*1 Big Cоunty Horn School District No. One, CAMPBELL SCHOOL Wyoming, al., COUNTY Ap State of et DISTRICT, Wyoming; State Defendants). pellees (Intervening al., Appellants (Plaintiffs), et v. BIG HORN COUNTY SCHOOL DIS Wyoming: Ohman, STATE of Diana J. ONE, Wyoming, TRICT State NO. et Superintendent of State Public Instruc al., Appellants (Intervening Defendants), tion; al., (Defendants), Appellees et v. Big County Horn School District No. CAMPBELL COUNTY SCHOOL One, Wyoming, al., Ap et State of DISTRICT, Wyoming, State Defendants). pellees (Intervening al., Appellees (Plaintiffs), et Wyoming: Ohman, STATE of Diana Su perintendent Instruction; Public Ferrari, Auditor; Nedolyn Dave State County One, Laramie District School No. Testolin, Glode, Michael Karen Moul al., Wyoming et Education
ton, Lynn Dickey, Lynn Associa Messenger, Eliz Plaintiffs). tion, Appellees Field, Judy Campbell, (Intervening abeth Charlotte Levendosky, Iversen, Wayne Jack Mor thru Nos. 94-136 94-140. tensen, Andrikopoulos, and John Mem Wyoming bers of the State Board of Supreme Wyoming. Court of Education, Appellants (Defendants), v. Nov. CAMPBELL COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, As Clarified on Denial of Wyoming, Rehearing State of al., Appellees (Plaintiffs),
et Dec. County One,
Laramie District No. al.,
et Education Associa Plaintiffs).
tion, Appellees (Intervening
LARAMIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT ONE, Wyoming, Ap
NUMBER State
pellant (Intervening Plaintiff),
v. OHMAN, Superintendent
Diana of Public
Instruction, Wyoming, al., State et
Appellees (Defendants),
Big County Horn School District No.
One, Wyoming, al., Ap State of et Defendants).
pellees (Intervening ASSOCIATION,
WYOMING EDUCATION
Appellant (Intervening Plaintiff),
v. OHMAN, Superintendent
Diana of Public
Instruction, Wyoming, al., State et
Appellees (Defendants),
1242 *5 Bussart, Tyler L. of Bus- T. Marvin
Ford Rossetti, sart, West, Tyler, Piaia & Rock Campbell County Dis- Springs, for School trict, Wyoming, al. et State General, Meyer, Attorney Rowe- Joseph B. Heekert, Attorney Gener- L. Assistant na Sr. al, Wyoming, Cheyenne, Diana J. for State Ohman, et al. Kirven, Kirven &
Timothy J. Kirven of Buffalo, P.C., of Mason & Gerald R. Mason P.C., Pinedale, County Graham, Big Horn One, al. No. et School District Stewart, Richard Hickey, R. Paul J. Mark Evans, Cheyenne, Hickey & D. Bush County District No. One. Laramie *6 Hacker, Wyo- Cheyenne, for Patrick E. ming Education Association. Afton, Goulding, for Lincoln L.
Gerald Two amicus County District No. as School curiae. Office, Legislative Pauli of the Service
Dan and Wyoming Legislature Cheyenne, Management as amicus curiae. Council THOMAS, GOLDEN, C.J., and Before LEHMAN, MACY, JJ. TAYLOR GOLDEN, Chief Justice. is the constitution- question before us sys- Wyoming’s public finance
ality of
school
(Camp-
districts
Wyoming
Four
school
tem.
One, Uinta
County
District No.
School
bell
One,
No.
Sweetwater
County School District
Two)
Nos. One and
County
Districts
January
against
brought suit
Superintendent
Wyoming, the State
State of
Instruction,
Board of
the State
of Public
declaratory
seeking
and others1
Education
against
the state
injunctive relief
Wyoming
components of the
claiming certain
system were unconstitu-
finance
public school
and State Treasurer.
the Governor
from the suit were
later dismissed
1. Defendants
Equal
capital
tional
Section
under the
Protection
construction features of the
(Art.
34)
1, §
Wyoming
system,
Constitution
school finance
the district court de-
Wyoming
of the
Con-
Education Article
them
clared
to be constitutional.
chal-
(Art.
1-23).
7, §§
stitution
After the state
lengers
appealed
have
that decision.
with a
defendants answered
denial
affirm
We
the district court’s decision that
system
components
identified
of the finance
divisor,
municipal
recapture
optional
infirm,
constitutionally
were
coalition
system
mills features of
finance
twenty-three school districts2 intervened as
are unconstitutional. We reverse the district
aligned
defendants
with the state defendants.
court’s decision that the divisor
capital
Later,
County
Laramie
School District No.
construction features are constitutional.
