Jefferson County Board of Education v. Fell ex rel. L.F.
2012 Ky. LEXIS 148
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Parents alleged KRS 159.070 grants a statutory right to attend the public school nearest home; the complaint asserted a neighborhood-school right.
- The suit was brought in Jefferson Circuit Court against JCPS and its superintendent; lower courts dismissed or limited the claim.
- Court of Appeals reversed, directing JCPS to create a new assignment plan consistent with 159.070, including proximity considerations.
- Majority Kentucky Supreme Court held the enrollment language is ambiguous in context and, ultimately, there is no statutory right to attend the nearest school; local boards have broad discretion.
- 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act removed the words “for attendance” from the last sentence, reinforcing the majority view that enrollment does not guarantee attendance at the nearest school; dissents criticize that reading.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does KRS 159.070 grant a nearest-school attendance right? | Plaintiff asserts enrollment equals attendance at nearest school. | Defendant argues enrollment is not attendance; school boards have discretion. | No statutory right; enrollment does not guarantee attendance. |
| Is the last sentence of KRS 159.070 ambiguous when read with Chapter 159's compulsory attendance provisions? | Plaintiff contends plain language supports a neighborhood-school right. | Defendant contends ambiguity permits legislative history to inform interpretation. | Yes, the language is ambiguous; legislative history considered but does not impose a right. |
| Does the 1990 amendment removing 'for attendance' reflect legislative intent to repeal a neighborhood-school right? | Historical language implied a right to attend the nearest school. | Omission of 'for attendance' was a purposeful simplification; no repeal of a right. | Amendment shows change in wording, but does not create a neighborhood-school right. |
| Should the ruling align with local school-board discretion in student assignment? | Parent rights constrain board discretion to assign students to nearest schools. | Discretion rests with local boards under KRS 160.290 and related case law. | Assignment is board discretion, not a guaranteed right for attendance at the nearest school. |
| Do dissenting views correctly interpret 'enroll' as attendance? | Enrolling in a school means becoming a student and attending that school. | Enroll and attend are distinct terms; attendance is determined by the board and statute. | Majority view controls; dissenters' interpretation rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Pulaski County Bd. of Ed., 292 Ky. 100 (Ky. 1942) (board control over attendance remains with local authorities)
- Skinner v. Bd. of Ed. of McCracken County, 487 S.W.2d 903 (Ky. 1972) (boards have broad discretion in school assignment matters)
- Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989) (education statute reform following unconstitutionality ruling)
- Shawnee Telecom Resources, Inc. v. Brown, 354 S.W.3d 542 (Ky. 2011) (statutory construction principles for intent; use of context")
- MPM Financial Group, Inc. v. Morton, 289 S.W.3d 193 (Ky. 2009) (ambiguous terms require consideration of legislative history)