Press "Enter" to skip to content

Supreme Court School Funding Ruling: Setback or Slight Hope?

Last updated on 2012.01.29

Esteemed reader and commenter Troy Jones insists that the South Dakota Supreme Court's affirmation last week of the lower court's rejection of the school funding lawsuit represents not just a victory for the state but a boomerang-Waterloo for the whiny school districts that dared drag the state to court:

Overall, I think the school boards lost more than they even imagined [Troy Jones, comment, 2011.09.03].

As I read this again ruling after [Saturday] conversation with a lawyer, the school boards have gone so backwards (read the factors the court mentions that might have more impact on education) as the courts are as likely to demand replacement of board members, administration or teachers as they are to force more taxes [Troy Jones, comment, 2011.09.05].

The Court showed last week it's darned unlikely to order the Legislature to raise taxes, so the gentlest reading I can give to Mr. Jones's hopeful equation is that we are just as unlikely to see a judicial override of local school board elections or hiring decisions.

But I don't think Mr. Jones is being so subtle. I hear hopefulness, perhaps jubilation in Mr. Jones's responses. The suing schools were hoping for judicial activism; now Mr. Jones, who I suspect generally dislikes judicial activism, appears to be rooting for the schools to get a big dollop of bitter judicial activism plopped on top of the judicially-certified generous slice of pie served up by the Legislature. It's not enough for Mr. Jones that the schools lost their lawsuit and appeal; now he wants the courts to punish the schools for their petulance.

I've read the full ruling, as well as Chief Justice Gilbertson's concurring opinion (starting on page 41/paragraph 72 of the ruling). I find none of the grounds Mr. Jones finds to believe that the Court's ruling represents a setback for the schools. At worst, the schools are where they were before the suit. Arguably, they have a little stronger legal ground for future challenges of public policy.

Mr. Jones and his Saturday lawyer friend suggest the court identifies other factors more significant than funding that might open local districts to greater legal challenge. However, the major confounding factors cited in Justice Meierhenry's main opinion are socioeconomic:

One expert found no correlation betweeen a district's total expenditures and its test scores, even after adjusting for socioeconomic circumstances affecting students such as poverty, English language learner status, and ethnicity [Davis et al. v. State of South Dakota, Department of Education, et al., 2011 SD 51, ¶63, filed 2011.08.31].

Nowhere does Justice Meierhenry direct future litigants to turn their lawsuit fire on local school boards and administrators. Chief Justice Gilbertson sort of goes there in his concurrence, nitpicking at various administrative decisions made by the plaintiffs' six focus districts (Faith, Doland, Florence, Bon Homme, Willow Lake, and Rapid City). But he concludes that those schools are all offering constitutionally adequate education. Even if Chief Justice Gilbertson is hinting that he would like to order Willow Lake to max out its levy or consolidate the superintendent's secretary with the business manager, the main ruling's finding that funding doesn't correlate with academic results takes away the justification for doing so. The Court's reasoning gives it no more ground for meddling in local administrative decisions than for meddling in the Legislature's rushed budget deliberations.

If this ruling at all changes where schools stand in their fight for more funding from the Legislature, it puts them in a slightly better position by affirming all children's right to a free, adequate, and quality public education (are you paying attention, Charlii Gilson?). Unfortunately, the Court makes proving that a school isn't receiving the resources necessary to secure that right nigh impossible. Given the Court's acceptance of Faith as a model of constitutionally sufficient educational resources, with its condemned 1919 school building and demoralized kids running between crowded modular classrooms in winter, triggering court intervention in school funding and operations will probably require a district to actually run out of money to pay teachers and the electric company. But this ruling at least affirms that school districts have that foothold in claiming they are entitled to some basic level of funding.

Mr. Jones would like the schools to just be quiet and do their jobs. I get the feeling that Mr. Jones would like to see the schools punished for their effort to use the courts to overrule the Legislature's stingy funding of K-12 education. Our Supreme Court's ruling in Davis v. South Dakota does not lay the grounds for such punishment.

9 Comments

  1. Roger Elgersma 2011.09.05

    It is South Dakota govmint. NO HOPE

  2. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.09.05

    Oh ye of little faith, Roger! I'm here. You're here. There's still hope.

  3. Stan Gibilisco 2011.09.05

    The schools don't need any punishment from external sources. They're punishing themselves by, in effect, declaring war on the taxpayers. Now a referendum proposal appears, asking those very same taxpayers if they'll pay an extra 1% on every retail purchase for (in part) education. Why didn't the schools make the request before resorting to the assault?

  4. Troy Jones 2011.09.05

    Cory, you totally read more into my comments than I intended to the point of misrepresenting them. And to imply I want punishment is crazy.

    My point was the lawsuit had an inferrence that the State wasn't doing their job with regard to education, specifically with regard to money.

    The Supreme Court instead said that money is neither the end all or be all with regard to the constitutional requirement. In fact, they cited schools with lower spending having better results than those spending more. Loss for the Schools because it was the main incentive for their lawsuit.

    As you mentioned, the Court went onto enumerate many factors that might have a bigger impact on whether a particular school is meeting the Constitutional requirement with regard to education. When I look at them, it points to the need for creative solutions to improve performance in a particular district with particular challenges.