One and the
Education Association
words,
Wyoming’s public
other
we hold
plaintiffs
aligned
intervened as
with the
system
school finance
is unconstitutiоnal.
challengers
sys-
initial
of the school finance
tem. These intervenors
identified other
ISSUES
components
system
the school
finance
briefs,
parties
In their various
have
Thus,
allegedly
which were
unconstitutional.
many
stated
issues. We believe those issues
joined,
challengers
the issues were
may
succinctly
summarized as follows:
components
attacked five
school fi-
feature,
system:
nance
the divisor
the munic-
1. Whether
ju-
the court’s exercise of its
feature,
ipal
feature,
recapture
divisor
power
dicial
sys-
declare school finance
feature,
optional
capital
mills
and the
statutes
tem
unconstitutional violates the
construction
separation
powers?
feature.
doctrine
2. Whether
apply
the court must
a ration-
Following a three-week trial
in October
scrutiny
al basis or strict
standard of re-
Court,
the District
First Judicial Dis-
constitutionality
view determine the
trict,
County,
compo-
Laramie
declared three
the school finance
statutes?
nents of the
finance
mu-
—the
feature,
nicipal
feature,
recapture
Applying
divisor
appropriate
standard
optional
and the
mills feature —unconstitu-
challenged components
review to the
appealed
tional.
system,
The state defenders have
school finance
whether these com-
respect
decision.
ponents
With
to the divisor
are constitutional?3
following
2. The
by any
school districts intervened:
scrutiny,
D.Whether
standard of
*7
1,
contrary
court's conclusions are
Big
County
to its factual
Big
County
Horn
No.
Horn
No.
4,
findings
2,
1,
and the
County
County
evidence?
Carbon
No. Crook
No.
9,
Appellee-Defendant
brief
Wyo-
of
State
County
of
County
Fremont
No.
Fremont
No.
ah,
14,
ming,
presents
et
24,
issues
County
these
for Case Nos.
County
Fremont
No.
Fremont
94-136, 94-138,
38,
1,
and 94-139:
Springs County
No.
Hot
No.
Johnson
1,
2,
support
findings
Does the evidence
County
County
No. Laramie
No. Niobrara
1,
16,
upheld
conclusions of the
court
trial
which
County
County
No.
Park
No.
Platte
constitutionality
Wyoming
of the
1,
2,
school fi-
County
County
No.
Platte
No.
Sheridan
system?
3,
nance
1,
County
County
No. Sheridan
No. Sublette
Appellee-Intervening
brief
of
1,
9,
Defendant
County
County
No.
Sublette
No. Uinta
Big
County
School Districts
Horn
School
4,
2,
District
County
County
No. Washakie
Weston
No.
One,
ah,
94-136, 94-138,
No.
et
in Case Nos.
1,
County
County
Weston
7.
No.
No.
94—139 states the issues as:
94-136,
Appellant-
In Case No.
the brief of
properly
Did
I.
the district court
refuse to
Plaintiffs,
District,
Campbell County
State
School
apply
scrutiny
a strict
test to the
of
method
ah,
Wyoming,
presents
of
et
these issues:
distributing
adequa-
school finances when the
A. Whether the trial court erred in determin-
cy
challenged?
of school
not
has
been
ing
components
that the several
the school
of
properly
Did
II.
the district court
determine
system
subjected
finance
can
isolated and
system provides
that the current divisor
differing
judicial scrutiny?
standards of
equitable allocation of school monies as re-
B.
holding
Whether
trial
court erred in
quired Washakie?
scrutiny
that the
94-137,
strict
standard of review does
Appellant-Defendant
In Case No.
apply
to the distribution side
Wyoming presents
of the finance
State of
these issues:
system.
seрaration
powers requirement
I. Does the
C.
holding
prevent
judicial
trial court
Whether the
erred in
modification of the school
recapture aspect
funding system
public
that the
of the school finance
when the
schools are
system
meeting
is unconstitutional.
the constitutional standards?
issues,
protection provision of our constitu
cogni
equal
we are
addressing these
factors,
prior
including: our
tion;
measures;
of several
post-Washakie
zant
reform
No.
County Sch. Dist.
in Washakie
decision
sys
workings
challenged financing
of the
Herschler,
(Wyo.1980),
BACKGROUND carry on process quality education, Washakie financing we found was “tarred with disparate the same brush tax 1980, resources.” gener
Before
local ad valorem taxes
Id. at 337. We commented that “statewide
portion
ated a substantial
of the
availability from total
elementary
state
secondary public
state’s
resources for
building
years,
schools. Over the
construction or
development
contribution to
in-place
buildings
school
parity
mineral wealth
disparity
created
on a
for all school
great
required
those local
engender
just
resources so
as to
districts is
as for other ele-
challenge
system.
to the school finance
ments
process.”
In
of the educational
Id.
Washakie,
public
we declared
education a
Washakie,
court,
In
having
examined
right
fundamental
under the state constitu
system,”
emphasized
“entire
legisla-
tion
then-existing
and we held the
goal
ture’s
“is to arrive at
parity.”
financial
system
finance
unсonstitutional because it
Id. We had
confidence the
would
equal
failed to afford
protection, in violation
challenge
meet the
fulfilling
its constitu-
of the
Constitution.
holding,
so
tional
“provide
duties to
for the establish-
statute,
we isolated no particular
but instead
ment and maintenance of
complete
system
examined “the entire
organiza
from
Wyo.
instruction,”
uniform
public
tion
through
of school districts
tax bases and
1,§
and “make such further
Aht.
