
men
ts
KY
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
The
Cou
ncil
for
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Initi
ated
as
scho
ol f
inan
ce c
ase
in w
hich
pla
intif
fs c
laim
ed(7
90 S
.W.2
d 18
6)
1988
, Cir
cuit
Ct.
1985
, file
d
Bet
ter
Edu
catio
n,In
c. v
. Ros
e*
Hel
d en
tire
stat
e sy
stem
of
com
mon
sch
ools
,in
clud
ing
dist
rict
bou
ndar
ies,
gov
erna
nce,
scho
ol f
inan
ce, v
iola
tes
stat
e co
nstit
utio
n's
wid
e ex
pend
iture
dis
pari
ties
exis
ted
betw
een
dist
rict
s*
Lan
dmar
k de
cisi
on d
ecla
ring
ent
ire
stat
e ed
ucat
ion
syst
emun
cons
titut
iona
lPl
aint
iffs
:ed
ucat
ion
clau
se m
anda
ting
"eff
icie
nt s
yste
m.
Scho
ol s
yste
m u
nder
fund
ed &
inad
equa
te; c
ited:
poo
r66
low
-wea
lth &
rura
l dis
tric
tsof
com
mon
sch
ools
thro
ugho
ut th
e st
ate"
*E
duca
tion
fund
amen
tal c
onst
itutio
nal r
ight
natio
nal &
reg
iona
l ran
king
s in
pup
il ex
pend
iture
&ac
hiev
emen
t, lo
w te
ache
r sa
lari
es, h
igh
drop
out r
ates
*A
n ef
fici
ent s
yste
m o
f sc
hool
s m
ust b
e su
b-F
i.ntia
lly u
nifo
rm a
nd p
rovi
de e
qual
oppo
rtun
ities
for
ade
quat
e ed
ucat
ion
for
all
stud
ents
*L
ocal
tax
effo
rts
may
not
sub
stitu
te f
or p
ro-
vidi
ng a
n ad
equa
te, e
qual
and
sub
stan
tially
unif
orm
sta
te e
duca
tion
syst
em*
Ade
quat
e ed
ucat
ion
mus
t hav
e as
its
goal
topr
ovid
e ch
ildre
n w
ith s
even
spe
cifi
c ca
paci
-tie
s
*M
inim
um f
ound
atio
n &
pow
er e
qual
izat
ion
prog
ram
allo
wed
wid
e va
riat
ions
in f
inan
cial
res
ourc
es, r
esul
ting
inun
equa
l edu
catio
nal o
ppor
tuni
ties
*L
egis
latu
re p
erm
itted
loca
l dis
tric
ts to
levy
opt
iona
l tax
es,
exac
erba
ting
ineq
uitie
s; g
reat
loca
l was
te &
mis
man
age-
men
t exi
sted
*St
ruck
dow
n: s
choo
l fin
ance
sys
tem
; law
s cr
eatin
g sc
hool
dist
rict
s, s
choo
l boa
rds,
sta
te e
duca
tion
depa
rtm
ent;
law
s&
reg
ulat
ions
con
cern
ing
teac
her
cert
ific
atio
n &
sch
ool
cons
truc
tion
*L
egis
latu
re is
sol
ely
resp
onsi
ble
for
esta
blis
h-in
g, m
aint
aini
ng a
nd f
undi
ng c
omm
onsc
hool
s
*E
stab
lishe
d ta
sk f
orce
of
legi
slat
ors
& r
epre
sent
ativ
es f
rom
gove
rnor
's o
ffic
e to
dev
ise
plan
to p
rovi
de a
dequ
ate
fund
-in
g fo
r m
ore
.4ui
tabl
e sc
hool
sys
tem
by
mid
-Jul
y 19
90*
Thr
ee c
omm
ittee
s fo
rmed
curr
icul
um, f
inan
ce, g
over
-na
nce
head
ed b
y ou
tsid
e co
nsul
tant
s*
1990
edu
catio
n an
d ta
x re
form
bill
(H
B94
0) p
asse
d M
arch
& s
igne
d by
gov
erno
r in
Apr
il*
HB
940
incl
uded
: per
form
ance
-bas
ed s
yste
m o
f re
war
ds &
sanc
tions
for
sch
ools
& te
ache
rs, r
eorg
aniz
atio
n of
sta
tede
part
men
t of
educ
atio
n, li
mit
on a
mou
nt d
istr
icts
cou
ldsp
end,
rev
isio
n of
fou
ndat
ion
& p
ower
equ
aliz
atio
npr
o-gr
am, h
ighe
r m
inim
um m
ill r
ate
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
10
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
MD
1983
, St.
Ct.
of A
ppea
ls(2
95 M
d. 5
97, 4
58 A
.2d
758)
1981
, Cir
cuit
Ct.
1979
, file
d
Som
erse
t Cou
nty
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
-tio
n v.
Hor
nbec
k
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
i`ut
iona
l*
Rev
erse
d tr
ial c
ourt
whi
ch h
eld
fina
nce
sys-
tern
vio
late
d st
ate
cons
titut
ion'
s eq
ual p
rote
c-tio
n an
d er
Inca
tion
prov
isio
ns
*E
chat
ion
clau
se r
equi
rem
ent o
f "t
horo
ugh
and
effi
cien
t" s
choo
l sys
tem
onl
y re
quir
esef
tmts
t..)
min
imiz
e im
pact
of
dem
ogra
phic
and
envi
ronm
enta
l dis
adva
ntag
es o
n ch
il-dr
en; d
oes
not r
equi
re u
nifo
rmity
of
per-
pupi
l exp
endi
ture
s
*U
nder
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n an
alys
is s
tric
t or
heig
hten
ed s
crut
iny
reje
cted
sys
tem
con
sid-
ered
rat
iona
lly r
elat
ed to
eff
ectu
atin
g lo
cal
cont
rol o
ver
scho
ols
*St
ate
cour
t rej
ecte
d cl
aim
s of
mun
icip
al a
nd e
duca
tiona
lov
erbu
rden
; edu
catio
n cl
ause
did
not
man
date
equ
al p
er-
pupi
l fun
ding
or
expe
nditu
re*
Stat
e co
urt r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rt's
dec
isio
n w
hich
hel
d th
efi
nanc
e sy
stem
vio
late
d ed
ucat
ion
clau
se
*T
rial
cou
rt r
ecog
nize
d: p
oor
dist
rict
s re
mai
ned
unde
rfun
d-ed
whi
le n
o sp
endi
ng li
mit
was
pla
ced
on o
ther
dis
tric
ts;
clai
ms
of m
unic
ipal
& e
duca
tiona
l ove
rbur
den;
var
iatio
nof
pro
pert
y w
ealth
cre
ated
spe
ndin
g di
spar
ities
; low
perc
ent o
f st
ate
cont
ribu
tion
to e
duca
tion,
mos
t of
whi
chw
as u
nequ
aliz
ed
mem
bers
of
loca
lsc
hool
boa
rds,
supe
rint
ende
nts,
may
or o
f B
alti-
mor
e, s
tude
nts
&pa
rent
s
MI
1984
, St.
Ct.
of A
ppea
ls(1
33 M
ich.
