Download PDF

The New York Court of Appeals, which is the highest State Court in New York State, recently issued its decision in Campaign for Fiscal Equity Inc. et. al. v. The State of New York, et. al. (2003 WL 21468502). This case, with separation of powers implications, fundamentally changed the method by which schools are funded in New York.

The plaintiffs in Campaign for Fiscal Equity were suing on behalf of all school children in New York City. Their underlying concern was an allegation that while New York City had approximately 37% of the schoolchildren in New York State, its school system received only 34% of state school aid. Their main legal argument rested upon the following provision of the New York State Constitution: “The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated.” (Article 10, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution). Precedent had interpreted this clause to mean each child is entitled to a “sound basic education.” Thus, plaintiffs claimed the lack of proportional State funding was violating their right to a sound basic education.

The defendants included several State agencies. Among them were the State Education Department and the State Board of Regents. They are the agencies required under the New York State Constitution to create and implement education policy.

At the trial level, 72 witnesses testified. The plaintiffs maintained that a teacher shortage, the poorer quality of teachers, classroom overcrowding, poor facility maintenance, and higher dropout rates in New York City schools were reasons why funding needed to be increased. The defendants offered testimony that well-publicized cases of corruption and financial waste in the New York City school system, union contracts giving teachers shorter workdays in New York City, recruiting problems with teachers due to inner city crime, socioeconomic factors (e.g. immigrant children arriving and not knowing any English), the state constitutional policy of local control over education, and test results that were at the national level, are good reasons for not granting a higher percentage of education funding to the City. The defendants maintained there was no violation, and that even if there was one, simply appropriating more money would not make a difference in solving many of the school district’s problems.

The trial court found a “systemic failure” that amounted to a state constitutional violation, granting a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed. The plaintiffs then appealed to the New York State Court of Appeals.

In June 2003 the bulk of the trial court decision was reinstated by a 4-1 decision. In its decision, the New York State Court of Appeals placed a gloss on substantive education policy by concluding that the constitutional right of a “sound basic education” required an ability to vote and to understand jury instructions. In so doing, the court held it was only “fixing a few signposts in the road.” The court further found that what aid the political process is allocating to New York City schools is not in relation to the needs of New York City students. The court thereupon ordered the State Legislature to equalize funding.

In dissent, Justice Read stated that it was not the role of the Courts to be formulating education policy and that the state constitution did not mandate a “sound basic education.” She maintained that “sound basic education” was a judicially created right. She also found no causal connection between alleged state underfunding of New York City schools and student performance there and that the remedy was well beyond the prudential bounds of the judicial function. Justice Read also speculated that the decision will provoke lawsuits for the next ten years to see if any new budget expenditures can meet the education policy established by the court.

In the New York Times, the Executive Director of the nationally based Great City Schools association praised this decision, stating “Here was a very prominent court on the national stage saying you cannot low-ball the quality of education for kids just because of their socioeconomic background. Most courts haven’t said that.” Legislators said that implementing the decision would cause enormous budget strains in the midst of a fiscal crisis, possibly pitting New York City lawmakers against their rural and suburban counterparts.

Note from the Editor: The Federalist Society takes no positions on particular legal and public policy matters. Any expressions of opinion are those of the author. We welcome responses to the views presented here. To join the debate, please email us at info@fedsoc.org.