Const.
funds,
levies and distribution of foundation
provisions by
otherwise,
taxation or
as with
all
bearing
of which
dispari
have
arising
the income
general
from the
ty
Washakie,
which exists.”
will compensate calculation to special differentials,” needs—educational cost Washakie, explained As Wyoming ap- id., and indicated our awareness portions funds to the school districts from that the provide formula that will equality Program. Foundation Several revenue will quite complex. be money may More sources program either fund the or reduce needed one school district to achieve the amount of support foundation received quality education than in another because Washakie, the school districts. 606 P.2d at of, e.g., costs, transportation building main- Following decision, our a select com- costs, costs, tenance logistic construction mittee Wyoming legislature assembled considerations, pupils number of spe- purpose for the of recommending modifica- problems, cial However, et cetera. it is tions of the finance formula to the entire problem solved, not a that cannot be chal- legislature. The committee addressed those *9 lenging though might it be. by and, infirmities identified this court ulti- Id. at n. mately, legislature the enacted statutes to clearly
This court expressed redesign its view that financing, including a mandated lo- “until equality achieved, financing of is twenty-five levy,4 there cal mill a state twelve mill twenty-five 102(a)(i)(A) 4. The levy option- (1983) (amended local mill had been Supp.1995). The change al. mandatory levy The to was accom- generated levy revenue computed from this is plished by legislation necessity without the of a a local resource. constitutional § amendment. Wyo.Stat. 21-13- given to response disparity In unless consideration county levy.5 levy six mill and Washakie’s, funding such costs of education holding that school factors as increased to districts, equality programs and not local of in depend upon state wealth in rural must wealth, proposed districts, requirements extraordinary committee solu- the select rural to local impacted to some wealth funds in duе tions redistribute for districts Those culminated special districts. solutions students and other to an influx of needs to the state constitution special in an amendment of students. “recapture” legislature to authorizing the transfers in revenue from cer- Massive twenty-five generated the local revenues to tain districts to other districts achieve levy which an amount mill school exceeded equality funding potential of the to have re- by formula. Local wealth determined impair quality the of in education districts however, system, in mained factor will taken which from funds be dic- levy mill optional was made avail-
when of revenue should be tates transfers according them to the districts able period to undertaken over a of time allow for option levying another six mills of adjustment in to decreased revenues those their own use. districts. 1983, legislation implemented financ- In Wyoming legislature is 3. The committed declared, legislature ing’s redesign. The disparity funding edu- reducing to however, only redesigned system in- among cation school districts. Studies ultimately would be succeed- transitional and volving of costs education indices system designed to accu- by a more ed new program equity providing methods of will rately The 1983 measure costs education. completed by department be state in the legislature preamble its reasons stated education and school districts consider- legislation: legislature. ation the ab- Wyoming legislature enacting this guidelines recapturing sence of absolute Wyoming supreme cognizant act is certain and distrib- revenue from districts County court decision of Washakie concerns, meet uting revenues to the above (1980) re- District v. Herschler and has act, being, provides time this for the projections reports, ceived of revenue recapture among varying districts rates this relative to act from recommendations subject recapture phase-in period, to legislative a select committee assisted system to for a of divisors convert new advisory Wyoming commission. to of students a district number recognizes legislature acknowledges giving greater weighting classroom units responsibility in providing its for a com- rural to for a reasonable to allow uniform, sys- plete, thorough and efficient new rational transition to a public Wyoming legis- schools. The tem accurately designed more measure costs following public hearings, lature debate of education. leading adoption and deliberation Wyo.Session Laws, 136, p. 399-400. Ch. following findings: act makes studied, enacted, equitable pub- never 1.The issues system and implemented more a new cost-based lic involve permanent. in fund- 1983 interim became than of differences measurements in- superintendents ing per school districts Former state student between struction, challenger school attempt legislators, corresponding and a lessen Washakie, presented as a constitutional amendment. districts were em- when 5. Prior to the local (amended 21-13-102(a)(i)(B) (1983) up they powered levy § mills so twelve if levy up Wyo.Stat Thus, state was authorized levy desired. The Supp.1995). became a a twelve mill purposes. The commit- 21-13-303(a) six mills for educational resource, (1983) Wyo.Stat. levy these mill amounts tee recommended reversed, 1987), (amended and directed to the State Foun- option placing mill six county Program, levy be- and a six mill dation mandating an local districts and additional reducing the amount of came a local resource pur- levy which the state would twelve mills poses a school district. available to foundation funds *10 Pro-, supporting Foundation the State 21-13-201(a) (1983). Wyo.Stat. approved by gram. suggestion voters This statutory formula, superintendents Employing district testified at the trial each attempts their of this case that numerous computes school district the amount of fund- legislature persuade reflect cost differ- ing to which it is called the entitled founda- entials were unsuccessful. guarantee. tion The school district then