App
. 132
,34
8 N
.W.2
d 30
3)
1983
, Cir
cuit
Cou
rt
1982
, file
d
Eas
t Jac
kson
Publ
ic S
choo
lsv.
Sta
te o
fM
ichi
gan
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*E
duca
tion
not a
fun
dam
enta
l rig
ht u
nder
Mic
higa
n C
onst
itutio
n an
d fi
nanc
e sy
stem
does
not
vio
late
sta
te e
qual
pro
tect
ion
clau
se*
Edu
catio
n cl
ause
req
uiri
ng a
sys
tem
of
free
publ
ic e
duca
tion
is n
ot s
ynon
ymou
s w
ithpr
ovid
ing
equa
l fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt o
f sc
hool
s
*Pl
aint
iffs
alle
ged
relia
nce
on s
tate
equ
aliz
ed v
alua
tion
(SE
V)
of ta
xabl
e pr
oper
ty a
llow
s fo
r di
spar
ities
; sta
te d
oes
not e
qual
ize
for
expe
nditu
re d
iffe
renc
es w
hich
res
ult i
nun
equa
l edu
catio
n pr
ogra
ms
*C
ourt
hel
d th
at to
pro
vide
fre
e pu
blic
edu
catio
n is
not
syno
nym
ous
with
pro
vidi
ng e
qual
fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt20
sch
ool d
istr
icts
& s
tude
nts
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
11
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
MT
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(769
P.2
d 68
4)
1988
, Dis
tric
t Ct.
Hel
ena
Ele
men
-ta
ry S
choo
lD
istr
ict N
o. 1
v.
Stat
e of
Mon
tana
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Lar
ge d
iffe
renc
es in
per
-pup
il sp
endi
ng u
nre-
late
d to
"ed
ucat
iona
lly r
elev
ant f
acto
rs"
vio-
late
lang
uage
of
educ
atio
n cl
ause
of
stat
eco
nstit
utio
n gu
aran
teei
ng "
equa
lity
of e
duca
-tio
n op
port
unity
"*
Stat
e sc
hool
acc
redi
tatio
n st
anda
rds
are
min
i-m
ums
that
do
not f
ully
def
ine
qual
ity e
du-
catio
n, c
onst
itutio
nal r
ight
s of
stu
dent
s or
stat
e re
spon
sibi
litie
s fo
r fu
ndin
g sc
hool
s
*C
ourt
hel
d: f
ound
atio
n pr
ogra
m r
elie
s to
o he
avily
on
prop
erty
tax
levi
es &
den
ies
equa
l edu
catio
nal o
ppor
tuni
-ty
to s
tude
nts
in p
oor
dist
rict
s*
1989
, in
com
plia
nce
with
cou
rt o
rder
, leg
isla
ture
pas
sed
bill
(HB
28)
duri
ng s
peci
al s
essi
on w
hich
rev
ised
sch
ool
fina
nce
form
ula
*H
B28
: app
ropr
iate
d $3
75 m
illio
n fo
r K
-12
in F
Y91
; in-
crea
sed
stat
e su
ppor
t by
adop
ting
foun
datio
n sc
hedu
les
$67.
2 m
illio
n hi
gher
than
FY
89; i
nstit
uted
loca
l lev
y ca
p(u
p to
35%
of
foun
datio
n am
ount
)
*H
1328
fin
ance
d by
man
dato
ry 9
5-m
ill le
vy (
prev
ious
ly 4
5m
ills)
, 5%
sur
tax
on in
divi
dual
and
cor
pora
te in
com
eta
xes
and
real
loca
tion
of o
ther
tax
reve
nues
*Pl
aint
iffs
file
d br
ief:
(1)
con
tend
ed th
at r
ulin
g ex
tend
sbe
yond
gen
eral
fun
d to
cap
ital o
utla
y &
tran
spor
tatio
nw
hich
HB
28 d
oes
not a
ddre
ss; (
2) a
rgue
d H
B28
is n
otpe
rman
ent,
stab
le f
undi
ng s
ourc
e, d
oes
not a
ddre
ss te
ach-
er r
etir
emen
t ine
quiti
es a
nd w
on't
adeq
uate
ly r
efor
m p
er-
stud
ent s
pend
ing
ineq
uitie
s; (
3) r
eque
sted
cou
rt to
ext
end
decl
arat
ion
of c
onst
itutio
nalit
y of
ena
cted
pro
visi
ons
until
July
1, 1
991,
to a
llow
for
HB
28 to
go
into
eff
ect,
colle
ctm
ore
accu
rate
dat
a an
d al
low
legi
slat
ure
mor
e tim
e to
addr
ess
issu
es
65 s
choo
l dis
tric
ts
NJ
1973
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(62
N.J
. 473
, 303
A.2
d27
3)
1972
, Sta
te S
uper
ior
Ct.
(118
N.J
. Sup
er. 2
23, 2
87A
.2d
187)
1970
, file
d
Rob
inso
n v.
Cah
ill
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Con
stitu
tiona
l gua
rant
ee e
mbr
aces
that
edu
-ca
tion
oppo
rtun
ity n
eede
d in
con
tem
pora
ryse
tting
to e
quip
chi
ldre
n fo
r ro
les
as c
itize
nsan
d co
mpe
titor
s in
the
labo
r m
arke
t*
Stat
e fa
iled
to in
sure
that
all
child
ren
had
equa
l opp
ortu
nity
to o
btai
n su
ch e
duca
tion
*St
ate
faile
d to
def
ine
its o
blig
atio
n to
pro
vide
thor
ough
and
eff
icie
nt e
duca
tion
*Pl
aint
iffs
ask
ed f
or: f
inan
ce s
yste
m to
be
rule
d un
cons
titu-
tiona
l and
rev
ised
; dis
tric
t bou
ndar
ies
to b
e re
draw
n; a
ndpr
oper
ty ta
x sy
stem
to b
e ru
led
unco
nstit
utio
nal f
or f
und-
ing
publ
ic s
choo
ls
*Pl
aint
iffs
cla
imed
fin
ance
sys
tem
vio
late
d ed
ucat
ion
clau
se, p
lace
d un
equa
l tax
bur
den
on lo
w p
rope
rty
valu
edi
stri
cts,
vio
late
d fi
scal
neu
tral
ity s
tand
ard,
rac
ially
dis
-cr
imin
ated
crim
inat
ed
*Fi
rst c
ase
to r
ule
fina
nce
syst
em v
iola
ted
educ
atio
n cl
ause
of s
tate
con
stitu
tion;
did
not
pro
vide
"th
orou
gh &
eff
i-ci
ent"
edu
catio
n sy
stem
*19
75, i
n co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith c
ourt
ord
er to
est
ablis
h re
form
s,le
gisl
atur
e en
acte
d Pu
blic
Sch
ool E
duca
tion
Act
(S.
