School-of-Thought

Has the South Dakota legislature failed in its constitutional requirement to adequately fund education in our state?  That’s the question at the bottom of a potential appeal to the South Dakota’s Supreme Court.

HISTORY OF THE FUNDING LAWSUIT   

In January, 2006, a “costing-out study” showed the South Dakota government was underfunding state schools by $154 million per year according to one methodology (the Successful School District Approach), an 18% per year deficiency,  and $482 million per year according to another (the Professional Judgment Approach), a 56% per year deficiency.    

With the state and supporting schools unable to reconcile their differences, the case went to court - alleging that South Dakota’s school finance system was unconstitutional.

 The results of the court case are summarized by our state’s Associated School Board organization and are  reproduced below:

 DAVIS V. STATE: THE CIRCUIT COURT RULING

On April 8, 2009, Circuit Court Judge Wilbur ruled in favor the state, asserting that the Legislature is meeting it’s duties under the Constitution of the State of South Dakota. The sections below outline major conclusions from the circuit court, both in the Davis v. State decision and in pre-trial proceedings.

 A few points, outlined below, were settled prior to the trial. 

1. The Courts Have Jurisdiction: The State wanted the circuit court to dismiss the case prior to trial, arguing that school funding is a political question and not appropriate for consideration by the courts. Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur denied the motion.
2. The Constitution Guarantees an Adequate Education: In a pre-trial motion, Judge Lori Wilbur granted a motion that acknowledges that the South Dakota Constitution guarantees the provision of free, adequate education.
3. The Courts Can Not Order the Appropriation of Additional K-12 Funding: Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur dismissed a claim for “judicial relief beyond declaratory judgment.” In other words, courts will only evaluate whether constitutional obligations are being met and will not, at any point, order the Legislature to appropriate additional funds for K-12 education.

 CIRUIT COURT DECISION

In a lengthy decision, Circuit Court Judge Lori Wilbur ruled in favor of the state, concluding that the school finance system is Constitutional. Major arguments are outlined below.

1. Education Is Not a Fundamental Right: The judge leaned on a technical definition of “fundamental right” to conclude that, because education is not listed in South Dakota’s Bill of Rights, it is therefore not a fundamental right.
2. No Constitutional Guarantee to Quality Education: Relying on citations from Bezdicheck v. State (1994), the circuit court concluded that the Constitution guarantees students “the opportunity for a basic high school education” and does not prescribe that students receive a quality education.
3. Adequate Education Defined: The circuit court defined an “adequate” education is one that “gives a student the opportunity to compete either in higher education or the work force.” The court repeatedly referred to the definition of adequate education as a “constitutional minimum.”
4. South Dakota Provides More than is Constitutionally Required: The court concluded that all South Dakota districts are offering an adequate education, and that the state can, and does, establish requirements that are more rigorous than the Constitution requires.
5. Higher Funding Does Not Increase Education Quality: The court rejected claims that higher funding yields greater educational quality. In making this determination, the court relied heavily on analysis by state witnesses that showed, among other things, that investments in education are ultimately trumped by socio-economic and family characteristics of the student.
6. The Current Funding System is Suitable: After detailing the various aspects of both state and local school funding mechanisms, the court concluded that South Dakota’s school finance system “provides a suitable means for funding South Dakota’s schools” and is constitutional.
7. Local School Officials Are Not Credible: The circuit court unilaterally dismissed the judgment of local school officials relative to the level of funding required to provide an adequate education. Instead, the court recognized the opinions of state witnesses as credible and influential.
8. Recruiting, Retaining Teachers is Not a Challenge: The circuit court, relying heavily on testimony from state witnesses, concluded that recruiting and retaining quality teachers is not a challenge for South Dakota schools.

IMPLICATIONS 

The South Dakota constitution is clear that the Legislature is to “adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education.” In the state’s history, the South Dakota Supreme court has not considered whether South Dakota’s school finance system provides school districts with adequate resources to comply with constitutional requirements.

Similar to the ruling in Bezdicheck v. State (1994), the circuit court decision in Davis v. State establishes a standard for “adequate education,” concluding that the Constitution guarantees only that students have an opportunity to compete either in higher education or the work force. Should the ruling in Davis v. State stand, the “constitutional minimum” will survive as the definitive judicial interpretation of the Constitution’s education clause.

After reading the summary, I secured a copy of the Judge’s decision.  Here is a small portion of what she said:

THE DECISION OF THE COURT

Plaintiffs have brought this action seeking declaratory relief, that:

The South Dakota public school finance system violates Art. VIII of the South Dakota Constitution, because it violates the rights of South Dakota children to receive an adequate education.

 THE ROLE OF THE COURT IN THIS PROCEEDING

In other states, the decisions widely differ. Courts in many states have dismissed the issue as nonjusticiable. Other courts have issued strong decisions in favor of challengers, with significant litigation following the seminal decision.

Nonetheless, no real majority rule can be derived from other states. This is largely a result of the fact that issues presented in the cases are not simple “yes or no” questions, but instead have outcomes which range on a spectrum of different possible outcomes and involvement by the judiciary. Additionally, the language and structure of state constitutions’ education clauses widely varies. Moreover, states significantly differ as to the amount of judicial involvement authorized in such situations.

Despite the undisputed importance of education in society, this Court’s role in this proceeding is clear. The Court is not a “super-legislature” which is in a position to choose the best policy option for schools in this state. As recognized by the South Dakota Supreme Court, “[t]he view that judges function to fine tune legislative excess has long been discarded. Only when statutes are plainly and unmistakably unconstitutional may we declare them void. A statute is presumed constitutional until it is proved otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.”

As such, the Court’s opinion as to the best way to educate the children of this state is irrelevant. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement with the state’s educational system. The same could be said for every state in the nation. Many of the policy options discussed in this trial may improve education in this state and these options should be given serious consideration by the Legislature. Nonetheless, the Court’s judicial function is only to determine whether Plaintiffs have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Legislature is not meeting its duties under the Constitution of the State of South Dakota.

FINDINGS

This Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the state system does not provide an adequate educational opportunity to students in the state. Although numerous school superintendents presented their “wish list” of needed course offerings, materials, or facility upgrades, the superintendent testimony fails to establish that absent their “wish list” they were unable to provide their students with an adequate educational opportunity.

The Court finds that (1) Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to prove that there is a meaningful relationship between spending and student outcomes in South Dakota or elsewhere; and (2) no one has yet determined what group of replicable strategies can eliminate an entire district’s (much less a state’s) achievement gap for at-risk kids.

Although the Court finds that the testimony the various superintendants presented in this case was heartfelt, the testimony of such was inherently biased. Most districts have built-in pressures and demands which weigh heavily on administrators, including providing the best possible education to their students. That pressure clearly affected the ability of the superintendants to give a fair and impartial opinion as to the adequacy of the education students were giving in their districts. Additionally, a review of the evidence shows that many superintendants were advertising the quality of education offered at their school district to the public but coming into court and stating the opposite. As such, the expert opinions of the various superintendents as to the sufficiency or adequacy of education offered in their respective districts are not deemed credible.

 So what do you think?