computes funding amount it gen- will fines, through taxes, erate local and fees.6 System Overview the School Finance guar- When local revenues are less than the discussing presented Before evidence antee, paid that difference is to the school trial, gener- at we find it useful to sketch a district as foundation entitlement. When challenged al of the statutory contours guarantee, local revenues exceed the then raising distributing funding scheme for the school district does not receive a state public elementary Wyoming’s and second- cases, In entitlement. some excessive local ary schools. revenues result district’s school rebat- Wyoming complex- statutes reflect the ing a certain amount That state. ity financing of the education scheme. Bor- recapture amount is known as foundation elsewhere, rowing from what has said been is rebated to the fund for foundation eventual clarity lack of “[i]f alone were sufficient to redistribution to the rest school dis- down, strike statutes this these case would guarantee tricts. addition a foundation however, fortunate, be less difficult. We are enrollment, upon expenditures past based parties that the share a common understand- “add-ons”7 are also calculated to determine ing [Wyoming’s] how schools are guarantee. total amount of the foundation financed.” Roosevelt Elem. Dist. v. statutes, Under the school districts are reim- 236-37, Bishop, 179 Ariz. 877 P.2d transportation bursed expen- for 75% their (1994). 809-10 We are also fortunate one of special ditures and 85% of their education the exhibits at trial was a booklet entitled Program— expenditures. Wyoming School Foundation OpeRations Funding A BRIEF At Look n Presently, legislature bases the alloca- (1990-91 Edition), by prepared Barry W. funding tion of to school districts on school Nimmo Department of the State of Edu- expendi- district enrollment and additional cation, who was a called witness both transportation, special tures such as edu- Fifty-five pages length, sides trial. cation Although and vocational education. provides helpful booklet overview of the program per foundation can allocate on a financing primary scheme and is the source basis, following pupil the sketch the financing has de- scheme. signed assigns a formula which classroom (CRU) to units districts based Public funding Wyoming education is daily average membership school district’s shared local school district and the (ADM). ADM is precise a more determina- through Program. the State Foundation tion of actually the number of students scheme, present statutory Under the the lev- average. attendance on The number of el of can be raised is assigned CRUs to each school district primarily a function of a mixture state and specifies based on a schedule of divisors property along local taxation with certain particular the number CRUs for ADM fines and To fees. calculate its level of fund- dependent upon levels also ing, and is district whether statutory must use a formula legislature. particular elementary, junior defined school is an generate transportation operation Local resources available revenue Add-ons include maintenance, county levy, (buses twenty- transportation capital include the six mill outlay mill income, vehicles), levy, paid, five mill local district school land and other tuition costs of iso- forfeitures, education, students, reserve/Taylor special graz- fines and forest lation/homebound fees, fees, schools, vehicle motor and tuition. one-teacher and vocational education.
1249 levy mill funds are outside of the Founda- number of al high or school.8 Once high, calculated, Program and will not a school tion reduce school district is for each CRUs by legislatively state entitlement.10 A school dis- multiplied district’s number is operations levy the state mills to fund classroom value for trict can three determined 1992, In the classroom mills to fund maintenance. Four amount.9 and three guarantee $92,331.00. classroom mills cannot be levied without unit value was of these six upon funding legislature based amount these approval. value is set voter any assumption generate completely dependent upon and is not based on cost mills analysis. wealthy of divisors study property or The schedule local values and assessed legisla- product money per more is also the can thus raise mill. set statute districts on cost assumptions and is not based a mill poorer tive To districts where raises assist study analysis. or average property, less than the state assessed valuation, “power equalizes” the state one demon- As the formula described above category. mill in Power voter-approved each strates, divisor is a critical element generates upon equalization funding based units determining the number classroom average than the local dis- the state rather and, consequently, the for each school district valuation, resulting property trict’s assessed will re- amount of revenue a school district greater for school district funding. An- higher lowers ceive. A divisor levy. approve voters mill should the limit which can other critical element municipal divisor school district’s funds is Funding capital construction is also all schools as one sсhool feature which treats Program. distinct from Foundation Un- incorporated city or town or when within scheme, statutory separate der a school dis- city incorporated miles of an within five budding generally fund their new tricts effect, populations various town. building repair needs and renovation ag- are single municipality schools within issuing capital needs construc- bonds assigned resulting higher in a gregated, thus limit for tion. The constitutional debt bond- Finally, recal- permits the formula divisor. Wyo. ing is 10% of assessed valuation.11 actually school districts which culation for 16, § 5. Entitlements were ART. Const. esti- populations student than higher have exceeding their available to those districts mated. bonding capacity, but opera- began diverting funds to school may generate those also Local school districts partial- levy. Option- mill tions. authorizes through optional Statute funds example, divisor schedule 8. As an the statute's elementary provides: Elementary School Divisor Schedule:
Average Daily Classroom Divisor Minimum Membership Units Wyo.Stat. No. of Students 21-13-308(c). Foundation 44 but less than 27 but less than 76 but 301 but Less 501 and over 10 but 151 but (ADM) than less less Program, less than less than 10 than than X at 44 76 27 Statutory quot- [4] [*] CG n N> OO VO 0\ 9. Under the Classroom as: guarantee 22.73 15.79 3.25 based 3.60 9.38 5.36 1.20 1.00 statutory = formula, State Guarantee enrollment portion is calculated Statutory Unit Value Divisor Washakie, constitutional we said there is no program also 11. In are avail- 10. Funds outside of compen- grants (physical gifted requirement buildings facil able for satory talented that school grants grants. are ities) These by creation of debt. Washak be built must $1,000,000 $350,000 capped respectively at ie, 606 P.2d statewide. *12 differentials, ly supplement up low valuation districts challengers the asserted that valuation, average the state assessed funding disparities but the which were wealth-based supplement not cost-justified does benefit districts exceed- or not were un- unconstitutional Additionally, bonding capacity. sup- the requirement equality der Washakie’s plement inadequately funded and does not financing in equality qual- order to achieve is, satisfy current district demands and ity education. therefore, prorated. legislature has es- In response, the defenders asserted the capital grant tablished a facilities loan and challengers had proving the burden of fund- program appropriated million and state- $5 ing disparities disparities existed and