1516
)*
1976
, fun
ds f
or p
ublic
sch
ools
wer
e en
join
ed a
nd s
choo
lscl
osed
for
2 w
eeks
aft
er le
gisl
atur
e fa
iled
to a
ssur
e fu
llfu
ndin
g fo
r ne
w a
ct b
y Ju
ly 1
; leg
isla
ture
ena
cted
inco
me
tax
to f
und
act,
inju
nctio
n lif
ted
may
ors,
mem
bers
of c
ity c
ounc
ils &
scho
ol b
oard
s of
citie
s, a
stu
dent
and
a ta
xpay
er
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
12
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
NJ
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
Abb
ott v
. Bur
keR
uled
unc
onst
itutio
nal
*Pl
aint
iffs
con
tend
ed P
ublic
Sch
ool F
inan
ce A
ct o
f 19
75(o
vert
urne
d sy
stem
)*
Spen
ding
dis
pari
ties
cond
emne
d in
Rob
inso
nw
as n
ot p
rope
rly
fund
ed a
nd a
llow
ed f
inan
cial
dis
pari
ties
(119
N.J
. 287
, 575
A.2
dPl
aint
iffs
:v.
Cah
ill w
orse
than
bef
ore
fina
nce
act e
nact
-to
rem
ain
exce
ssiv
e; s
tate
arg
ued
loca
l sch
ool d
istr
icts
359)
stud
ents
in 4
edgu
ilty
of e
duca
tiona
l mis
man
agem
ent
1989
, St.
Boa
rd o
f E
du-
urba
n di
stri
cts
*C
erta
in p
oore
r ur
ban
dist
rict
s do
not
pro
vide
1983
, sup
erio
r co
urt d
ism
isse
d su
it; 1
984,
app
ella
te c
ourt
catio
n D
ecis
ion
(uph
eld
thor
ough
and
eff
icie
nt e
duca
tion
and
fina
nce
rule
d in
fav
or o
f th
e pl
aint
iffs
; 198
5, s
tate
sup
rem
e co
urt
deci
sion
)sy
stem
unc
onst
itutio
nal u
nder
edu
catio
nre
vers
ed a
ppel
late
cou
rt d
ecis
ion
& r
eman
ded
to a
dmin
is-
1989
, Sta
te C
omm
issi
on-
clau
se a
s ap
plie
d to
28
poor
er u
rban
sch
ool
trat
ive
law
judg
eer
of
Edu
catio
n D
ivis
ion
dist
rict
s*
Stat
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
rul
ed th
at a
dmin
istr
ativ
e re
med
ies
(uph
eld
syst
em)
*Po
orer
dis
adva
ntag
ed s
tude
nts
mus
t be
mus
t be
exha
uste
d be
fore
cou
rt c
ould
rul
e on
mer
its o
f19
88, A
dmin
istr
ativ
egi
v-en
cha
nce
to c
ompe
te w
ith a
dvan
tage
d st
u-su
itL
aw J
udge
Dec
isio
nde
nts
*A
ugus
t 198
8, a
dmin
istr
ativ
e la
w ju
dge
rule
d sc
hool
fi-
(rec
omm
ende
d sy
stem
*St
ate
mus
tth
atur
ban
dis-
nanc
e sy
stem
unc
onst
itutio
nal
viol
ated
edu
catio
nbe
hel
d un
cons
titut
ion-
guar
ante
epo
orer
tric
ts h
ave
per
pupi
l exp
endi
ture
s ap
prox
i-cl
ause
; dec
isio
n fo
rwar
ded
to c
omm
issi
oner
of
educ
atio
nal
)m
atel
y eq
ual t
o av
erag
e of
pro
pert
y-ri
chw
ho u
phel
d st
ate'
s po
sitio
n19
85, S
tate
Sup
rem
esu
burb
an d
istr
icts
; lev
el m
ust n
ot d
epen
d on
*Su
prem
e C
ourt
rul
ed f
inan
ce s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l as
Cou
rt (
100
N.J
. 269
, 495
budg
etin
g an
d ta
dec
isio
ns o
f po
orer
appl
ied
:o p
oore
r ur
ban
dist
rict
s; 2
8 di
stri
cts
iden
tifie
dA
.2d
376)
(re
man
ded
dist
rict
s*
Cou
rt a
ddre
ssed
are
as o
f ca
tego
rica
l, tr
ansp
orta
tion,
pen
-w
ith d
irec
tions
to a
d-*
Poor
er u
rban
dis
tric
ts m
ust o
ffer
ele
men
tssi
on, c
apita
l out
lay
aid
min
istr
ativ
e fo
rum
for
over
and
abo
ve th
ose
foun
d in
mor
e af
flue
nt*
Cou
rt r
ecog
nize
d de
fici
enci
es in
cur
ricu
la; n
eed
for
bette
rtr
ial)
1984
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.,
App
ella
te D
ivis
ion
dist
rict
s; f
undi
ng le
vel m
ust b
e ad
equa
te to
prov
ide
for
spec
ial e
duca
tion
need
s of
poo
rer
urba
n di
stri
cts
serv
ices
and
pro
gram
s, in
clud
ing
earl
y ch
ildho
od*
Dis
mis
sed
defi
c'en
cies
in e
duca
tion
bein
g pr
imar
ily r
elat
-ed
to m
ism
anag
emen
t rat
her
than
per
-pup
il ex
pend
iture
(rev
erse
d di
smis
sal)
(195
N.J
.Sup
er. 5
9, 4
77*
Min
imum
aid
pro
visi
ons
that
ben
efit
wea
lthy
dist
rict
s ar
e un
cons
titut
iona
ldi
ffer
ence
sA
.2d
1278
)*
July
199
0, le
gisl
atur
e en
acte
d Q
ualit
y E
duca
tion
Act
1983
, St.
Supe
rior
Cou
rt*
Poor
er c
hild
ren
may
not
be
perm
anen
tly c
on-
sign
ed to
infe
rior
edu
catio
n(Q
EA
) of
199
0, b
ased
on
,ove
rnor
's r
ecom
men
datio
ns(d
ism
issa
l for
fai
lure
to*
Act
allo
cate
d $1
bill
ion
in a
dditi
onal
sta
te a
id (
fund
edex
haus
t adm
inis
trat
ive
rem
edie
s in
the
Dep
artm
ent o
f E
duca
-tio
n)
1981
, file
d
.th
roug
h in
com
e an
d sa
les
tax
incr
ease
s); p
hase
d-ou
t min
i-m
um a
id to
wea
lthy
dist
rict
s; o
rder
ed w
ealth
y di
stri
cts
toab
sorb
cos
ts f
or te
ache
r pe
nsio
ns; s
et h
igh
foun
datio
nle
vel (
$6,8
35 f
or e
lem
enta
ry &
add
ition
al a
mou
nts
for
seco
ndar
y fo
r 19
91-9
2); e
stab
lishe
d "s
peci
al n
eeds
" di
s-tr
icts
, acc
ount
abili
ty m
easu
res
0 ..
*Q
EA
I r
evis
edQ
EA
II
redu
ced
stat
e ed
ucat
ion
aid,
prov
ided
loca
l tax
rel
ief,
red
uced
bas
e fo
unda
tion
leve
l,al
tere
d m
etho
d to
det
erm
ine
"fai
r sh
are"
of
30 s
peci
alne
eds
dist
rict
s, a
dded
mor
e re
stri
ctiv
e bu
dget
cap
s, d
e-la
yed
loca
l dis
tric
t ass
umpt
ion
of te
ache
r pe
nsio
n &
soc
ial
secu
rity
cos
tsr
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
13
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
NY
1982
, St.
