APPENDIX TABLE 1 bold font. Liscow JJP LRS STATE YEAR ... · STATE YEAR EVENT CITATION Liscow (2017) JJP (2016) LRS (2016) Alabama 1993 Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt 624 So

59

Decision-years selected by the algorithm as the "event" for each state are shown in bold font.

STATE YEAR EVENT CITATIONLiscow (2017)

JJP (2016)

LRS (2016)

Alabama 1993 Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt 624 So. 2d 107 Yes Yes NoAlaska 1999 Kasayulie v. State Case No. 3AN-97-3782

(Alask. Super. Ct.)Yes Yes Yes

Alaska 2007 Moore v. State Case No. 3AN-04-9756 Civil (Alask. Super. Ct.)

Yes No No

Arizona 1994 Roosevelt v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806 Yes Yes YesArizona 1997 Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 Yes Yes YesArizona 1998 Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 Yes Yes YesArizona 2007 Flores v. Arizona 480 F. Supp.2d 1157 (D.

Ariz. 2007)No Yes No

Arizona 2013 Cave Creek unified School District et al. v. State

308 P.3d 1152 Yes No No

Arkansas 1983 Dupree v. Alma 651 S.W.2d 90 Yes Yes N/AArkansas 1994 Lakeview v. Hucabee I Case No. 92-5318, (Ark.

Chancery Court)Yes Yes Yes

Arkansas 2002 Lakeview v. Huckabee III 91 S.W.3d 472 Yes Yes YesArkansas 2005 Lakeview v. Huckabee 210 S.W.3d 28 Yes Yes YesCalifornia 1971 Serrano v. Priest I 487 P.2d 1241 N/A Yes N/ACalifornia 1976 Serrano v. Priest II 557 P.2d 929 Yes No N/ACalifornia 1977 Serrano v. Priest III 569 P.2d 1303 Yes Yes N/ACalifornia 2004 Williams v. State Notice of Settlement No.

312236 (Calif. Super. Ct.)Yes Yes Yes

Included as a Potential Decision Year?

Complete List of Potential Events, 1971 - 2013

APPENDIX TABLE 1

60

STATE YEAR EVENTLiscow (2016)

JJP (2016)

LRS (2015)

Connecticut 1977 Horton v. Meskill 376 A.2d 359 Yes No N/AConnecticut 1978 Horton v. Meskill Decision in different year No Yes N/AConnecticut 1982 Horton v. Meskill II 445 A.2d 579 Yes Yes N/AConnecticut 1995 Sheff v. Oneill Decision in different year No Yes YesConnecticut 1996 Sheff v. Oneill 678 A.2d 1267 Yes No NoConnecticut 2010 Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v.

Rell295 Conn. 240, 990 A.2d 206

Yes Yes No

Idaho 1993 Idaho Schools for Equal Education Opportunity v. State I

850 P.2d 724 Yes No Yes

Idaho 1998 Idaho Schools for Equal Education Opportunity v. State III

976 P.2d 913 Yes Yes No

Idaho 2005 Idaho Schools for Equal Education Opportunity v. State V

129 P.3d 1199 Yes Yes Yes

Kansas 1972 Caldwell v. State Case No. 50616 (Kans. Dist. Ct.)

Yes Yes N/A

Kansas 2005 Montoy v. State 112 P.3d 923 Yes Yes YesKentucky 1989 Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 Yes Yes YesMaryland 1996 Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education I Case No. 94-340058 (Md.

Cir. Ct.)Yes No Yes

Maryland 2005 Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education II

875 A.2d 703 Yes Yes No

Massachusetts 1993 McDuffy v. Secretary 615 N.E.2d 516 Yes Yes YesMichigan 1997 Durant v. State 650 N.W.2d 380 No Yes N/AMissouri 1993 Committee for Educational Equality v. State Case No. CV190-1371CC

(Mo. Circ. Ct.)Yes Yes Yes

Montana 1989 Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State

769 P.2d 684 Yes Yes N/A

Montana 1993 Montana Rural ed. Association v. Montana Case No.: BDV-91-2065 (Mont. Dist. Ct.)

No Yes No

61

STATE YEAR EVENT CITATIONLiscow (2016)

JJP (2016)

LRS (2015)

Montana 2005 Columbia Falls v. State 109 P.3d 257 Yes Yes YesMontana 2008 Montana Quality Education Coalition v. Montana Case No: BDV-2002-528

(Mont. Dist. Ct.)No Yes No

New Hampshire 1993 Claremont v. Governor II 635 A.2d 1375 Yes Yes YesNew Hampshire 1997 Claremont v. Governor II 703 A.2d 1353 Yes Yes YesNew Hampshire 1999 Claremont v. Governor III 744 A.2d 1107 Yes Yes YesNew Hampshire 2002 Claremont v. Governor IV 794 A.2d 744 Yes Yes YesNew Hampshire 2006 Londonderry v. State 907 A.2d 988 No Yes NoNew Jersey 1973 Robinson v. Cahill 303 A.2d 273 Yes Yes N/ANew Jersey 1976 Robinson v. Cahill 355 A.2d 129 No Yes N/ANew Jersey 1990 Abott v. Burke II 575 A.2d 359 Yes Yes YesNew Jersey 1991 Abbott v. Burke Decision in different year No Yes NoNew Jersey 1994 Abbott v. Burke III 643 A.2d 575 Yes Yes YesNew Jersey 1997 Abbott v. Burke IV 693 A.2d 417 Yes No YesNew Jersey 1998 Abbott v. Burke V 710 A.2d 450 Yes No YesNew Jersey 2000 Abbott v. Burke VI 751 A.2d 1032 Yes No YesNew Mexico 1999 Zuni School District v. State Case No. CV-98-14-II

(New Mexico. Dist. Ct.)Yes No Yes

New York 2003 Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State II 801 N.E.2d 326 Yes Yes YesNew York 2006 Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State III 861 N.E.2d 50 Yes Yes YesNorth Carolina 1997 Leonardo v. State 488 S.E.2d 249 Yes Yes YesNorth Carolina 2004 Hoke County Board of Education v. State 599 S.E.2d 365 Yes Yes YesOhio 1997 De Rolph v. State I 677 N.E.2d 733 Yes Yes YesOhio 2000 De Rolph v. State II 728 N.E.2d 993 Yes Yes YesOhio 2001 De Rolph v. State III 754 N.E.2d 1184 Yes No NoOhio 2002 De Rolph v. State IV 780 N.E.2d 529 Yes Yes YesOregon 2009 Pendleton School Dist. V. State 217 P.3d 175 No Yes NoSouth Carolina 2005 Abbeville County v. State Case No. 93-CP-31-0169