those emergencies, wide. In grants the were or upon wealth-based not based cost funding case-by-ease on a basis. defenders, According differentials. only disparities proved unjustified by or cost The Present Action and Procedural Back- disparities wealth-driven were unconstitu- ground Additionally, tional. the defenders asserted Washakie, In legisla- the since decade the challengers clearly prove must and exact- changed, adjusted ture has modified and dif- ly beyond any doubt reasonable that components system ferent of the finance challenged significantly deprived, features in- times; legislative study, different no howev- fringed upon, or interfered their edu- er, has ever been conducted determine defense, rights. cational As an affirmative reduced, changes whether these eliminated dispari- defenders further that asserted funding disparity per increased pupil in necessary ties which were in order to achieve violation of Washakie. certain program equity between school districts were again challenged school districts the finance not unconstitutional. system presented and evidence over the trial, Before court district ruled that changes last decade the finance funding disparities which were not had and wealth- funding increased exacerbated the driven, instead disparity but were the result identified Washakie. Those districts, legislative formula, distribution in- representing Wyo- 35% did not students,12 ming’s sought scrutiny analysis. voke strict declaratory judg- The district present ment that court the challengers finance ruled bore is un- the burden Washakie, proof claiming disparities constitutional under that these un- were not cost- justifiable justified. disparity equal denial edu- district court ruled the chal- opportunity. lengers cational by would meet proving their burden following three elements: The challengers claimed wealth-driven dis- parities irrational, arbitrary funding spending 1. A resulting mechanism in a disparities present by sys- disparity were created per pupil, justified funds not collecting tem’s distributing differences; methods cost funding revenue capital construction. unjustified 2. That such disparity exists challenged causing Statutes wealth-driven of an virtue irrational feature in the disparities authorizing option- were those adopted legislature; formula level, al mill levy, the recapture 109% 3. That such persis- formula results capital funding. specific construction tent and disparity intractable condition of challenged irrational, causing statutes ar- justified by not costs. bitrary spending disparities were those au- divisor, thorizing municipal divisor, determined, pursuant The district court Washakie, Alleging logic recalculation. these challengers statutes were disparities caused funding unjustified by required unjustified cost to demonstrate that 98,951 13,517 (Intervenor) 12. Total Number of Students: # 1 Laramie 7,983 Campbell # 1 Plaintiff School Districts: 35,138 3,708 Uinta # 1 6,006 # Sweetwater 15,128 Defender School Districts: students. 3,924 Sweetwater #2 problem number of ar- oppor- identified a harm to educational districts disparity caused special programs or require efforts tunity; presumed. Although be- eas harm was add their court made clear costs. Because fore trial the district costs and scrutiny analysis apply would not distribution was not based strict *13 funding by not the funding disparities were wealth- was further limited which because based, funding components, court trial reconsid- interaction of the these the district after scrutiny applied adversely The would be affected. small ered what level efforts were districts, fearing in challenged Upon statutes. this lawsuit would result to the various funding the district court ruled that current order reconsideration the redistribution scrutiny applied recap- by to would be the to alleviate the severe shortfalls suffered strict feature, levy, large suing plaintiffs, optional to the six mills the school districts ture capital presented to constructiоn feature evidence that while the smaller the scrutiny in the a of rational basis are unable to offer the enriched that form districts ap- by large equitable program provided distribution would be nature of educational districts, components. funding formula the current method of plied the distribution permits equi- that properly weighted The court determined in their favor district operating test de- for the table basis them sufficient revenue distribution/rational pre-trial program. left minimal scribed in its decision letter most educational scrutiny judicial than that room for more by the broadest form of ration- embodied the. 1. Formula Evidence Distribution heightened de- That standard al basis test. System a. Divisor 7, § Art. 8 of the Con-
rived from district court determined stitution which the challengers alleged, the defenders did required provid- distribution formula which a accepted dispute and district court not “equitable allocation.” ed system produced the divisor wide dis that basis,13 funding per a student parities on Trial and between school dist between schools14 trial, challengers presented a party litigants, di- At As the school districts ricts.15 size; study (Harvey study) as positioned as by large districts cost vided funding per pupil dispari on that plaintiffs and small districts intervened evidence large on differentials. ties were not based cost behalf of the state as defendants. The unpersuasive to necessary was the dis insisted suit be- This evidence districts was district court quality point. was trict court on this cause of education sacrificed study for cost operating did account to fund their actual costs found the failure education, because of small school resulting in a differentials incurred for basic failure multiple learning equal support of centers opportunity an districts’ afford their students throughout that district.16 That Additionally, large dispersed quality a education. Washakie, operate general than cost one third more to In fund evidence one the difference $2,360. (ADM) per junior high example, was Was revenue student the second the other. hakie, P.2d at 338-39. For 1991-92 high 606 to achieve school and school combined $13,016. year, that difference was separate, economy scale received lower divi- resulting did in one more than sors third gave examples. In the 14. The district court two subjected enrollment schools with similar elementary example, first 150 stu- higher their because of location. divisor municipal subject re- dents divisor would elementary school of 150 ceive 6.5 CRUs. An Example disparity between school districts municipal subject to divisor students not court no is: would receive 9.4 CRUs. The found $/student # of students 9,741 Cty # Fremont Shoshoni 7,068 #2, Cty Guernsey Platte trial, example court was suggested used the district only explanation 16. At County Two District Number Laramie having stu- $2700 difference