School Equity Lawsuits Face Setbacks: Have Judges Closed the Courthouse Door to Students?
In recent years, using the legal system to bring about significant changes in schools has become increasingly challenging. Issues such as teacher tenure, education funding, and its distribution have been the subject of numerous court cases. Some states, including Tennessee and Pennsylvania, currently have pending school funding cases. Earlier this year, Chicago Public Schools filed a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, alleging unfair funding. Kansas plaintiffs recently won a judgment stating that the state’s schools are not receiving sufficient funds.
However, a larger trend has emerged, with many state courts rejecting lawsuits arguing that state funding systems are unconstitutional. Bill Koski, a professor at Stanford University, who represented the losing plaintiffs in a funding case in California, commented, "In the last eight years or so, courts appear to be becoming wary and weary of the large-scale adequacy-style litigation." He added that even in cases where plaintiffs are successful, the story is often more complicated. These victories do not always result in additional funding for schools but instead lead to prolonged battles over the implementation of the court’s decision. Interestingly, recent research suggests that funding decisions favoring poorer districts can benefit students in the long run.
Simultaneously, a new type of lawsuit challenging teacher tenure has emerged, but it has also faced several defeats. Last year, two federal cases were filed alleging that students in Connecticut and Detroit are not receiving a fair or decent education. These cases face an uphill battle as they go against the established precedent that students claiming inadequate education have limited recourse in federal courts.
Koski has proposed a new approach—merging school funding challenges with cases advocating for substantive policy changes, such as teacher tenure. This would require unlikely collaborations between traditional adversaries in the education sector, such as teachers unions and some education reform activists.
Those advocating for better-funded schools have faced numerous setbacks. Over the past few years, courts in Texas, California, Colorado, and Florida have rejected constitutional challenges to their state’s funding systems. In California, the high court even refused to hear an appeal of a lower court decision. Furthermore, even when plaintiffs have emerged victorious in court, this has not necessarily translated into increased funding for schools. Policymakers often delay or disregard judicial orders.
For example, in Washington, the state legislature has been held in contempt of court, resulting in a daily fine of $100,000 for failing to comply with the court’s ruling to allocate additional funds to schools. However, the legislature has chosen to ignore the fine. The case was filed a decade ago and settled in 2012, yet the debate over how to generate the necessary revenue to meet the court’s demand continues in the current session.
In Kansas, the judiciary first declared the state’s funding system unconstitutional in 2004, leading to years of negotiations between the legislature and the courts. Last year, the case returned to the state Supreme Court, which warned that it might close schools if low-income schools were not funded equitably. Eventually, lawmakers passed a funding fix to prevent school closures. However, the court recently ruled that the entire school system remains underfunded, pointing towards another potential conflict.
New York’s journey has been even more convoluted. The Campaign for Fiscal Equity filed a lawsuit as far back as 1993 and eventually achieved several favorable judgments from the state’s highest court. In 2007, a formula was implemented to meet the requirements set by the court. However, due to the 2008 recession, advocates argue that schools have been severely underfunded since then, incurring billions of dollars in losses. Consequently, one study suggests that the lawsuit has had minimal impact on resource equity.
Legal disputes like the ones in Washington, Kansas, and New York could result in additional expenditures, but they have been lengthy and politically complex, falling short of the expectations of proponents. Kimberly Robinson, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, explains that this is due to the influence of politically influential suburban voters who oppose tax increases or redirection of funding from their schools. "Lawmakers are being pressured by those who benefit from the existing system to maintain the status quo," she said.
This resistance from legislators and the difficulties of implementing court decisions in certain states have deterred judges in other states from ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. Judges are concerned about potentially jeopardizing the credibility of their institutions and potentially causing a constitutional crisis by taking on these significant cases.
Moreover, a series of contentious lawsuits have emerged in various states, driven by advocates focused on specific policy reforms rather than monetary concerns. These lawsuits, referred to as "efficiency" cases by Stanford’s Koski, are based on the idea that existing funds should be used more effectively and efficiently through policy changes.
The Vergara v. California case prominently argued that state laws made it challenging to dismiss inadequate teachers, granted tenure too early, and based layoffs on seniority rather than performance. The plaintiffs contended that these policies disproportionately impacted students of color from low-income backgrounds. Although they initially won the case, the decision was eventually overturned on appeal. Another lawsuit in Minnesota was swiftly dismissed, while one in New York survived initial attempts to dismiss it. A pending lawsuit in New Jersey challenges the use of seniority in layoff decisions.