(S.C. Ct. Com. Pl.)No Yes No

62

STATE YEAR EVENT CITATION Liscow (2016)

JJP (2016)

LRS (2015)

Tennessee 1993 Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWheter I

851 S.W.2d 139 Yes Yes Yes

Tennessee 1995 Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWheter II 894 S.W.2d 734 Yes Yes YesTennessee 2002 Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWheter

III91 S.W.3d 232 Yes Yes Yes

Texas 1989 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby I 777 S.W.2d 39 Yes Yes N/A

Texas 1991 Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby II


Texas 1992 Carrolton Farmer's Branch ISD v. Edgewood ISD


Texas 2004 West Orange-Cove ISD v. Neeley Decision in different year No Yes NoTexas 2005 West Orange-Cove ISD v. Neeley 176 S.W.3d 746 Yes No NoVermont 1997 Birmingham v. State 692 A.2d 384 Yes Yes YesWashington 1977 Seattle School District No. 1 v. State Decision in different year No Yes N/AWashington 1978 Seattle School District No. 1 v. State 585 P.2d 71 Yes No N/AWashington 1991 Seatle II Case not found No Yes NoWashington 2007 Federal Way School District v. State Decision in different year No Yes NoWashington 2009 Federal Way School District v. State 219 P.3d 941 Yes No NoWashington 2010 McCleary v. State No. 07-2-02323-2 SEA

(Wash. Super.)No No Yes

Washington 2012 McCleary v. State 269 P.3d 227 Yes No NoWest Virginia 1984 Pauley v. Bailey 324 S.E.2d 128 Yes Yes NoWest Virginia 1995 Tomblin v. Gainer Case No. 25-1268 (W.V.

Circ. Ct.)Yes Yes Yes

Wyoming 1980 Washakie County School District v. Herschler 606 P.2d 310 Yes Yes N/AWyoming 1995 Campbell County School District v. State I 907 P.2d 1238 Yes Yes YesWyoming 2001 Campbell County School District v. State II 19 P.3d 518 Yes Yes Yes

63

Appendix Table 2A: Summary Statistics of Tax Rate Variables (Married Filers, Without Children) Mean S.D. Min Max Tax Rate at the 20th Percentile 1.22 1.17 -1.12 4.20 Tax Rate at the 80th Percentile 3.43 1.97 0.00 9.11 Tax Rate at the 95th Percentile 4.00 2.31 0.00 9.99 20th Minus 80th Percentile -2.21 1.76 -7.85 0.00 20th Minus 95th Percentile -2.78 2.26 -8.44 0.00 Observations 1729

Years: 1977-2015. Appendix Table 2B: Summary Statistics of Tax Rate Variables (Married Filers, With Children)

Mean S.D. Min Max Tax Rate at the 20th Percentile 0.70 1.67 -8.39 4.68 Tax Rate at the 80th Percentile 3.80 2.22 0.00 8.47 Tax Rate at the 95th Percentile 4.24 2.56 0.00 10.16 20th Minus 80th Percentile -3.10 2.71 -14.03 0.15 20th Minus 95th Percentile -3.55 3.04 -15.38 0.16 Observations 1729

Years: 1977-2015.

Appendix Table 2C: Summary Statistics of Tax Rate Variables (Married Filers) Mean S.D. Min Max 20th Percentile: With Children - Without Children -0.52 1.55 -8.68 2.92 80th Percentile: With Children - Without Children 0.37 0.84 -0.87 3.65 95th Percentile: With Children - Without Children 0.24 0.58 -0.85 2.80 Diff. in Diff. 20th - 80th 0.89 1.67 -2.96 9.08 Diff. in Diff. 20th - 95th 0.77 1.58 -2.95 9.44 Observations 1729

Years: 1977-2015.

64

Appendix Table 3A: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers, Without Children) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Tax Rate at

the 20th Percentile

Tax Rate at the 80th

Percentile


Percentile

20th Minus 80th

Percentile

20th Minus 95th

Percentile Post Decision 0.019

(0.112) 0.073

(0.112) 0.162

(0.140) -0.054 (0.086)

-0.144 (0.120)

Observations 1729 1729 1729 1729 1729 R2 0.867 0.962 0.970 0.951 0.966 Adjusted R2 0.859 0.960 0.969 0.948 0.965

Note: Robust standard errors clustered at the state level are displayed in parenthesis. Regressions include state and year fixed effects and are weighted by population. Significance levels: * p<0.10; ** p<0.05; *** p<0.01. Years: 1977-2015.

Appendix Table 3B: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers, Without Children) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Tax Rate at

the 20th Percentile


Percentile


Percentile

20th Minus 80th

Percentile

20th Minus 95th


(0.097) 0.126

(0.088) 0.123

(0.091) -0.014 (0.121)

-0.010 (0.133)

Post Decision * Yrs. Elapsed

0.009 (0.025)

0.002 (0.013)

-0.003 (0.011)

0.007 (0.029)

0.011 (0.028)

Trend -0.011

(0.021) -0.005 (0.013)

0.004 (0.011)

-0.007 (0.022)

-0.016 (0.021)



65

Appendix Table 4A: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers, With Children) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)


Percentile


Percentile


Percentile

20th Minus 80th

Percentile

20th Minus 95th

Percentile Post Decision -0.072

(0.445) 0.147

(0.138) 0.203

(0.170) -0.219 (0.451)

-0.276 (0.436)



Appendix Table 4B: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers, With Children) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Tax Rate at

the 20th Percentile


Percentile


Percentile

20th Minus 80th

Percentile

20th Minus 95th


(0.244) 0.313** (0.142)

0.294 (0.188)

-0.280 (0.240)

-0.261 (0.267)


0.012 (0.066)

-0.016 (0.019)

-0.019 (0.025)

0.028 (0.057)

0.032 (0.060)

Trend -0.014

(0.058) -0.005 (0.012)

0.003 (0.011)

-0.009 (0.051)

-0.017 (0.053)



66

Appendix Table 5A: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 20th

Percentile: With Children

Minus Without Children

80th Percentile:

With Children Minus

Without Children

95th Percentile:

With Children Minus

Without Children

Diff. in Diff. 20th Minus

80th


95th

Post Decision -0.091 (0.451)

0.074 (0.070)

0.041 (0.057)

0.165 (0.455)

0.132 (0.445)



Appendix Table 5B: Effect of Decision on Tax Rates (Married Filers) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 20th

Percentile: With Children

Minus Without Children

80th Percentile:

With Children Minus

Without Children

95th Percentile:

With Children Minus

Without Children


80th


95th

Post Decision -0.079 (0.255)