Ct.
of A
ppea
ls(5
7 N
.Y.2
d 27
, 439
N.E
.2d
359)
1981
, App
ella
te D
iV,io
nof
St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(443
N.Y
.S.2
d 84
3, 8
3 A
.D.2
d21
7)
1978
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(94
Mis
c.2d
466
, 408
N.Y
.2d
606)
1974
, file
d
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
-tio
n, L
evitt
own
v. N
yqui
st
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*U
nder
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n pr
ovis
ion,
edu
catio
nno
t fun
dam
enta
l rig
ht o
r in
tere
st; s
tric
t scr
u-tin
y an
d in
term
edia
te r
evie
w s
tand
ard
reje
ct-
ed
*R
atio
nal r
elat
ions
hip
foun
d be
twee
n fi
nanc
esy
stem
and
legi
timat
e st
ate
purp
ose
of lo
cal
cont
rol o
f ed
ucat
ion
*E
duca
tion
prov
isio
n re
quir
ing
"mai
nten
ance
and
supp
ort o
f fr
ee c
omm
on s
choo
ls w
here
inal
l the
chi
ldre
n of
this
sta
te m
ay b
e ed
ucat
-ed
" re
quir
es o
nly
min
imal
acc
epta
ble
faci
li-tie
s an
d se
rvic
es a
nd n
ot e
qual
or
subs
tan-
tially
equ
ival
ent e
duca
tion
*Pl
aint
iffs
fro
m la
rge
urba
n di
stri
cts
clai
med
mun
icip
al a
nded
ucat
iona
l ove
rbur
den
*St
ate
cour
t of
appe
als
reve
rsed
two
low
er c
ourt
dec
isio
ns*
Cou
rt r
ecog
nize
d ex
iste
nce
of s
igni
fica
nt d
ispa
ritie
s; "
judi
-ci
ally
impr
uden
t" to
rul
e un
cons
titut
iona
l, pa
rtly
due
tola
ck o
f pr
oper
rem
edy
*N
o re
quir
emen
t for
edu
catio
n to
be
equa
l in
ever
y di
stri
ct;
mus
t onl
y pr
ovid
e m
inim
al, a
ccep
tabl
e fa
cilit
ies
& s
ervi
ces
boar
ds o
f ed
uca-
tion
& s
tude
nts
from
27
dist
rict
s&
4 la
rge
citie
s
OH
1979
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(58
Ohi
o St
.2d
368,
390
N.E
.2d
813)
1978
, St.
Ct.
of A
ppea
ls(1
0 O
hio
Ops
.3d
26)
1977
, St.
Ct.
of C
omm
onPl
eas
1976
, file
d
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
-tio
n of
the
City
Scho
ol D
istr
ict o
fC
inci
nnat
i v.
Wal
ter
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*E
duca
tion
not f
unda
men
tal r
ight
for
equ
alpr
otec
tion
prov
isio
n; lo
cal c
ontr
ol r
atio
nal
basi
s su
ppor
ting
fina
nce
syst
em*
Sinc
e fo
rmul
a es
tabl
ishe
s fu
ndin
g fl
oor
suff
i-ci
ent .
J m
eet s
tate
min
imum
sta
ndar
ds, l
egis
-la
ture
did
not
abu
se it
s re
spon
sibi
lity
toes
tabl
ish
a "t
horo
ugh
and
effi
cien
t" e
duca
tion
syst
em
*Pl
aint
iffs
alle
ged:
bur
den
on d
istr
icts
to r
aise
exc
essi
vepo
rtio
n of
edu
catio
n fu
nds
to m
eet r
equi
rem
ents
de-
pend
ent o
n vo
ter
appr
oval
of
tax
lcvi
e.:,
rath
er th
an o
nco
st to
pro
vide
thor
ough
& e
ffic
ient
edu
catio
n*
Plai
ntif
fs c
laim
ed m
unic
ipal
& e
duca
tiona
l ove
rbur
den
*Pl
aint
iffs
cha
lleng
ed f
isca
l pen
alty
redu
ced
stat
e ai
d fo
rdi
stri
ct's
inab
ility
to m
eet m
anda
ted
educ
atio
n st
anda
rds
*Su
prem
e co
urt r
ever
sed
coun
ty c
ourt
dec
isio
n*
Edu
catio
n op
port
unity
not
abs
olut
ely
deni
ed
Cin
cinn
ati b
oard
of e
duca
tion,
dist
rict
sup
erin
-te
nden
t, pa
rent
s,st
uden
ts
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
14
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
OK
1987
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(746
P.2
d 11
35)
1980
, file
d
Fair
Sch
ool F
i-na
nce
Cou
ncil
ofO
klah
oma,
Inc
.v.
Sta
te
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*E
qual
exp
endi
ture
s no
t man
date
d un
der
con-
stitu
tiona
l req
uire
men
t of
"sys
tem
of
free
publ
ic s
choo
ls w
here
in a
ll ch
ildre
n of
the
stat
e m
ay b
e ed
ucat
ed";
onl
y re
quir
es b
asic
,ad
equa
te e
duca
tion
acco
rdin
g to
sta
ndar
dsse
t by
Stat
e B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n
*Fa
ct th
at d
istr
icts
not
per
mitt
ed to
incr
ease
loca
l tax
rat
es d
id n
ot m
ake
wea
lth-r
elat
edex
pend
iture
dis
pari
ties
subj
ect t
o ch
alle
nge
unde
r eq
ual p
rote
ctio
n cl
ause
of
U.S
. Con
sti-
tutio
n
*N
o st
rict
scr
utin
y of
fin
ance
sys
tem
und
erst
ate
equa
l pro
tect
ion
form
ula
*A
id f
orm
ula
desi
gned
to m
inim
ize
effe
cts
ofun
equa
l ass
essm
ent p
ract
ices
*C
onst
itutio
nal l
imit
on p
rope
rty
tax
leve
l and
oth
er r
e-st
rict
ions
com
plic
ated
pro
pert
y-po
or d
istr
ict's
abi
lity
tora
ise
adeq
uate
am
ount
to s
uppo
rt e
duca
tion
serv
ices
;pl
aint
iffs
cla
imed
gre
at f
inan
cial
dis
pari
ties
exis
ted
amon
gdi
stri
cts
*Fl
at g
rant
pro
gram
pro
vide
d sa
me
amou
nt o
f ai
d ro
all
dist
rict
s; f
ound
atio
n pr
ogra
m f
aile
d to
clo
se g
aps
*19
81, l
egis
latu
re r
evis
ed f
inan
ce s
yste
mpu
pil-
wei
ght-
ing
sche
me
usin
g fo
unda
tion
& g
uara
ntee
d ta
x ba
se; 1
982,
adde
d $1
50 m
illio
n to
fin
ance
sys
tem
38 s
choo
l dis
-tr
icts
, stu
dent
s,ta
xpay
ers
OR
1976
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(276
Or.
9, 5
54 P
.2d
139)
1975
, Cir
cuit
Ct.