A case in Massachusetts claiming that the state’s policy capping charter schools is unconstitutional was dismissed by a state judge just before Massachusetts voters rejected a measure to lift the cap. These lawsuits have not yet achieved any clear victories, but Koski believes it is premature to judge their overall success.
Ironically, perhaps the most significant triumph for "efficiency" advocates came from a funding lawsuit in Connecticut. Supported by groups such as teachers unions that typically favor increased funding for schools, this case resulted in the judge demanding significant policy changes, including the evaluation and compensation of teachers. While additional funds were deemed unnecessary, the court emphasized that poorer districts should receive more from the existing pool of resources. The case, initiated in 2005, is currently under review by Connecticut’s Supreme Court, although Koski doubts its survival on appeal due to its extensive scope.
The case of San Antonio v. Rodriguez in 1973 established that education is not a federal right since it is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld funding disparities between districts and schools. In response, advocates turned to state courts, where state constitutions almost always recognize some form of the right to education. However, two recent federal lawsuits argue that the federal judiciary should play a greater role in ensuring school quality. In one case, Detroit students are suing in federal court, claiming a constitutional "right to literacy" has been denied to them by the city’s underperforming schools. Another federal lawsuit, filed by the same group behind the Vergara case, alleges that Connecticut unlawfully restricts the expansion of charter and magnet schools and prevents students from enrolling in other districts.
Both cases were filed in the previous year and are still in progress.
Robinson, a professor at the University of Richmond, along with Harvard professor Charles Ogletree, have argued that the Rodriguez case should be overruled and replaced with a more proactive approach by the federal judiciary. In an essay for Education Next, they highlight the fact that only a few states provide significantly more funding to schools in low-income areas.
"While the Rodriguez court placed trust in states to ensure equal educational opportunity, this trust has proven unfounded," they state.
A counterargument presented by three lawyers from the Eversheds Sutherland law firm claims that federal courts neither have the resources nor the authority, as outlined by the constitution, to guarantee equality in schools.
"Advocates for a federal right to education presume that federal judges would succeed where local policymakers have supposedly failed," they write. "However, the federal judiciary lacks the capability and expertise to address deep-rooted problems like the achievement gap from a position of authority."
This debate is mostly confined to academic circles.
With the election of President Trump, who has nominated conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, overturning Rodriguez has become increasingly improbable.
A Trump-appointed judge, according to Robinson, "will not reverse Rodriguez."
Could "reforms plus money" lawsuits be a new approach?
The differences in the approach to lawsuits – traditional cases concerning school funding versus the new wave of efficiency suits – align with the ongoing battle within the field of education, pitting teachers and advocates for public schools against proponents of choice and accountability. These factions often find themselves confronting each other in court.
Koski believes there may be a potential middle ground in cases that combine both perspectives.
"I’m not currently endorsing this position, but I do wonder if there’s a potential compromise to be reached – where we pursue both reforms and increased funding, instead of choosing between the two," he suggests.
Whether judges, as well as teachers’ unions and school reformers, would be open to this strategy remains uncertain.
To some, the courts’ decision to step back from shaping education policy and determining funding levels is a triumph, a testament to the wisdom of judicial restraint.
"By limiting judicial involvement in education policymaking, the court remained faithful to the intentions laid out in the state constitution while also avoiding the need to make rulings on a multitude of intricate issues, which would almost certainly result in misjudgments," wrote Lance Izumi of the conservative Pacific Research Institute following the ruling on California’s funding.
However, recent studies have shown that previous judicial interventions that led to increased investment in schools resulted in significant gains for students. Three recent national studies have all drawn the same conclusion.
"That’s the ironic part," Koski acknowledges. "What can I say? We lost in California. We were never given the opportunity to present that research in court."
Disclosure: The lawsuits challenging teacher tenure in New York and Minnesota, as well as the rules regarding teacher layoffs in New Jersey, have received support from the Partnership for Educational Justice, a nonprofit founded by Campbell Brown. Brown, who is the co-founder and board chair of , had no involvement in editing or reporting this story.
Footnote:
1. The appeal for the Florida case is currently ongoing.