0.187 (0.150)

0.172 (0.144)

0.266 (0.269)

0.251 (0.261)


0.004 (0.075)

-0.018 (0.021)

-0.017 (0.020)

-0.021 (0.075)

-0.020 (0.073)

Trend -0.003

(0.061) 0.000

(0.007) -0.002 (0.006)

0.003 (0.062)

0.001 (0.060)



67

Appendix Figure 1: Effect of Decision on Average Tax Rates of Married Filers

20th Percentile Income Earners Appendix Figure 1A: Without Children Appendix Figure 1B: With Children

80th Percentile Income Earners Appendix Figure 1C: Without Children Appendix Figure 1D: With Child

95th Percentile Income Earners Appendix Figure 1E: Without Children Appendix Figure 1F: With Child

Note: The solid red line shows the estimates from the trend specification (equation 2). The blue line with dots shows the nonparametric specification (equation 3). 90% confidence intervals for the nonparametric regression are shown in gray dashes. Regressions include state and year fixed effects and are weighted by population. Years: 1977-2015.

68

Appendix Figure 2: Effect of Decision on Differences in Average Tax Rates of Married Filers

20th Minus 80th Percentile Income Earners

Appendix Figure 2A: Without Children Appendix Figure 2B: With Children

20th Minus 95th Percentile Income Earners

Appendix Figure 2C: Without Children Appendix Figure 2D: With Children

Note: The solid red line shows the estimates from the trend specification (equation 2). The blue line with dots shows the nonparametric specification (equation 3). 90% confidence intervals for the nonparametric regression are shown in gray dashes. The dotted green line is an estimate of the amount by which taxes would have to change to offset the distributional impact of the school spending. Regressions include state and year fixed effects and are weighted by population. Years: 1977-2015.

69

Appendix Figure 3: Effect of Decision on Differences in Average Tax Rates Between Married Filers With and Without Children

(With Children Minus Without Children)

Appendix Figure 3A: 20th Percentile Income Earners

Appendix Figure 3B: 80th Percentile Income Earners

Appendix Figure 3C: 95th Percentile Income Earners


70

Appendix Figure 4: Effect of Decision on Difference in Difference for Married Filers

Appendix Figure 4A: 20th Minus 80th Percentile Income Earners, With Children Minus Without Children

Appendix Figure 4B: 20th Minus 95th Percentile Income Earners, With Children Minus Without

Children


71

Appendix Figure 5: Per-Capita K-12 Education Expenditure Over Time ALABAMA MASSACHUSETTS

MONTANA NEW HAMPSHIRE

VERMONT

Note: Per-capita K-12 education expenditure in real 2015 dollars. Decision-year shown using vertical blue line.

72

Online Appendix – School Finance Decisions [Not for Print Publication]

This appendix describes the development of the “event study dataset” used in the paper. For this dataset, I identify one decision-year as an event for each state that has experienced court-ordered school finance reform as a result of litigation at the state level. First, I generate a list of potential events. As described in Section I, I attempt to identify all major state court decisions that have called for state legislatures to reform their models of education finance. I use similar lists developed by others, and I supplement their lists with my own research. As described in Section III, I then perform an algorithm to choose the most impactful decision in states with multiple events. There were multiple potential events in 19 of the 27 states that experienced court ordered education reform between 1972 and 2013. For example, Ohio’s Supreme Court called for the legislature to reform its model of education finance four times between 1997 and 2002. So, 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2002 are all included in the list, and the algorithm is used to identify the single “event” for Ohio. In this case, 2001 is identified by the algorithm, and is subsequently included as Ohio’s event in the event study dataset. In what follows, for each state I identify the potential decision-years included in the list, as well as the specific year selected by the algorithm as that state’s event. For each potential decision-year, I describe the Court’s ruling and identify if the case is included in the lists produced by Jackson, Johnson, and Persico (JJP) (2016), or Lafortune, Rothstein, and Schanzenbach (LRS) (2016). For instances in which my list differs from their respective lists, I provide justification for my decision. Alabama: 1993 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1993 1993: Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt 624 So. 2d 107 JJP: Yes LRS: No In Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt (1993) the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s finding that Alabama’s model of education finance was unconstitutional. In 1992, an Alabama lower court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff on both adequacy and equity grounds. Upon appeal in 1993, the Alabama Supreme Court clarified that the State should be held responsible for providing a fairer and generally improved public education to its citizens. LRS does not code 1993 as a decision year. Tracking the legislature’s response to this court order, LRS concludes that no new education finance legislation was passed in response to the 1993 decision. In developing this list of potential decisions, I do not evaluate legislative response. Instead, I follow

73

JJP and include this year as a potential event due to the fact that the language of the decision calls for increased education expenditure and equalization. Alaska: 1999, 2007 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2007 1999: Kasayulie v. State Case No. 3AN-97-3782 (Alask. Super. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Kasayulie v. State (1999) an Alaska Superior Court found that the existing funding of education in the state was in violation of the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. The Court found that the existing model of education finance was discriminatory against Native Americans and allocated insufficient resources to rural school districts. Although this was a lower court decision, it was not appealed to Alaska’s Supreme Court, and there is evidence that the state increased funding to rural regions as a result of the ruling. 2007: Moore v. State Case No. 3AN-04-9756 Civil (Alask. Super. Ct.) JJP: No LRS: No In Moore v. State (2007) an Alaska Superior Court found that the State was failing (1) to appropriately identify chronically failing school districts, and (2) to meaningfully develop efforts to improve the performances of these school districts. The Court ruled that the State’s failure to improve the performance of these school districts violated the constitutional requirement that the Alaska provide all students with an adequate educational opportunity. In the 2009 appeal of Moore v. State, the same superior court acknowledged that the state had “made progress” since 2007 in providing an appropriate education to the students of these failing school districts. Arizona: 1994, 1997, 1998, 2013 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2013 1994: Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop 877 P.2d 806

74

JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Roosevelt Elementary School District No. 66 v. Bishop (1994) the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the existing system of education finance did not appropriately provide all school districts with the facilities to enable children living in those districts to succeed. The existing model of education finance was found unconstitutional based on the Arizona Constitution’s “general and uniform” education clause. 1997: Hull v. Albrecht 950 P.2d 1141 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Hull v. Albrecht (1997), the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the legislature’s “Assistance to Build Classrooms fund.” Citing Article XI, Section 1 of Arizona’s constitution, the Arizona Supreme Court argued that the “ABC legislation” was unconstitutional because it, “Continued to cause substantial capital facility disparities between districts” and “failed to provide minimum adequacy standards for capital facilities.” 1998: Hull v. Albrecht 960 P.2d 634 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Hull v. Albrecht (1998), after an Arizona Superior Court rejected the state’s revised budget, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed this lower court’s ruling. Specifically, the Court, “Invalidated the entire Act, thereby enabling the legislature to reconsider the entire financing mechanism in light of the constitutional requirement that a ‘general and uniform’ system cannot allow some districts to employ local funding mechanisms that the state system withholds from other districts.” 2013: Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. State 308 P.3d 1152 JJP: N/A LRS: N/A