1972
, file
d
Ols
en v
. Ore
gon
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*U
nder
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n an
alys
is, s
tate
's in
ter-
est i
n m
aint
aini
ng lo
cal c
ontr
ol f
ound
toou
twei
gh d
etri
men
t to
educ
atio
n ca
used
by
uneq
ual e
xpen
ditu
res
*E
duca
tion
clau
se r
equi
rem
ent o
f un
ifor
m a
ndge
nera
l sys
tem
of
com
mon
sch
ools
onl
yre
quir
es m
inim
um e
duca
tion
oppo
rtun
ities
*Pl
aint
iffs
cla
imed
fla
t gra
nt p
rogr
am h
ad d
iseq
ualiz
ing
effe
ct, f
inan
ce s
yste
m v
iola
ted
fisc
al n
eutr
ality
sta
ndar
d
*C
ourt
rul
ed th
e in
tere
st im
ping
ed u
pon
educ
atio
nal
oppo
rtun
ityw
as o
utw
eigh
ed b
y ob
ject
ive
to m
aint
ain
loca
l con
trol
clas
s ac
tion
suit
on b
ehal
f of
:01
publ
ic s
choo
lch
ildre
n in
sta
teex
cept
in h
igh-
wea
lth d
istr
icts
;ta
xpay
ers
OR
1991
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
1990
, Cir
cuit
Cou
rt
1990
, file
d
Coa
litio
n fo
rE
duca
tion
Equ
ityv.
Ore
gon
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*Fu
ndin
g sy
stem
doe
s no
t vio
late
edu
catio
ncl
ause
*C
onst
itutio
n up
hold
s va
lidity
of
prop
erty
-ta
x-fu
nded
sch
ools
, dis
pari
ties
notw
ithst
and-
ing
*19
87, p
ublic
app
rove
d co
nstit
utio
nal a
men
dmen
t to
esta
b-lis
h "s
afet
y ne
t" th
at a
llow
s sc
hool
dis
tric
t una
ble
to r
aise
addi
tiona
l mon
ey th
roug
h ta
x le
vies
to o
pera
te a
t pre
viou
sye
ar's
fun
ding
leve
l
*C
ourt
cla
imed
app
rova
l of
"saf
ety
net"
sho
wed
pub
lic's
acce
ptan
ce o
f di
spar
ities
*C
ircu
it co
urt r
efer
red
back
to 1
976
deci
sion
whi
ch r
uled
stat
e no
t req
uire
d to
fin
ance
sch
ools
equ
itabl
y
*Pl
aint
iffs
poi
nted
to f
inan
cial
dis
pari
ties
betw
een
prop
erty
-ric
h di
stri
cts
with
hig
h as
sess
ed p
rope
rty
valu
esan
d re
lativ
ely
low
taxe
s, a
nd p
oor
dist
rict
s w
hich
mus
tle
vy h
igh
taxe
s to
rai
se s
ame
amou
nt o
f m
oney
56 s
choo
l dis
-tr
icts
, par
ents
,pr
oper
ty o
wne
rs
cn
.
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
29Pa
ge 1
5
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
TN
1993
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct
1992
, St.
Ct o
f A
ppea
ls
1991
, Dav
idso
n C
tyC
hanc
ery
Ct
1988
, File
d
TN
Sm
all S
choo
lSy
stem
s et
al.
v.M
cWhe
rter
et a
l.
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Dis
pari
ties
in a
vaila
ble
educ
atio
n re
sour
ces
viol
ate
cons
titut
iona
l req
uire
men
t to
prov
ide
"sub
stan
tially
equ
al e
duca
tion
oppo
rtun
ities
to a
ll st
uden
ts"
*A
ffir
med
Cha
ncer
y C
ourt
dec
isio
n th
at f
i-na
nce
syst
em w
as u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l; re
vers
edC
ourt
of
App
eals
dec
isio
n th
at o
vert
urne
dlo
wer
cou
rt r
ulin
g
*C
hanc
ery
Cou
rt r
uled
fun
ding
sys
tem
unc
onsa
utio
nal
beca
use
of d
iffe
renc
es in
qua
lity
of e
duca
tion
offe
red
inw
ealth
ier
urba
n ar
eas
and
poor
er r
ural
are
as*
Supr
eme
Cou
rt s
ent c
ase
back
to C
hanc
ery
Cou
rt to
det
er -
min
e w
heth
er r
evis
ions
to f
undi
ng s
yste
m p
rior
to d
eci-
com
ply
with
cou
rt o
rder
*L
ower
cou
rt ju
dge
stat
ed "
evid
ence
indi
cate
s a
dire
ctco
rrel
atio
n be
twee
n do
llars
exp
ende
d an
d th
: qu
ality
of
educ
atio
n a
stud
ent r
ecei
ves"
77 s
mal
l, ru
ral
scho
ol d
istr
icts
TX
1973
, U.S
. Sup
rem
e C
t.(4
11 U
.S. 1
, 93
S.C
t.12
78, 3
6 L
.Ed.
2d 1
6)
1971
, U.S
. Dis
tric
t Ct.
(337
F.S
upp.
280
)
1968
, file
d
San
Ant
onio
Inde
pend
ent
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
v. R
odri
guez
Plai
ntif
fs:
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*In
5-4
dec
isio
n, U
.S. S
upre
me
Cou
rt h
eld
that
unde
r eq
ual p
rote
ctio
n cl
ause
of
14th
Am
endm
ent t
o U
.S. C
onst
itutio
n, p
rope
rty
wea
lth-r
elat
ed d
ispa
ritie
s in
sch
ool s
per,
',ng
shou
ld n
ot b
e st
rict
ly s
crut
iniz
ed s
ince
edu
-ca
tion
not a
fun
dam
enta
l int
eres
t and
chi
l-dr
en in
low
-wea
lth s
choo
l dis
tric
ts n
ot a
susp
ect c
lass
*E
duca
tion
not f
unda
men
tal i
nter
est b
ecau
seno
t exp
licitl
y or
impl
icitl
y pr
otec
ted
by U
.S.
Con
stitu
tion to o
btai
n ba
sic
min
imal
ski
lls*
No
proo
f ch
ildre
n de
nied
edu
catio
n or
op-
port
unity
*U
nder
min
imal
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n sc
rutin
y,T
exas
sch
ool f
inan
ce s
yste
m h
ad r
atio
nal
basi
s of
pro
mot
ing
stat
e in
tere
st in
pre
serv
-in
g lo
cal c
ontr
ol
*D
istr
ict c
ourt
rul
ed f
inan
ce s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l und
ereq
ual p
rote
ctio
n cl
ause
of
14th
Am
endm
ent
sign
ific
ant
disp
ariti
es in
sch
ool e
xpen
ditu
re e
xist
ed
*U
.S. S
upre
me
Cou
rt d
ecla
red
syst
em d
id n
ot d
eny
oppo
r-tu
nity
to o
btai
n ba
sic
min
imal
ski
lls
*R
ejec
ted
"poo
r st
uden
ts"
or "
poor
sch
ool d
istr
icts
" as
sus
-pe
ct c
lass
*C
ited
impo
rtan
ce o
f lo
cal c
ontr
ol*
His
tori
c ca
se w
hich
elim
inat
ed f
eder
al c
ourt
s as
rec
eptiv
efo
rum
to s
choo
l fin
ance
cas
es s
ince
edu
catio
n no
t fun
da-
men
tal r
ight
und
er a
nd c
anno
t be
held
to s
tric
t scr
utin
y*
Prov
iaed
gui
delin
e fo
r st
ate
cour
ts: i
f im
port
ance
of
edu-
catio
n m
entio
ned
in s
tate
con
stitu
tion,
suc
h la
ngua
geal
low
s fo
r, b
ut d
oes
not n
eces
sita
te, f
unda
men
tal i
nter
est
stat
us o
f ed
ucat
ion
pare
nts
from
Edg
ewoo
d Sc
hool
Dis
tric
t; cl
ass
actio
n su
it on
beha
lf o
f po
or &
min
ority
stu
dent
s
3
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
16
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
TX
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
Edg
ewoo
d In
de-
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
(1)
May
198
9, le
gisl
atur
e ap
prop
riat
ed a
dditi
onal
$45
0(7
77 S
.W.2
d 39
1)pe
nden
t Sch
ool
*Sc
hool
fin
ance
sys
tem
hel
d un
cons
titut
iona
lm
illio
n to
equ
aliz
e di
stri
cts
over
2-y
ear
peri
od :
cour
t
1988
, Ct.