for one additional Burns, Albin, high supports which optional dent mill levies. Pine Bluffs. study prob failed to reflect the cost challengers obvious dents. The in- contended maintaining multiple large lems associated with creased costs are associated with these learning Further, study centers. did not numbers but are not funded. These com- extend assurance the smaller bined districts deficiencies result insufficient reve- their dispro average students would not suffer nue can be devoted stu- portionate consequences, comprise majority adverse such as dents who of students. closing “necessarily small schools.”17 The actual number of classrooms staff of support the amount needed to educate funding disparities As evidence the created inadequate. those students are in disparities the divisor resulted opportunities test, educational Relying between dis- on a rational basis the de- tricts, challengers presented also statutory fenders claimed the distribution *14 (Van paired study study) district fairly Mueller in weighted scheme was favor of small comparing programs. The district court designed advantage schools and to take study found this large failed to establish differen- schools’ economies of scale. Testi- disparities tial access to mony by superintendents revenue created challeng- in from the opportunity educational in Wyoming. system’s er present districts revealed design provide support to enhanced for challengers rely exclusively The did not on in small funding schools communities caused studies, presented but evidence demonstrat- disparities for That design them. has the system adjust the divisor failed to for penalizing large inverse effect of urban dis- actual educational costs in violation of Was- attempt keep neighbor- tricts which to small hakie. for Witnesses both sides testified hood schools lower class size. dis- that factors associated with each school dis- economy trict only court found scale higher utility costs, trict caused some to have assumption an which had never been mea- higher costs, transportation concentration of quantified. Experts sured or for sides both special-needs, higher costs of classified and populations testified that at student over personnel, et certified cetera. The distribu- school districts were fact experiencing adjustment tion formula made no for the diseconomies scale. district court actual differences which exist between dis- system found recognize the divisor failed to agreed tricts. also Witnesses the cost of this. according education varies to student charac- teristics, but the superintendents distribution formula made from challeng- adjustment no on the basis of such factors. er school districts testified about educational program impact by caused the arbitrariness superintendents challenger dis- system. of the divisor The district court provided tricts evidence that their actual determined that while Washakie cautions operating costs provided exceed revenue against approach dif- focuses system through sys- the divisor because the opportunity, ferences educational it does adjustment tem makes no varying for edu- necessarily preclude the use circum- They provided cational costs. also evidence stantial demonstrating evidence inequities in of deficiencies caused less than full reim- Specifically, distribution formula. of transportation special bursement edu- large districts that testified to addition expenditures. cation The deficiencies are suffering deficient caused the di- up made from the revenue meant edu- system’s visor failure fund actual their general population. cation student costs, they pressures gen- suffered from cost multiple The divisor adjust- makes population growth erated school and stu- populations ments between student of 0 and dent characteristics. adjustments making while no in divisors beyond a Many junior level of parties 500 students. Educators from both in- identified high high challenger schools dis- dividual key attention to each student aas populations tricts have student component quality over stu- of a education. Educators 17. The district court did not define this a term. school is small school or can be necessarily at trial a indicated that number of Testimony consolidated with another. factors are considered determine whether elementary now concept ad- school buses school and class size increased believe throughout city have to avail- versely individual attention and school students affect damage. space increasing mitigating able and is size be- efforts devoted recognize large yond manageable class at Although efficiently limits the sec- educators ability provide ondary expected in- diminish school’s level. Enrollment is sizes for all stu- individualized attention at all proper grade crease levels. dents, greatest stu- those the harm options limits the While divisor circumstances whose socio-economic dents schools, large of education in role poor Ed- performance. them risk of place reducing problems pressures those social classify those as “at-risk.” students ucators respond. Recognizing that same schools to provide proper individualized
A failure to dropouts usually result in increased social long-term has those students attention large up percentage end costs because society.18 impact all of assistance, incarcerated or on court the divisor The district found operate high alternative districts schools. principle every system accepts the high address the most Alternative schools by particular supported should be students high serious at-risk students. Alternative teachers, counselors, nurses, and ad- ratio of costly, are but successful because However, prac- personnel. ministrative *15 enrollment, low lower their studenl/teacher tice, present system appropriate prevents the # and ratios. LCSD studenVeounselor At funding underlying precept. of its own school’s actual costs in 1992 the alternative only or an extra teacher two can most $1,218,110 per or about student were $8500 populations swell. Because added as student municipal operate; but because a divisor to populations growth, increased student system applies, present feature finance high junior high and schools cause several $613,400. only the school received Without throughout operate at above the state well divisor, municipal the school would re- students, although the were schools better, $855,845; only but still insuffi- ceive for fewer students. Schools accommo- built its actual costs. The other cient meet temporary with structures date the overflow challenger to similar fund- districts testified large, are and additions. Classes are schools high at their alternative deficiencies staffed, insufficiently facilities are so ov- present finance due to features of the schools by the that all efforts school dis- ercrowded system. change delivery tricts to education funding for the performance are In addition to deficient improve student order school, funding is also defi- directly high countered and frustrated.19 Under alternative for at-risk funding required services capital cient the current construction scheme, challenger County main schools. such students districts as Laramie (LCSD 1) currently large faced with # districts are District No. cannot One School Instead, due to needed, of at-risk students various additional schools. numbers build districts, neighborhood pressures.20 under the district has abandoned social parties testified Wyoming School districts from both 18.A 1989 Education Economics 19. shortfalls, budget highest that in the face of their those citizens with Task Force determined maintaining priority is a low class size. Initial skills all those most limited basic include 68% of purchases, budget aimed at textbook cuts are arrested, mothers, of unwed of welfare 79% 85% purchases, computer computer maintenance and high dependents, dropouts, and 85% electives, training, activities and extracurricular unemployed. 