75

In 2000, Arizona voters approved proposition 301, which required the legislature to make annual inflation adjustments to its public education budget. Beginning in 2010, Arizona’s legislature stopped making these annual inflation adjustments (HB 2008). A number of school districts sued in Cave Creek Unified School District et al. v. State, arguing that HB 2008 and subsequent budgets thereafter were in violation of the voter-approved Proposition 301. In 2013, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and found that the state’s budgets since HB 2008, “Violated the Voter Protection Act’s express limitations on legislative changes to voter approved laws.” NOT INCLUDED IN LIST: 2007: Flores v. Arizona 480 F. Supp.2d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2007) JJP: Yes LRS: No In 2007, the US District Court for Arizona ruled that Arizona’s system of funding English Language Learners was unconstitutional. This ruling called for significant revision to Arizona’s funding of public education, but was subsequently appealed to higher federal courts. I follow LRS and do not code a decision year for the Flores v. Arizona cases. In Flores v. Horne (2009) the United States Supreme Court found that Arizona was not failing to provide its English-Language-Learning students a sufficient education as required by the Equal Education Opportunities Act. In Justice Alito’s majority opinion, the Court reversed the rulings of two lower courts, explaining that the lower courts had, “Misperceived the obligation imposed by the EEOA and the breadth of the Rule 60(b)(5) inquiry.” The Supreme Court remanded the case to a lower court, which subsequently found that Arizona’s provision of education to its ELL students was no longer in violation of the EEOA, effectively closing the case. Due to the Supreme Court’s overturning of the lower court decisions, I follow LRS and do not code any decisions related to this case. Arkansas: 1983, 1994, 2002, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2005 1983: Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30 651 S.W.2d 90 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A

76

In Dupree v. Alma School District No. 30 (1983) the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that the State’s existing system of financing public education was unconstitutional on both adequacy and equity grounds. 1994: Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee I Case No. 92-5318, (Ark. Chancery Court) JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee I (1994), a lower Court ruled that Arkansas’ existing model of funding public education was unconstitutional due to its unequal financing of schools in poor districts. The State appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, but on March 11, 1996, this appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, “Based on the fact that the order was not final, since the two-year stay was still in effect.” Due to the fact that the appeal of this lower-court case was dismissed by Arkansas’ Supreme Court, and there is evidence of legislative response, I follow JJP and LRS, and include 1994 as a potential decision year. 2002: Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee III 91 S.W.3d 472 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Lakeview v. Huckabee III (2002) the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas’ existing model of educational finance remained both unequal and inadequate. In Lakeview I and II, the Supreme Court dismissed (1996) and remanded (1998). In its 2002 decision (Huckabee III), the Supreme Court acknowledged numerous reforms enacted by the legislature between 1994 and 2002, but argued that the State had not yet satisfied its constitutional responsibility to Arkansas’ students. 2005: Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25. v. Huckabee IV 210 S.W.3d 28 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In its decision on Lake View v. Huckabee IV, the Arkansas Supreme Court found that the State had failed to follow through on its proposed reforms, and that the existing model of education finance was not in fact constitutional. The decision explained, “The General Assembly failed to comply

77

with Act 57 and Act 108 in the 2005 regular session and, by doing so, retreated from its prior actions to comply with this court's directives in Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v. Huckabee, 351 Ark. 31, 91 S.W.3d 472 (2002).” California: 1976 1977, 2004 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1976 1976: Serrano v. Priest II 487 P.2d 1241 JJP: No LRS: N/A In Serrano v. Priest II (1976), the California Supreme Court confirmed that the state’s unequal distribution of per-student expenditure across school districts and its reliance on property taxes as a source of revenue for education placed California’s model of education finance in violation of the equal protection clause of the state’s constitution. 1977: Serrano v. Priest III 557 P.2d 929 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Serrano III (1977), the Supreme Court confirmed the Constitutionality of the State’s revised model of education finance, and slightly clarified its earlier ruling. This case is the last ruling in the Serrano v. Priest series. 2004: Williams v. State Notice of Settlement No. 312236 (Calif. Super. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Williams v. State (2004) the two parties reached a settlement outside of State Superior Court. The case was never heard by California’s highest court. As part of the settlement, California agreed to a number of funding increases, the creation of a “School Needs Assessment” program, and developed an improved process through which schools could request increased resources.

78

NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 1971: Serrano v. Priest I JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Serrano v. Priest I (1971), a landmark case in education finance litigation, California’s Supreme Court held that California’s model of funding its schools was unconstitutional due to its heavy reliance on property taxes and the large discrepancies between per-pupil finding in rich and poor school districts. While this case was undoubtedly impactful, it occurred prior to 1972, and therefore does not fall within the range of this study. Connecticut: 1977, 1982, 1996, 2010 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2010 1977: Horton v. Meskill 376 A.2d 359 JJP: No (1978) LRS: N/A In Horton v. Meskill (1977), the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that education was a fundamental right that Connecticut was failing to provide equally to all of its citizens. The Court held that the state’s funding of education was unconstitutional due to its reliance on local property taxes. 1982: Horton v. Meskill II 445 A.2d 579 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Horton II, the Connecticut Supreme Court clarified the ability of municipalities to intervene in cases of education finance. The Supreme Court ruled that while it was exclusively the students’ responsibility to challenge the constitutionality of the state’s model of education finance, municipalities should be granted the ability, “to aid the Court in determining appropriate relief in the event the legislative financing system is found to be unconstitutional.” 1996: Sheff v. O’Neill

