Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Why the Rare School Funding Victory in Louisiana?

Even though Louisiana's fiscal effort levels rank at the bottom of the nation, its funding formula is slightly regressive (sending less money to the neediest districts), and many of its school facilities can only be described as deplorable, litigants have never been able to break through with a school funding victory.  Courts have fallen back on the notion that the state constitution only requires a "minimum" education.  See, e.g., Jones v. State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, 927 So.2d 426 (La. App. 1 Cir. Nov. 4, 2005); Charlet v. Legislature of the State of Louisiana, 713 So.2d 1199 ((La. App. 1 Cir. 1998).  Although not an attack on the state's funding practices as a whole, litigants did get a victory earlier this year in Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State, 2013 WL 1878913 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2013).  See also LaJuana's post on the case from earlier this summer. 

The case was brought by teachers, school boards and parents.  The primary theory of the case was that the state's voucher program diverted funds away from public schools to non-public schools in violation of the state constitution.  The Louisiana Supreme Court agreed, reasoning that while the state constitution only mandates a minimum education program, once the state determines the cost of the minimum program, it cannot then take a portion of those minimum funds and give them to nonpublic schools.  Doing so necessarily drops support of the public schools below "minimum."

I revisit this case for two reasons.  First, it is an example of courts' willingness to intervene in school funding if they can identify a technical violation, even if they they have previously indicated an unwillingness to address substantive questions of school funding.  Recognizing this technical versus substantive approach, we have seen a few other cases this summer attack charters and/or vouchers on technical constitutional grounds.  Second, this victory early this summer adds further context to the current DOJ lawsuit to block the voucher program (although it is not softening on the notion of "blocking" the program).  The DOJ suit is based on federal desegregation law, whereas Louisiana Federation of Teachers is based on state law, but the plaintiffs victory this summer shows how embattled the state's voucher program is.  Right or wrong, the Governor is understandably testy over one of the state's signature programs.  He is obviously unwilling to let it sink without a big fight.

's mandate

Cases, Charters and Vouchers, School Funding, State law developments | Permalink


Post a comment