72% and Economics Education Only support personnel. when these cuts staff Report State Force, Edu- Board Task prove of teachers be insufficient will the number Superintendent cation/State Public Instruction. directly in class since causes increases cut Expectations. Forming Greater Raising Standards, sizes. Partnerships, Accounting Student Learning, (Nov.1989). Currently, Wyoming’s State at 5-6 parental Among poverty ab- are those requires all to ad- Board of Education growing neglect. poverty is a or That sence increasing percent- students. dress needs at-risk can be seen concern ages Regulations, districts whose fami- State Board of Education Rules of students in school VI, (1993). qualify or for free receive welfare assistance lies Ch. pressure community, from state and local 2. Recapture attempt equip these students with the recap- Statute sets the retention level knowledge requisite skills for success Recapture ture districts 109%. districts21 graduation. Primarily, school after districts figure testified that this was set without attempt to deal with at-risk students low- study cost as basis and was therefore arbi- student/teaeher, ering studenVguidance trary. legisla- Defenders asserted that the however, Funding, counselor ratios. does figure upon ture could have based this support efforts to lower ratios or class recapture additional costs districts face be- challengers sizes contended this inhi- very cause of the mineral extraction indus- bits student sucсess. wealthy. tries which make them parties sys- that the testified divisor tem’s with com- interaction the other finance Optional Mills ponents appropriately constrained them from Challengers presented evidence dis- responding through proper- to student needs property tricts low assessed valuation ly Challenger sized schools and classes. dis- per and which receive lower ADM foundation sys- tricts determined that their education operate revenue on a deficit or near-deficit providing equal tems were not education levy level. These districts are forced to most opportunity to students. optional all provide of their mills to a basic Divisor, program. property-poor Other Municipal b. Recalculation districts with sufficient foundation Despite accepted belief that smaller operating levy meet expenses optional do not costlier, schools are the effect of the munici- mills for program an enhanced because the pal assign higher divisor is to divisor when levy of a money. mill raises so little Dis- small schools are located cities or towns. *16 high property tricts with assessed valuation The defenders claimed municipal the divisor levy operate do not these to mills a basic necessary prevent to was school districts program, gen- but instead use them to either building unnecessarily from small schools in large erate cash reserves to enhance their generate order funding. additional beyond program that funded challengers provided municipal evidence through program. the foundation Defenders so funding divisor limited their for their optional asserted that mill provided levies for small regard schools without for actual local control. running cost school that at least one functionally school district bankrupt was Capital Construction Finance pros- other school districts that face same pect. indepen- Evidence at trial revealed that an (MGT regarding study
Their evidence study) reported recalculation dent the state formula was intended to it demonstrate was schools’ need new construction and reno- arbitrary large repair since a district could increase vation and totaled million. At $275 trial, enrollment as much as 297 only students and the time of desig- million was $5 funding not receive additional small capital while a nated as funding. The has state stat- utory district could receive funding additional partially supplement authorization to as few as three new students. up low valuation districts average 1, price and reduced functionally bankrupt lunches. In LCSD # ten of desig- district from constant twenty elementary its schools have been experienced. deficits the school district has Chapter nated as One schools because 49% Most schools must deal with these in- population qualify student for free and reduced funding. creased costs without federal
price per- lunches and score than the less 29th reading Chapter centile in A math. One trial, recapture 21. At the time districts were designation qualifies school thе school to receive One, Campbell County School District No. Sub- funding part recognition federal as of a national Nine, County lette District Nos. One poverty is linked to decreased suc- student Sixteen, County Park School District No. Despite funding, budget cess. this additional County Lincoln School District No. One. manager for # 1 LCSD testified increased costs associated with at-risk students has left however, policy which cannot cur- valuation; supplements neighborhood school assessed attempt to legis- rently be con- inadequately funded honored. Schools have been responds to class core curriculum courses emer- tain sizes lature. The case-by-ease system prevents on a the divisor sufficient gencies school districts but basis, funding is available additional teachers. As an limited hire but alternative, non-emergency employ needs. innovations teaching scheduling as and team such block major of revenue primary source should teachers can increase time and construction capital facilities renovation innovations, spend with students. These of mills paid for out is the sale of bonds however, their as class lose effectiveness val- a school district’s assessed against levied sizes continue increase. prohibits a school uation. The constitution beyond bonding 10% of from currently district Capital funding as construction Wyo. district. value of physical assessed facilities. financed is not limited 16, § of low assessed 5. Because County In School District No. Art. Sweetwater Const. valuation, Wyoming cur- five school districts Two, bonding only after approved re- voters rently legal indebted- 100% of bonded exceed ceiving promise to pur- school district’s Additionally, less the evidence showed community ness. computers. The local was chase wealthy rely on bonds districts cannot graduates technologically concerned In capital finance needed construction. promise; and extracted howev- efficient only bonding capacity $26 LCSD # total er, computer # do LCSD laboratories high million. A new school would needed quantities not exist in some schools their raise million to build. Unable to cost $30 are insufficient others. magni- funding of this capital construction summary, the districts’ evidence