79

678 A.2d 1267 JJP: No (1995) LRS: No (1995) In Sheff v. O’Neill (1996), the Supreme Court of Connecticut ruled that the legislature should undo extreme racial segregation in public education, particularly in Hartford school districts. The ruling required significant spending increases. I code the Sheff v. Oneill decision in 1996, which JJP and LRS code in 1995 2010: Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc v. Rell 295 Conn. 240, 990 A.2d 206 JJP: Yes LRS: No In Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc v. Rell (2010), Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling that dismissed plaintiff’s claims. In its ruling, the Supreme Court dramatically expanded its definition of an “adequate education,” arguing that Connecticut’s constitution holds the legislature responsible for developing public schools that, “Provide their students with an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting, and to prepare them to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state’s economy.” Although this case was remanded to a lower court, due to the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for education finance and the subsequent rulings by lower courts highlighting the unconstitutional nature of the State’s system of education finance, I follow JJP and include 2010 as a potential event. Idaho: 1993, 1998, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1993 1993: Idaho Schools for Equal Educational Opportunity I 850 P.2d 724 JJP: No LRS: Yes In ISSEO I (1993), Idaho’s Supreme Court reversed a lower court’s dismissal, and clarified the definition of “thorough education” to be the 1993 “State Board of Education Rules and Regulations for Public School K–12, IDAPA 08.02.” According to the majority opinion in ISSEO V (2005) 12 years later, “After ISEEO I, the legislature made several changes to Idaho's public

80

school system, such as increasing public school appropriations and directing the State Board of Education (SBE) to develop new rules.” 1998: ISEEO v. State III 976 P.2d 913 JJP: Yes LRS: No In ISEEO v. State III, Idaho’s Supreme Court maintained that the state’s model of education finance remained unconstitutional despite reforms initiated in response to the ISEEO I (1993) decision. 2005: ISEEO v. State V (2005) 129 P.3d 1199 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In 2001, an Idaho district court found that the State’s use of loans to fund infrastructure improvements was unconstitutional. In its 2005 decision, the Idaho Supreme Court explained, “All other issues having been resolved, this appeal finally addresses the district court's 2001 Findings and the Court's final determination that the current state ‘system based upon loans alone is not adequate to meet the constitutional mandate to establish and maintain a general, uniform, and thorough system of public, free common schools in a ‘safe environment conducive to learning’ for Idaho's poorest school districts.’” Later in the opinion, the Court acknowledged that the state had made a number of improvements to provide a more thorough education to all of its citizens by improving its educational infrastructure between 2000 and 2005, but that these smaller improvements did not result in the State’s model of education finance being constitutional. Kansas: 1972, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1972 1972: Caldwell v. State Case No. 50616 (Kans. Dist. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: N/A

81

In Caldwell v. State (1972) a Kansas District Court found that Kansas’ “School Foundation Act of 1965” resulted in an unequal system of education finance. The Court ruled that the State’s model of determining where to allocate resources for public education led to increased disparities in the funding of rich and poor school districts. The Court asserted that under the existing system of educational finance, a child’s access to quality education was “the function of, and dependent on, the wealth of the district in which the child resides.” The State did not appeal the district court’s decision to a higher court. 2005: Montoy vs. State 112 P.3d 923 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Montoy v. State (2005) the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed a 2004 lower court decision, and declared that Kansas’ existing education finance model failed to “make suitable provision” for the financing of public education. This decision mandated that the legislature (1) substantially increase its budget for public education, and (2) develop a system to monitor the legislature’s compliance with the funding increase. Kentucky: 1989 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1989 1989: Rose v. Council for Better Education 790 S.W.2d 186 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Rose v. Council for Better Education (1989) the Supreme Court of Kentucky found that Kentucky’s underfunding of its public education system prevented the state from providing “an efficient” education to its children. As part of this ruling, the Court established seven categories through which to measure and evaluate the state’s provision of education to its children. Maryland: 1996, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2005 1996: Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education I Case No. 94-340058 (Md. Cir. Ct.) JJP: No

82

LRS: Yes In Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education I (1996), a Maryland trial court ruled that Maryland’s constitution guarantees children an adequate and modern education. Furthermore, the ruling established that Baltimore was failing to provide its children with a sufficiently adequate education. The Board of Education did not appeal the decision to a higher court and the two parties reached a settlement out of court, part of which required annual $50 million increases in funding to Baltimore’s schools for five years. LRS codes 1996 as a decision year while JJP does not. 2005: Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education II 875 A.2d 703 JJP: Yes LRS: No In Bradford v. Maryland State Board of Education (2005), Maryland’s Court of Appeals – the highest court in the state - upheld a state circuit court order that the legislature provide increased funding to the Baltimore City School District. Although the Court of Appeals’ decision upheld the lower court’s order for increased funding to Baltimore, it overturned the lower court’s ruling that Maryland’s “Education Fiscal Accountability Act” was unconstitutional in its requirement that “state aid to school districts” be tied to the elimination of budget deficits in those school districts. Massachusetts: 1993 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1993 1993: McDuffy v. Secretary 615 N.E.2d 516 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In McDuffy v. Secretary (1993), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that poorer communities in the state were not receiving “their constitutional entitlement of education as intended and mandated by the framers of the Constitution.” The SJC based its decision off of Kentucky’s Rose v. Council for a Better Education ruling, and cited the vague clause in Massachusetts’s Constitution that establishes the State as being responsible for the “encouragement of literature Michigan: No Decision

83

NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 1997: Durant v. State 650 N.W.2d 380 JJP: Yes LRS: No Unlike JJP, I do not include a decision in 1977. In Durant v. State (1997), Michigan’s Supreme Court ruled that the State Government should be required to reimburse school districts for their mandatory expenditure on (1) special needs education, (2) special needs transportation, and (3) school lunches. Although this case was heard by Michigan’s Supreme Court and required increased education expenditure, due to the narrowly defined nature of the reforms, I follow LRS and do not code 1997 as a decision year. Missouri: 1993 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1993 1993: Committee for Educational Equality v. State Case No. CV190-1371CC (Mo. Circ. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Committee for Educational Equality v. State (1993), the state circuit court ruled that Missouri’s education finance model had been unconstitutional and that Missouri needed to do a better job of equally funding rich and poor school districts. Citing the fact that the lower court’s decision was not yet final, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, and the legislature subsequently enacted the 1993 “Outstanding Schools Act” to increase the equity of its education finance system. I follow JJP and LRS in coding 1993 as a decision year. Montana: 1989, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1989 1989: Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State 769 P.2d 684 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A

84

In Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State (1989), Montana’s Supreme Court ruled that the State’s model of education finance had been unconstitutional, citing the fact that the unequal distribution of resources negatively impacted poor communities and, “Translate[d] into a denial of equality of educational opportunity.” 2005: Columbia Falls v. State 109 P.3d 257 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Columbia Falls v. State (2005), Montana’s Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Montana needed to increase funding for its public schools. The decision specifically required that increased attention be paid to an educational program that addressed and preserved Native American cultural identity. NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 1993: Montana Rural ed. Association v. Montana Case No.: BDV-91-2065 (Mont. Dist. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: No (Bill) In 1993, Montana’s legislature substantially revised its system of education finance with House Bill 667. Montana Rural ed. Association v. Montana was being tried when the Bill passed, and following the bill’s passage, the Court ruled that the case was no longer relevant. Since there was no decision, I follow LRS and do not code 1993 as a court-based decision year. NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 2008: Montana Quality Education Coalition v. Montana Case No: BDV-2002-528 (Mont. Dist. Ct.) JJP: Yes LRS: No In 2008, in Montana Quality Education Coalition v. Montana, a Montana District Court ruled that, notwithstanding existing deficiencies in the State’s model of education finance, the legislature was making “a good faith effort to preserve and protect Montana’s commitment to sound public