    Thus, as I read the ruling, it is as likely if not more likely a particular school district might have more exposure than the state for failing to address these challenges, maybe even if there creative attempts to solve the problem fail (creating a disincentive for creative solutions?)

    And this is the real point I was trying to make. The Court has made it clear that the local district has at least as much and possibly more responsibility in meeting the Constitutional requirement. So, if a school is failing and someone sues under the State Constitution and other schools are not failing, it is more possible the Court will intrude on local control than before.

    If the District is performing badly and their taxes/per pupil spending is the problem, can they force a tax increase or over-rule an opt out? Looks to me they can.

    Of if the problem isn't their revenue but how and where they are spending their money, can they force the administration/school board to re-allocate resources? Looks to me they can.

    And, if they administration/school board refuses to comply, can they place them in contempt of court? Isn't this the remedy when someone fails to conform to a court order?

    None of these actions by the court I had ever imagined before but the ruling appears to open those doors. This is the big loss for the school boards and administration.

    A few final comments:

    1) While one who generally opposes judicial activism, I do understand and beleive it is the courts job to insure the Consitution is upheld.

    2) I opposed the effort because it is hard to make the case as a state we are failing when we consistently show up in the top 10% in all national educational performance measures. Thus, I believed the effort was doomed from the start.

    3) As I generally support local control, I do not relish the idea the Court has now opened up the idea individual school districts might be subject to greater judicial oversight.

    Rather than being "jubilant" as you assert, I am actually discouraged by what I read because I believe the State Education Department has a vital role at measuring performance and communicating to local administration, school boards and if necessary to the local voters shortcomings in school districts, especially poor performers. As a local control adherent, I then thought it was up to the locals to decide what to do with this information and how to solve it.

    Now, unfortunately, I fear a judicial remedy could be imposed on a local district.

    Maybe I'm reading too much into the ruling. I'm not a lawyer but at least it appears there are possibilities I had never imagined before.

  5. Troy Jones 2011.09.05

    P.S. My "Saturday lawyer friend" didn't assert anything I did. I raised the questions of my reading and his response was "interesting thought. I'm going to re-read it in context of what you are saying." I haven't heard back from him and might not.

    My main reason for mentioning it is he didn't assert any reasons for my interpretation to be wrong. But to be clear, he didn't confirm it. His commentary on how out of the ordinary they took pains to mention factors besides money. So I read it again trying to put meaning in what is out of the ordinary, and it reinforced my first impression.

  6. Charlie Hoffman 2011.09.06

    Correct me if I am wrong but in North Dakota every bill leaves committee with either a pass or kill recommendation for the entire floor to consider. Every bill makes it to floor and then the legislators debate the merits of the committees recommendation. The ND Legisature is in session for four months and meets every other year. They sent $600 million of one time requests on to the Governor's desk and the Governor placed $400 million of one time requests onto bills delivered to the legislature for approval in 2011. South Dakota's constitutional configuration of dealing with bills seems to work well for us meeting about two and a half months every year with the committee process actually passing or killing bills before they get to the whole floor process. The smoke out; a very viable part of our legislative process, can be used to bring a killed back to life if a percentage of the entire floor stands up for approval. The number is recorded but not the names of the persons standing. The rub is that by recording names one could make a statement that everyone not standing was not in favor of the bill but quite the opposite could in fact be true. Not standing could be a show of support for the committee process irregardless of the outcome of the bill.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.09.06

    Troy, in the first comment I cited, you sounded very excited at the prospect of this ruling imposing more accountability for local districts, to the point of using four exclamation points.

    And I still think you're overreaching. The ruling does open any new door for local lawsuits against local districts. The ruling emphasizes the Legislature's duty: "Ultimately, however, the constitution imposes the duty on the Legislature alone to 'maintain' the school system and to devise the state and local tax system that will 'secure' it." The alternative factors in academic achievement the ruling discusses are mostly socioeconomic, not policy decisions that local districts make or that the court could intervene in. The ruling discusses policy alternatives the districts could make as part of the rationale for rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the schools lack necessary funding, but the ruling doesn't even hint at a legal framework that justifies the court's intervention to make those changes.

  8. Troy Jones 2011.09.06

    I could be over-reaching. I am not a lawyer so I don't grasp any nuances that might be in there. I'm just trying to assess it to the best of my ability.

    The accountability exclamation point is related to the fact too often I hear education leaders who talk about how someone else (often the State) has to do more and too little about what needs to be done internally at the local level. I believe strongly in local control so I think the best solutions will come from local initiative, even to the point of requiring the school to have to sell the public for additional money if that is required. Running to the State doesn't require from the school the local initiative to get those closest to the need to be involved.

  9. caheidelberger Post author | 2011.09.06

    Troy, I do agree that local control is important for the schools. I will also note that I was never terribly optimistic about the prospects for this lawsuit to get anything for the schools. Reading this ruling, I see little change for the schools. The reasoning behind it establishes a philosophical precedent to affirm children's right to quality education and the Legislature's duty to uphold it, but it provides little precedent for practical action by the courts in school funding, against either the state or locals.

Comments are closed.