of A
ppea
lsD
istr
ict v
. Kir
byun
der
educ
atio
n ar
ticle
whi
ch r
equi
res
"gen
-re
cogn
ized
low
impa
ct o
n sy
stem
that
spe
nds
$12
billi
on
(761
S.W
.2d
859)
1987
, St.
Dis
tric
t Cou
rtPl
aint
iffs
:er
al d
iffu
sion
of
know
ledg
e" a
nd "
effi
cien
tsy
stem
of
publ
ic s
choo
ls"
annu
ally
; (2)
197
7-84
, leg
isla
ture
dis
trib
uted
$1.
1 bi
llion
ineq
ualiz
atio
n ai
d; (
3) 1
984,
pas
sed
educ
atio
n re
form
act
HB
72re
vise
d sc
hool
fun
ding
sys
tem
whi
ch c
reat
ed67
dis
tric
ts &
14
1984
, file
dfa
mili
es*
Syst
em n
eith
er f
inan
cial
ly e
ffic
ient
nor
doe
sit
prov
ide
for
a ge
nera
l dif
fusi
on o
f kn
owl-
edge
sta
tew
ide
two-
tier
syst
em w
ith f
undi
ng b
ased
on
pupi
l uni
ts, i
n-cr
ease
d eq
ualiz
atio
n ai
d &
gen
eral
fun
ding
to p
oor
dis-
tric
ts; s
yste
m r
emai
ned
unde
rfun
ded
*D
istr
icts
mus
t hav
e su
bsta
ntia
lly e
qual
acc
ess
to s
imila
r re
venu
es p
er p
upil
at s
imila
r le
vels
of ta
x ef
fort
*B
asis
of
suit:
ineq
uity
of
and
relia
nce
on lo
cal p
rope
rty
taxa
tion
*19
87, t
rial
cou
rt h
eld
in f
avor
of
plai
ntif
fs; 1
988,
Thi
rdC
ourt
of
App
eals
rev
erse
d de
cisi
on; 1
989,
Sta
te S
upre
me
Cou
rt u
nani
mou
sly
reve
rsed
app
eals
cou
rt &
dec
lare
dsc
hool
fin
ance
sys
tem
unc
onst
itutio
nal
*St
ate
Supr
eme
Cou
rt a
ffir
med
use
of
"fis
cal n
eutr
ality
"st
anda
rd, b
ut q
ualif
ied:
sch
ool d
istr
icts
mus
t hav
e "s
ub-
stan
tially
equ
al a
.:ces
s" to
sim
ilar
per-
pupi
l rev
enue
s at
sim
ilar
leve
ls r
A ta
x ef
fort
*St
ate
fina
nce
prog
ram
Foun
datio
n Sc
hool
Pro
gram
does
not
cov
er c
ost t
o m
eet s
tate
-man
date
d m
inim
umre
quir
emen
ts, n
o al
lotm
ents
for
sch
ool f
acili
ties
or d
ebt
serv
ice
*St
ate
com
ptro
ller
orde
red
to s
top
paym
ents
to p
ublic
scho
ols
afte
r co
urt-
impo
sed
dead
line
of M
ay 1
, 199
0, f
orle
gisl
atur
e to
dev
ise
plan
to r
educ
e w
ide
fund
ing
disp
ari-
ties
betw
een
dist
rict
s &
ach
ieve
eff
icie
nt s
yste
mor
at
leas
t to
gene
rate
equ
aliz
atio
n m
oney
for
199
0-91
sch
ool
year
and
then
con
cent
rate
on
perm
anen
t sol
utio
n ne
xtle
gisl
ativ
e se
ssio
n
*L
egis
latu
re &
gov
erno
r fa
iled
to r
each
con
sens
us b
y M
ay1
dead
line;
cou
rt a
ppoi
nted
"sp
ecia
l mas
ter"
to d
evel
oppl
an in
cas
e co
nsen
sus
coul
d no
t be
met
*T
o w
ork
with
in e
xist
ing
reso
urce
s, "
spec
ial m
aste
r" p
ro-
pose
d pl
an to
shi
ft s
tate
aid
fro
m w
ealth
y to
poo
r di
stri
cts
*D
urin
g fo
urth
spe
cial
legi
slat
ive
sess
ion,
SB
1 w
as e
nact
edw
hich
rev
ised
fin
ance
sys
tem
& a
ddre
ssed
oth
er a
reas
of
educ
atio
n
(Con
tinue
d on
nex
t pag
e)
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
oles
,Pa
ge 1
7
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
ontr
t /D
evel
opm
ents
TX
.
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(777
S.W
.2d
391)
1988
, Ct.
of A
ppea
ls(7
61 S
.W.2
d 85
9)
1987
, St.
Dis
tric
t Cou
rt
1984
, file
d
Edg
ewoo
d hi
de-
pend
ent S
choo
lD
istr
ict v
. Kir
by(C
oned
fro
m p
re-
viou
s pa
ge)
*SB
1 fu
nded
thro
ugh
quar
ter-
cent
sal
es ta
x in
crea
se*
SB1:
(1)
mai
ntai
ned
two-
tier
foun
datio
n &
gua
rant
eed
yiel
d pr
ogra
m, (
2) r
evis
ed p
upil-
wei
ghtin
g sy
stem
, (3)
rais
ed g
uara
ntee
d yi
eld,
(4)
cha
nged
-pup
il co
unt m
easu
re-
men
t, (5
) al
lotte
d $4
bill
ion
in n
ew f
unds
ove
r 5-
year
peri
od, (
6) a
llow
ed "
equi
ty s
tand
ard"
to c
hang
e ba
sed
onac
coun
tabl
e-co
st s
tudy
, (7)
add
ress
ed is
sues
rel
atin
g to
gove
rnan
ce, s
choo
l-ba
sed
man
agem
ent,
regu
latio
n w
aiv-
ers,
ear
ly c
hild
hood
*19
91, S
B1
chal
leng
ed b
y or
igin
al p
lain
tiffs
& o
vert
urne
dby
Sta
te S
upre
me
Cou
rt
*L
egis
latu
re e
nact
ed S
B35
1, e
stab
lishi
ng 1
88 c
ount
y ed
uca-
tion
dist
rict
s (C
ED
s)re
gion
al a
genc
ies
with
aut
hori
ty to
colle
ct a
nd d
istr
ibut
e lo
cal r
even
ue w
ithin
CE
D.