85

education system.” Furthermore, the Court specifically ruled that it, “Decline[d] to award any supplemental relief sought by the plaintiffs.” I follow LRS and do not include this as a decision year. New Hampshire: 1993, 1997, 1999, 2002 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1999 1993: Claremont v. Governor (Claremont I): 635 A.2d 1375 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In 1993, the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that it was the State’s responsibility to provide all of its citizens an adequate education, and remanded the case so that a lower court could determine if the State was in fact providing its citizens with such an education. While this ruling did not directly call for reform of the State’s model of education finance, it had significant implications long-term public education funding. 1997: Claremont v. Governor (Claremont II): 703 A.2d 1353 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Claremont v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353 (1997) the New Hampshire Supreme Court Ruled that the legislature needed to undertake a systematic restructuring of its model of education finance. In this decision, the Court overturned a lower court ruling that the State’s model of education finance had been constitutional. The Court ruled that the current model was unconstitutional in its failure to provide for lower-income school districts. The December 17, 1997 ruling specified that the school financing model could remain in place “through the 1998 tax year” to give the legislature time to address the Court’s concerns. 1999: Claremont v. Governor III 744 A.2d 1107 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes

86

In Claremont III (1999), New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled that the “phase-in” component of the legislature’s response to Claremont II (1997) was unconstitutional due to the fact that it did not create proportional tax burdens for citizens in all school districts. Despite allowing the existing model of education finance to generally survive, the 1999 decision established that a key aspect of the new education financing model was unconstitutional. 2002: Claremont v. Governor (Claremont IV) 794 A.2d 744 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In 2002, New Hampshire’s Supreme Court found that the State had not developed an effective system to evaluate schools’ performances and hold school districts accountable for the provision of an adequate education to students. This ruling came in the ongoing Claremont v. Governor series. NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 2006: Londonderry v. State 907 A.2d 988 JJP: Yes LRS: No Unlike JJP, I do not code a decision in 2006 for the Court’s ruling in Londonderry v. State (2006). In this decision, New Hampshire’s Supreme Court ruled that the legislature had failed to sufficiently define the meaning of a “constitutionally adequate education,” and remanded the case to a lower court while imposing a deadline for the legislature to clarify this definition. The legislature revised the statute, and upon appeal in 2008, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. As the New Hampshire Supreme Court explained in its 2008 decision, “The legislature has now responded to the definitional issue by enacting Laws 2007, chapter 270, which is codified at RSA chapter 193–E. The petitioners do not challenge the constitutional sufficiency of this definition. In addition to defining a constitutionally adequate education, RSA chapter 193–E also paved the way for the State to determine the cost of an adequate education by creating a Joint Legislative Oversight Committee to study the issues.” The legislature’s sufficient response does not necessarily entail spending increases, and therefore I do not code 2006 as a decision year. New Jersey: 1973, 1976, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2000 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1973

87

1973: Robinson v. Cahill 303 A.2d 273 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Robinson v. Cahill (1973) New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that New Jersey’s legislature was responsible for providing equal educational opportunities for all students in the state due to the “thorough and efficient” clause in the state’s constitution. 1990: Abbott v. New Jersey (Abbott II) 575 A.2d 359 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Abbott v. New Jersey (1990), the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the state’s then current model of education finance was unconstitutional due to its failure to provide resources to 28 poor, urban school districts. In the decision, the Court required the state to revise its funding model so that (1) these l districts received “substantially equivalent” resources to wealthier districts, and (2) that the state specifically address the impediments to providing an “adequate” education to children in impoverished school districts. 1994: Abbott v. New Jersey (Abbott III) 643 A.2d 575 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Abbott (1994) the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the State’s model of educational finance remained unconstitutional. This 1994 decision required the state to pass legislation that would ensure equivalent per-pupil funding across school districts and the provision of supplemental programs to the “Abbott school districts.” This decision represents a rejection by the Court of the State’s reform in response to the 1990 Abbott decision.

1997: Abbott v. Burke (Abbott IV)

693 A.2d 417

JJP: No LRS: Yes

88

In Abbott v. Burke IV (1997) the New Jersey Supreme Court once again found the state’s model of educational finance to be Unconstitutional. After the legislature failed to appropriately equalize its funding of schools following Abbott II and Abbott III, in Abbott IV (1997), the Court mandated parity, explaining, “The increased funding shall assure parity in per-pupil expenditures between each SND [Special Needs District] and the budgeted (as opposed to predicted) average expenditures of the DFG I & J [More Affluent] districts by the commencement of the 1997-1998 school year.” The decision also mandated the state-wide provision of a complete day of kindergarten and a partial day of pre-school education. Lastly, Abbott IV outlined a process through which a lower court would be responsible for evaluating the State’s compliance.

1998: Abbott v. Burke (Abbott V) 710 A.2d 450 JJP: No LRS: Yes

In Abbott v. Burke (1998), the New Jersey Supreme Court largely affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the State had adhered to the requirements outlined in Abbott IV (1997). In addition to affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court established that the “Special Needs Districts” should be granted the particular unique ability to, “seek and obtain the funds necessary to implement these [extended supplemental] programs, but only when the school has demonstrated a particularized need.”

