-15 taxpayers and children conflict in school finance reform, taxpayers generally win. For example, cost and expenditure limitations on districts, ostensibly designed to promote equalization between rich and poor districts, have generally resulted in tax relief rather than equalization of educational opportunities. Tax reform, especially with respect to the property tax, is an important accompaniment to equalization of educational opportunities. However, tax reform, including reform of the administration of the property tax, is by itself not likely to spur substantial equalization of educational resources. In contrast, a focus on equalization of educational resources, in addition to insuring greater equity for children, would also be a substantial spur to tax reform. For example, an equalization plan which continued to rely on the property tax, but which neutralized district wealth differences, would require reform of the administration of the property tax in many states. Equalization of educational resources is also likely to spur greater balance in state-local revenue-raising by requiring states to assume a greater share of educational costs. (In New Jersey the legislature's response to Robinson necessitated the enactment of a state income tax.) A federal role that stimulates states to eliminate the causes of resource inequalities among districts will have a substantial spill-over in tax reform; but a federal role that focuses on tax reform will, by itself, have little impact on equalization of resources. 97-782 O 77-7 -16 There is also an important relationship between Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and any new federal efforts to promote equalization of educational resources. Title I focuses the present limited federal educational funds on those educationally disadvantaged children in low-income areas most needing more intensive educational services. It is important that any program supporting equalization of educational opportunities within or among states not draw funds from Title I. States are still a long way from being able to insure that educationally disadvantaged children receive the educational services they need. Furthermore, under current fiscal conditions in many districts in which such children are concentrated, additional unrestricted funds in less than massive amounts would probably be used to meet the financial crisis of the moment rather than to provide the special services such children need. Title I also contributes to interstate equalization of educational opportunities by providing proportionately more federal aid to states with low personal incomes, and low educational expenditures as well as to central cities with high costs and large concentrations of low-income children. In my view, Title I is essential for insuring that children most needing intensive educational services receive them. However, at the present funding level, Title I cannot serve every child eligible for Title I services, due to the fact that the Act is not, and has never been, fully funded. -17 Under Section 301 of H.R. 1138, funds could not be authorized to be expended under the Act until Title I is funded at $3 billion, an amount that is less than needed to fully fund the current Title I formula. I support the concept of a threshold level of Title I funding for the operation of any new federal effort to promote equalization of educational resources, but urge this threshold be established at the level required to fully fund Title I. SUMMARY OF STATE-WIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES SINCE 1973 February, 1977 LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 733 15th Street, N. W., Suite 520 INTRODUCTION This summary, prepared by the School Finance Project of the Lawyers' Committee, provides an overview of developments in school finance litigation since the United States Supreme Court's historic, and lamentable, ruling in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973), that wealth-based discrimination in educational expenditures does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. The failure of the Supreme Court to rule the Texas school finance system unconstitutional shifted school finance litigation to the state courts. The state cases are widely diverse in concept and scope depending upon the state constitutional language, the mechanics of the school finance statute, and the factual setting. A number of cases, following the Rodriguez model, are broad-based attacks upon the inequality of educational opportunity resulting from statewide school finance systems which make educational funding a function of district property wealth. Serrano v. Priest (Cal.), Horton v. Meskill (Conn.), Thomas v. Stewart (Georgia), Olsen v. Oregon, and Northshore School District v. Kinnear (Wash.). In others, the primary focus is on the state's failure to equalize for the effects of municipal overburden, the higher costs of urban education, or the greater concentrations of disadvantaged children in urban schools. Board of Education, Levittown v. Nyquist (N.Y.). Still others challenge the delegation of the state's constitutional obligation to local voters to provide by referenda the funds necessary for adequate or equal educational opportunities. Board of Education of Cincinnati v. Essex (Ohio), Seattle School District No. 1 v. State of Washington. This is the fourth summary of school finance cases which the Project has prepared. Earlier summaries were published in January 1972, May 1974, and January 1976. All of the cases described in the January 1976 summary are included here. Cases decided prior to Rodriguez, and cases pending in federal court when Rodriguez was decided, are described in the May 1974 summary, which is out of print, but which the School Finance Project will, on request, copy at our cost. Additional copies of this February 1977 summary are available for $1.00 per copy. School Finance Reform Project Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law David C. Long Richard S. Kohn Joel D. Sherman |