*Ja
nuar
y 19
92, S
B35
1 ch
alle
nged
by
wea
lthy
dist
rict
s an
dov
ertu
rned
by
Stat
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
*L
ower
cou
rt s
et M
ay 1
, 199
3 de
adlin
e fo
r le
gisl
atur
e to
prod
uce
acce
ptab
le r
emed
y or
sch
ools
wou
ld c
lose
WA
1974
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(84
Wn.
2d 6
85, 5
30 P
.2d
178)
1972
, file
d
Nor
thsh
ore
Scho
ol D
istr
ict.
v. K
inne
ar
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
*Fi
ve s
epar
ate
opin
ions
file
d by
9-m
embe
rSt
ate
Supr
eme
Cou
rt*
Thr
ee ju
stic
es v
otin
g to
uph
old
syst
em w
ith-
out r
eser
vatio
n fo
und
cons
titut
iona
l req
uire
-m
ent o
f "u
nifo
rm a
nd g
ener
al s
yste
m"
ofed
ucat
ion
requ
ires
onl
y m
inim
um e
duca
tion
oppo
rtun
ities
*T
wo
conc
urri
ng ju
stic
es c
onsi
dere
d st
ate
educ
atio
n ai
d in
adeq
uate
; thr
ee ju
stic
esw
ould
hav
e fo
und
syst
em u
ncon
stitu
tiona
lun
der
educ
atio
n ar
ticle
*Pl
aint
iffs
alle
ged
viol
atio
n of
fis
cal n
eutr
ality
sta
ndar
d an
ddi
spar
ities
in e
xpen
ditu
re, e
duca
tion
qual
ity &
tax
rate
*"U
nifo
rm &
gen
eral
" sy
stem
onl
y re
quir
es c
erta
in m
ini-
mum
edu
catio
nal o
ppor
tuni
ty*
Dis
sent
ing
judg
e fo
und
stat
e ai
d to
hav
e no
nequ
aliz
ing
effe
cts
& to
vio
late
edu
catio
n cl
ause
; lai
d gr
ound
for
subs
eque
nt la
wsu
it
scho
ol d
istr
icts
,st
uden
ts, p
aren
ts,
taxp
ayer
s
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
18
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
WA
1978
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(90
Wn.
2d 4
76, 5
85 P
.2d
71)
1977
, St.
Supe
rior
Ct.
1977
, file
d
Seat
tle S
choo
lD
istr
ict N
o. 1
of K
ing
Cou
nty
v. S
tate
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Leg
isla
ture
has
dut
y to
def
ine
"bas
ic e
duca
-lio
n" a
nd m
ake
ampl
e pr
ovis
ion
for
its f
und-
ing
by m
eans
of
regu
lar
and
depe
ndab
le ta
xso
urce
s an
d no
t spe
cial
exc
ess
levi
es
*B
asic
edu
catio
n m
eans
bro
ad e
duca
tion
op-
port
uniti
es n
eede
d in
con
tem
pora
ry s
ettin
gto
equ
ip c
hild
ren
for
role
as
citiz
ens
and
com
petit
ors
in la
bor
mar
ket a
nd m
arke
tpla
ceof
idea
so
*Pl
aint
iffs
con
tend
ed th
at 4
0% o
f Se
attle
's e
duca
tion
budg
etde
pend
ed o
n pa
ssag
e of
ann
ual r
efer
endu
m; w
ithou
tpa
ssag
e, c
anno
t mee
t sta
te r
equi
rem
ents
*19
78, S
upre
me
Cou
rt u
phel
d tr
ial c
ourt
's d
ecis
ion
decl
ar-
ing
scho
ol f
inan
ce s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
lvi
olat
eded
ucat
ion
clau
se
*Su
prem
e C
ourt
sta
ted
that
legi
slat
ure
had
duty
to d
efin
e"b
asic
edu
catio
n" &
; ro
vide
for
fun
ding
thro
ugh
regu
lar
& d
epen
dabl
e ta
xes
*19
81, p
lain
tiffs
file
d su
it in
Sta
te S
upre
me
Cou
rt c
laim
ing
stat
e fa
iled
to d
efin
e &
fun
d ba
sic
educ
atio
n
*C
ase
tran
sfer
red
back
to c
ount
y su
peri
or c
ourt
whi
chru
led
"bas
ic e
duca
tion"
mus
t inc
lude
han
dica
pped
, bili
n-gu
al &
rem
edia
l pro
gram
s; r
even
ue s
hort
falls
not
legi
ti-m
ate
excu
se f
or f
ailu
re to
pro
vide
ade
quat
e fu
ndin
g
*St
ate
sinc
e ad
opte
d fi
nanc
e pl
an r
elyi
ng h
eavi
ly o
n st
ate
supp
ort
24 s
choo
l dis
-tr
icts
, edu
catio
nas
soci
atio
ns &
advo
cacy
gro
ups
and
othe
rs
WI
1976
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
Bus
e v.
Sm
ith
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
"Neg
ativ
e ai
d" p
rovi
sion
vio
late
d un
ifor
mity
clau
se o
f st
ate
cons
titut
ion
tax
artic
le
*Pl
aint
iffs
cha
lleng
ed "
nega
tive
aid"
or
"rec
aptu
re"
prov
i-si
on o
f 19
73 S
choo
l Fin
ance
Act
*Su
prem
e C
ourt
str
uck
dow
n ne
gativ
e-ai
d pr
ovis
ion;
vio
-la
ted
prin
cipl
e of
sta
te c
onst
itutio
n in
that
taxe
s le
vied
inon
e di
stri
ct c
ould
not
be
used
for
dir
ect b
enef
it of
oth
ersc
hool
dis
tric
ts o
r so
le b
enef
it of
sta
te
"neg
ativ
e ai
d"sc
hool
dis
tric
ts,
taxp
ayer
s, s
choo
lbo
ard
mem
bers
,pa
rent
s, r
esid
ents
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
19
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
WI
1989
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(148
Wis
.2d
469,
436
N.W
.2d
568)
1986
, St.
Cir
cuit
Ct.