2000: Abbott v. Burke (Abbott VI) 751 A.2d 1032 JJP: No LRS: Yes In Abbott v. Burke VI (2000) the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a detailed decision that clarified and expanded upon its 1997 requirement that the state provide pre-school education to 3 and 4 year-olds. In this decision, the Court outlined (1) pre-school educational standards, (2) the requirement that pre-school staff be certified, and (3) the requirement that there be no more than 15 pre-school students for every teacher. DO NOT INCLUDE 1976: Robinson v. Cahill (1976) 355 A.2d 129

89

JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Robinson v. Cahill (1976), New Jersey’s Supreme Court found that the legislature’s revised funding model was in fact constitutional, and had sufficiently addressed the unconstitutional aspects outlined in the Court’s 1973 decision. Unlike JJP, I do not include 1976 as a potential decision year. DO NOT INCLUDE 1991: Abbott v. Burke JJP: Yes LRS: No I follow LRS and do not include a decision year in 1991. I have unable to identify an Abbott v. Burke case for this year. New Mexico: 1999 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1999 1999: Zuni School District v. State Case No. CV-98-14-II (New Mexico. Dist. Ct.) JJP: No (1998) LRS: Yes In Zuni School District v. State (1999), a state trial court granted the school districts motion for “partial summary judgement” and explained (1) that the current system of state capital allocation was unconstitutional, (2) that the state needed to establish more uniform funding, and (3) that the state needed to address “existing and past inadequacies” in its educational funding model. In response to this decision, New Mexico’s legislature substantially revised its financing of public education so as to reduce the reliance on local property taxes. Additionally, the legislature designed new state-wide standards that would be used to ensure that each student was in fact receiving an adequate education. Although this decision was not made by New Mexico’s highest court, it led to dramatic revisions in the state’s educational financing model, and was not appealed to the State’s higher court. JJP codes this case as 1998, but I follow LRS and code this case as 1999. New York: 2003, 2006 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2006

90

2003: Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State II 801 N.E.2d 326 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In 2003, New York’s Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling and outlined specific requirements of New York State in reforming its education finance model. The ruling declared that the State’s existing educational model had failed to meet the required provision of a “sound basic education,” and the Court declared that the State needed to provide its children with a “meaningful high school education.” Moreover, the ruling required (1) that the State undertake a study to determine the costs of providing an adequate education, (2) that the State provide these costs, and (3) that a system be developed to monitor performance. 2006: Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State III 861 N.E.2d 50 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State III (2006) the Court established a $2 billion “constitutional floor” for additional State annual operating funds for education. Citing a desire to, “Avoid intrusion on the primary domain of another branch of government,” the Court of Appeals did not make a recommendation in its majority opinion beyond the $2 billion floor. Despite not making a recommendation in the majority opinion, in specific concurring and dissenting opinions, three of the six judges established a recommendation of a $5 billion increase, with Chief Judge Kaye explaining, “Plainly, every governmental actor knew what the referees and the Appellate Division here concluded: A sound basic education will cost approximately $5 billion in additional annual expenditures.” North Carolina: 1997, 2004 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1997 1997: Leonardo v. State 488 S.E.2d 249 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Leonardo v. State (1997), the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that it was the State’s responsibility to ensure that each child had the "opportunity to receive a sound basic education."

91

Furthermore, the ruling clarified that it was the State of North Carolina’s responsibility – not the responsibility of school districts – to protect and deliver every child’s right to an education. 2004: Hoke County Board of Education v. State 599 S.E.2d 365 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Hoke County Board of Education v. State (2004), North Carolina’s Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the state should reassess its allocation of resources to make sure that each child, particularly those in rural communities, received their guaranteed educational rights as outlined in the 1997 Leonardo decision. Moreover, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision outlined a process through which the state Superior Court would be responsible for monitoring the legislature’s compliance with the mandated restructuring of its education finance model. Ohio: 1997, 2000, 2001 2002 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2001

1997: DeRolph v. The State of Ohio (De Rolph I)

677 N.E.2d 733

JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In DeRolph v. Ohio (1997), the Ohio Supreme Court declared that the State’s existing financing model for education was (1) overly reliant on property taxes, (2) did not appropriately fund school’s infrastructure, and (3) led to unnecessary borrowing by school districts. Citing these and other deficiencies, the Court ruled that Ohio undertake a “complete and systematic overhaul” of its educational finance model.

2000: De Rolph v. Ohio (De Rolph II) 728 N.E.2d 993 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes

In the year 2000, Ohio’s Supreme Court found that the State’s educational funding model remained unconstitutional in DeRolph v. State II. In response, the legislature revised its budget.

92

2001: De Rolph v. Ohio (De Rolph III)

754 N.E.2d 1184

JJP: No LRS: No In 2001 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled once again that the model remained unconstitutional. In its decision, the Court not only outlined the ways in which the State’s model of education finance was unconstitutional, but also appointed a mediator in an attempt to bring about reform. 2002: De Rolph v. Ohio (De Rolph IV)

780 N.E.2d 529

JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In December of 2002, the Ohio Supreme Court once again established that the State had failed to properly respond to previous De Rolph rulings. While distancing itself from the 2001 ruling that had called for mediation (De Rolph III) the Court explained, “To date, the principal legislative response to De Rolph I and De Rolph II has been to increase funding, which has benefited many schoolchildren. However, the General Assembly has not focused on the core constitutional directive of De Rolph I: ‘A complete systematic overhaul’ of the school-funding system.”

Oregon: (None) NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 2009: Pendleton School Dist. v. State of Oregon 217 P.3d 175 JJP: Yes LRS: No This case is used in JJP, but it is not a sufficiently robust decision to expect any substantial educational expenditure increases. In its decision, the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledges that the State may not have appropriately funded the school systems, but the ruling does not seem to establish that the legislature needed to change its current practices. In particular, the remand specified that lower courts, “May grant a declaratory judgement that the legislature failed to fully

93

fund the public school system, if that is the case,” (emphasis added) but did not state that this in fact was the case. Moreover, the ruling prohibited the lower court from granting, “Other forms of relief requested by the plaintiff.” Due to this ambiguity, I follow LRS and do not include this year. South Carolina: None NOT INCLUDED IN LIST

Abbeville County v. State: 2005

Case No. 93-CP-31-0169 (S.C. Ct. Com. Pl.)

JJP: Yes LRS: No In 2005, a South Carolina lower court (Court of Common Pleas) ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and found that many school districts in South Carolina were not receiving a minimally adequate education. The State appealed this decision to the South Carolina Supreme Court, where it was not heard until 2014. In the 2014 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, and found that the existing model of public education failed to provide an education to all of its citizens that satisfied constitutional standards. Due to the fact that this 2014 higher court decision exists in the Abbeville County v. State series, I follow LRS and do not code the 2005 lower court decision as a potential event. NOTE: If data were available for educational expenditure after 2014, I would include 2014 as a decision year. That decision currently falls outside the range of the analysis in this paper. Tennessee: 1993, 1995, 2002 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1993 1993: Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter (McWherter I) 851 S.W.2d 139 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter I, the Tennessee Supreme Court found that the State’s pre-existing model of education finance resulted in large discrepancies in the funding of schools in rich and poor school districts. The Tennessee Supreme Court found the existing model of educational funding to be unconstitutional on the grounds of equity. 1995: Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter (McWherter II) 894 S.W.2d 734 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes

94

In its decision in McWherter II the Tennessee Supreme Court issued a two-part ruling. First, the Court declared that the legislature’s transition plan was not so slow as to make it unconstitutional in its perpetuation of unequal educational opportunities. Second, the Court ruled that teachers’ salaries should not be excluded from the equalization formula. The second portion of this ruling should theoretically lead to increased educational expenditure. 2002: Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter (McWherter III) 91 S.W.3d 232 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In McWherter III, the Tennessee Supreme Court ruled that disparities in teachers’ salaries across different school districts in the state resulted in substantially unequal allocation of educational resources to students, in violation of the Tennessee’s constitutional equal protection clause. Texas: 1989, 1991, 1992, 2005 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2005 1989: Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby (Edgewood I) 777 S.W.2d 39 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby (1989) the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the existing educational finance model was unconstitutional on grounds of equity. 1991: Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby (Edgewood II) 804 S.W.2d 491 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Edgewood II, Texas’ Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling, and found that the legislature’s revisions did not sufficiently reform the State’s model of education finance so as to make it constitutional. Specifically, the ruling explained that the legislature had failed, “To remedy major causes of wide opportunity gaps between rich and poor school districts.”

95

1992: Carrolton Farmer’s Branch ISD v. Edgewood Independent School District 826 S.W.2d 489 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Carrolton v. Edgewood the Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling and found that Texas’ model of education finance remained unconstitutional despite reforms in 1991. The Supreme Court established that the current model was unconstitutional and remanded the case back to a lower court. 2005: West Orange-Cove ISD. v. Neeley 176 S.W.3d 746 JJP: No (2004) LRS: No In West-Orange-Cove C.S.D. v. Neeley, the Texas Supreme Court issued a multi-part decision. First, the Court ruled that that the State’s reliance on property taxes to fund its schools was unconstitutional. Next, the Court acknowledged that the State’s current model of education finance was not in immediate violation of the Texas’ constitution . Despite affirming the immediate constitutionality of the existing model of education finance, the Court went on to explain that, “We remain convinced…that defects in the structure of the public school finance system expose the system to constitutional challenge. Pouring more money into the system may forestall those challenges, but only for a time. They will repeat until the system is overhauled.” LRS does not code 2005 as a decision year because the Supreme Court did not specifically order reform. Nevertheless, due to the fact that the Court struck down the State’s property tax and used such strong language to describe the deficiencies in the State’s model of education finance, I do code 2005 as an event that should bring about increased education expenditure. Vermont: 1997 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1997 1997: Brigham v. State 692 A.2d 384 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Birmingham v. State (1977) the Vermont Supreme Court found that the existing model of education finance, “With its substantial dependence on local property taxes and resultant wide

96

disparities in revenues available to local school districts,” was in violation of the Vermont Constitution’s “common benefit” clause. Washington: 1978, 2007, 2012 Year Selected by Algorithm: 2012 1978: Seattle School District No. 1 v. State 585 P.2d 71 JJP: No (1977) LRS: N/A In Seattle School District No. 1 v. State (1978) the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Washington needed to better educate its citizens, and that education should be funded by the State through a steady source of tax revenue. JJP codes this case as 1977. 2009: Federal Way School District v. State 219 P.3d 941 JJP: No (2007) LRS: No In 2009, Washington’s Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s 2007 ruling requiring uniform educational content, teacher certification, and hours of instruction, but did not uphold the lower court’s ruling for state-wide equalization of teachers’ salaries. Due to the fact that many of the Court-ordered reforms should have led to increased state education expenditure, I include 2009 as a potential event. 2012: McCleary v. State 269 P.3d 227 JJP: N/A LRS: N/A (2010) In McCleary v. State (2012), the Washington State Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision that found the State’s model of education finance to be unconstitutional. Between 2007 and 2012, a number of courts heard McCleary vs. State, with the Superior Court issuing a significant ruling in 2010. Although LRS codes the 2010 Superior Court decision and JJP codes a 2007 lower court decision, in 2012 the Washington Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court’s ruling, and therefore I code 2012 for McCleary v. State.

97

NOT INCLUDED IN LIST 1991: Seattle II JJP: Yes LRS: No I have not been able to identify the 1991 Seattle II case relating to education finance in Washington State. I follow LRS and do not code this year as a potential event. 2010: McCleary v. State: No. 07-2-02323-2 SEA (Wash. Super.) JJP: No LRS: Yes As discussed above, I code this case using the 2012 Supreme Court decision as opposed to the 2010 Superior Court decision. West Virginia: 1984, 1995 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1995 1984: Pauley v. Bailey 324 S.E.2d 128 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Pauley v. Bailey (1984), the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the State had, “A specific duty to implement and enforce the policies and standards of the Master Plan.” The Master Plan was a reform plan developed by the state superintendent of schools following a 1982 decision by a lower court in the same case, which found the existing education financing model to be unequal and unconstitutional. 1995: Tomblin v. Gainer Case No. 25-1268 (W.V. Circ. Ct.) JJP: Yes

98

LRS: Yes In Tomblin v. Gainer (1995) a West Virginia district court ruled that West Virginia’s constitution required the state to provide high quality facilities, instructional materials, personnel, and supervision to prevent waste. Moreover, the Court outlined a series of reforms that the legislature needed to implement by the year 2000. The State did not appeal the decision, and the legislature dramatically revised its model for funding public education. Wyoming: 1980, 1995, 2001 Year Selected by Algorithm: 1995 1980: Washakie County School District v. Herschler 606 P.2d 310 JJP: Yes LRS: N/A In Washakie County School District v. Herschler, the Wyoming Supreme Court found the state’s existing model of education finance to be unconstitutional on the grounds of equity. Specifically, the Court found that the State’s reliance on local property taxes to finance schools led to large disparities in the funds available for education between rich and poor school districts. 1995: Campbell County School District v. State (Campbell I) 907 P.2d 1238 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes In Campbell I (1995) the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that the State’s system for funding education led to an unequal provision of educational opportunity. This decision led to a substantial restructuring of the education finance model on behalf of the legislature. 2001: Campbell County School District v. State (Campbell II) 19 P.3d 518 JJP: Yes LRS: Yes (Bill) In Campbell County School District v. State II, the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that certain aspects of Wyoming’s model for funding education remained unconstitutional, and specifically

99

highlighted the insufficient provision of funding for capital improvements in certain school districts. In the decision, the Wyoming Supreme Court highlighted the need for inflation adjustments every two-years and factor requirement re-evaluations every 5 years.

Documents

APPENDIX TABLE 1 bold font. Liscow JJP LRS STATE YEAR ... · STATE YEAR EVENT CITATION Liscow (2017) JJP (2016) LRS (2016) Alabama 1993 Alabama Coalition for Equity v. Hunt 624 So