1979
, file
d
Kuk
or v
. Gro
ver
Plai
ntif
fs:
Milw
auke
e sc
hool
dist
rict
, chi
ldre
nan
d pa
rent
s
Uph
eld
as c
onst
itutio
nal
Edu
catio
n pr
ovis
ion
of s
tate
con
stitu
tion
requ
irin
g "e
stab
lishm
ent o
f di
stri
ct s
choo
ls,
whi
ch s
hall
be a
s ne
arly
uni
form
as
prac
tica-
ble"
doe
s no
t req
uire
sta
te to
ass
ure
each
dist
rict
has
suf
fici
ent r
esou
rces
to r
espo
nd to
the
part
icul
ar e
duca
tion
need
s of
eac
h ch
ild
Equ
al o
ppor
tuni
ty f
or e
duca
tion
is a
fun
da-
men
tal r
ight
but
doe
s no
t man
date
abs
olut
eeq
ualit
y in
per
-pup
il ex
pend
iture
s or
une
qual
allo
catio
n in
res
pons
e to
par
ticul
ar n
eeds
of
each
stu
dent
*Si
nce
no c
ompl
ete
deni
al o
f ed
ucat
ion
oppo
r-tu
nity
, cou
rt a
pplie
s ra
tiona
l bas
is s
tand
ard
to s
pend
ing
disp
ariti
es*
Spen
ding
dis
pari
ties
just
ifie
d by
pre
serv
atio
nof
loca
l con
troi
Plai
ntif
fs c
onte
nded
fin
ance
sys
tem
did
not
take
into
acco
unt s
peci
al n
eeds
of
dist
rict
s th
at e
nrol
l hig
h pe
rcen
t-ag
e of
"at
-ris
k" s
tude
nts
Cou
rt h
eld
that
res
olvi
ng in
equi
ties
amon
g di
stri
cts
isre
spon
sibi
lity
of le
gisl
atur
e, n
ot c
ourt
s
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
20
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
WV
1979
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(162
W.V
a 67
2, 2
55S.
E.2
d 85
9)
1977
, St.
Cir
cuit
Cou
rt
1975
, file
d
Pau
ley
v. B
aile
y
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l
*W
ealth
as
susp
ect c
lass
ific
atio
n
*E
duca
tion
fund
amen
tal i
nter
est f
or e
qual
prot
ectio
n an
alys
is; l
egis
lativ
e cl
assi
fica
tions
crea
ting
educ
atio
n in
equi
ties
shou
ld b
e st
rict
-ly
scr
utin
ized
and
just
ifie
d by
com
pelli
ngst
ate
inte
rest
*H
eld
stat
e co
nstit
utio
n's
requ
irem
ent o
f"t
horo
ugh
and
effi
cien
t" s
yste
m o
f fr
eesc
hool
s m
anda
tes
high
qua
lity
educ
atio
nst
anda
rds
*D
efin
ed th
orou
gh a
nd e
ffic
ient
man
date
inte
rms
of c
ore
elem
ents
of
curr
icul
um, p
erso
n-ne
l, fa
cilit
ies,
mat
eria
ls, e
quip
men
t
*A
ntic
ipat
ed th
at f
inan
ce s
yste
m w
oula
be
foun
d co
nstit
utio
nally
def
icie
nt
* * * * *
1979
, Sta
te S
upre
me
Cou
rt r
ever
sed
tria
l cou
rt's
dis
mis
sal
of p
lain
tiffs
' com
plai
nt &
rem
ande
d ca
se to
cir
cuit
cour
t
Cir
cuit
cour
t of
Kan
awha
Cou
nty
foun
d fi
nanc
e sy
stem
unco
nstit
utio
nal:
Did
not
pro
vide
equ
itabl
e &
ade
quat
e fu
ndin
g fo
rth
orou
gh a
nd e
ffic
ient
sys
tem
Cos
ts f
or p
rogr
ams
such
as
spec
ial e
duca
tion,
rem
e-di
al e
duca
tion,
ear
ly c
hild
hood
mus
t be
refl
ecte
d in
fund
ing
form
ula
Inad
equa
cies
& in
effi
cien
cies
(as
def
ined
by
educ
a-tio
nal i
nput
s) r
esul
ted
from
fin
ance
sys
tem
& r
elat
edto
var
ied
educ
atio
nal r
esou
rces
& e
xpen
ditu
res
amon
g co
untie
sR
elia
nce
on lo
cally
fun
ded
exce
ss le
vies
to p
rovi
deth
orou
gh &
eff
icie
nt s
yste
m u
ncon
stitu
tiona
lSt
ate
faile
d to
pro
vide
ade
quat
e fu
ndin
g fo
r sc
hool
cons
truc
tion
Tax
atio
n &
ass
essm
ent o
f pr
oper
ty is
not
equ
al o
run
ifor
m
Add
ress
ed n
ot o
nly
fina
ncia
l & e
duca
tiona
l equ
ity, b
utqu
ality
& s
ubst
ance
of
educ
atio
n
Cou
rt o
rder
ed e
xecu
tive
& le
gisl
ativ
e br
anch
es to
dev
elop
mas
ter
plan
to c
reat
e eq
uita
ble,
hig
h-qu
ality
edu
catio
nsy
stem
in r
egar
d to
sta
ff &
fac
ilitie
s, c
ours
es &
to c
orre
ctof
feri
ng d
ispa
ritie
s by
198
3
1983
, Mas
ter
Plan
for
Edu
catio
n, w
hich
add
ress
ed r
oles
of
stat
e &
loca
l edu
catio
n ag
enci
es, e
duca
tiona
l fac
ilitie
sch
ange
s in
fin
ance
sys
tem
app
rove
d by
tria
l cou
rt
pare
nts
& s
tu-
dent
s of
Lin
coln
Cou
nty
4 .)
4
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
21
SCH
OO
L F
INA
NC
E L
ITIG
AT
ION
CH
AR
T
Stat
eC
ase/
Plai
ntif
fs &
Pro
cedu
ral H
isto
ryR
ulin
gH
isto
ry/C
onte
xt/D
evel
opm
ents
WY
1980
, St.
Supr
eme
Ct.
(606
P.2
d 31
0)
1979
, St.
Dis
tric
t Ct.
1978
, file
d
Was
haki
eC
ount
y Sc
hool
Dis
tric
t No.
1v.
Her
sch
ler
Plai
ntif
fs:
Rul
ed u
ncon
stitu
tiona
l*
Supr
eme
Cou
rt o
vert
urne
d tr
ial c
ourt
's d
is-
mis
sal o
f co
mpl
aint
and
hel
d tr
ial n
ot n
eces
-sa
ry b
ecau
se s
tatu
tory
fin
anci
ng s
truc
ture
inhe
rent
ly d
efec
tive
*E
duca
tion,
fun
dam
enta
l int
eres
t; un
der
equa
lpr
otec
tion
prov
isio
n, s
tate
fai
led
to d
emon
-st
rate
com
pelli
ng in
tere
st in
per
petu
atin
gfi
nanc
e sy
stem
that
res
ults
in w
ealth
-rel
ated
spen
ding
dis
pari
ties
*E
duca
tion
artic
le m
anda
ting
com
plet
e an
dun
ifor
m s
yste
m o
f pu
blic
inst
ruct
ion
is a
spec
ific
equ
al p
rote
ctio
n re
quir
emen
t app
lica-
ble
to s
tate
's s
choo
l sys
tem
*C
ourt
sup
port
ed c
laim
that
dis
pari
ty in
fin
anci
al r
esou
rces
rela
ted
to q
ualit
y of
edu
catio
n*
Cou
rt o
rder
ed le
gisl
atur
e to
ado
pt c
onst
itutio
nal s
yste
m o
ffi
nanc
e by
Jul
y 1,
198
3*
1983
, rev
ised
sch
ool f
undi
ng s
yste
m, i
nclu
ding
a r
ecap
ture
prov
isio
n3
dist
rict
s &
scho
ol b
oard
mem
bers
, tax
-pa
yers
, pat
ient
s,st
uden
ts
43
Edu
catio
n C
omm
issi
on o
f th
e St
ates
Page
22
EDUCATIONCOMMISSIONOF THE sTATES
4