tude, # 1 school size and LCSD increases portrayed recognition the local at trial class size. and communities that edu- educators trial, testimony At considered the contribu- required change to ensure cational educational physical tion of facilities towards from school to students’ successful transition reports a rela- quality. Educational research productive, informed citizens. lives tionship buildings between the condition effort, Through solely the educational local building quality As the of education. attempting change meet crowded, more test deteriorates and becomes requirements. Those efforts were ef- *17 those testimony disput- was go scores down. This funding fectively of unrelat- nullified because expressed the legislator ed witness who a the to actual costs and because ed study a the result of the MGT was view that participate aspects in the substantive did “wish list”. Consequently, system. of the educational the improving local at the effort directed testimony the discussed current trial throughout the of varied quality junior high overcrowding situations the state, opportu- yielding divergent educational high large In schools of districts. Green nity dependent upon progressiveness the River, high was for 600 stu- the built of district and commu- wealth the local school students, creating student dents but has 1130 Further, nity. legislative the meth- because 1,# in- management problems. In LCSD developed funding unrelated the od of was students, mostly the numbers on creased of funding disparities and programs, defi- local least, Cheyenne, require, north of the side resulted, jeopardizing marginal cienciés what for sixth and seventh a new middle school disjointed system likely to such a success However, high graders and a new school. performance. produce improving student only million bonding capacity of makes $26 unlikely prospect. Cheyenne building an Trial Decision Court elementary of buses students instead build- earlier, applied court increasing the district the As stated a new middle school recapture, schools, scrutiny analysis the high its a strict of students at two numbers nulls, capital construction fea- already busing optional each. over students system. The spite funding of district elementary of a tures the of school students is findings recap- court made fact of that the presented further evidence a complex optional levy ture feature and- the mill fea- picture shortcomings of school finance which disparities ture created based local raised questions serious about of the fairness wealth and declared those statutes system. unconsti- the divisor The doubts were raised findings concerning tutional. its fact system, opera- evidence that the divisor scheme, capital funding tion, construction permitted the small districts maintain district court discussed several means small schools large and classes and funded a available to school districts to finance their percentage of small districts’ variable costs. needs. The district court found wide varia- The district court found that for those dis- funding tions in the amounts to a available tricts locked into a divisor the divisor part school district on system, fact, based of the defies the laws of economics. relying on scheme local wealth but also found Genuinely convinced the arbitrariness the scheme had mechanism for the state to funding the distribution formula had been emergency fund needs of a school district. demonstrated, believed, the district court Despite findings dispari- wealth-driven however, the- impasse record evidenced an ty, the district court held the evidence failed challengers because had not measured proof establish harm a constitutional- funding level classroom unit available ly protected right and declared current they to meet variable cost demands nor had system capital construction consti- percentage shown what ex- district-wide tutional. penditures went to meet variable de- cost earlier, Also as noted the district court measurements, mands. Without these applied equitable its ba- distribution/rational impact disparities level and were -un- analysis sis to those comprising statutes and, view, known in the district court’s (divisor municipal distribution formula challengers carry had failed to their burden divisor). The district accepted court that the proof of magnitude character challengers proved had the existence of fund- injury the asserted to the constitutional ing disparities which genuine resulted in a right. funding disadvantage each student of the Although in pre-trial its decision letter the larger districts. It accepted further that the district court had ruled that under Washakie system, divisor which set classroom unit challengers prove did not have to edu- upon political value based decision rather harm, cational the district court found that than determined variable costs and which the evidence failed to disclose wide- funding by distributed arbitrarily such deter- spread significant disparity of edu- and/or divisors, mined classroom units and caused quality opportunity cational or educational funding disparities presented genu- system. caused the divisor The district potential ine difference in oppor- educational challengers court carry held had failed to tunity. *18 their proving burden of a clear and exact The post-trial district court’s let- decision constitutional violation in existed the chal- ter22 stated that the court had “serious lenged system divisor and held it constitu- doubts about the fairness of for- tional. mula” explained and several reasons for found, those doubts. As found, however, the district court The district court that the sys- evidence municipal demonstrated the divisor rationally justified divisor was not tem has attempted quantify never cost cost satisfy differences and did among differences only cap- equitable the districts but distribution test. It held the mu- tures the relationship historic nicipal between school divisor unconstitutional. The district size and class size. of ruling Economies scale was court concerning made no on issues but an goal incident rather than a of the the recalculation feature of the distribution system. divisor The explained district court formula. pre-trial
22. post-trial The Court’s and decision and conclusions of law. incorporated were findings letters into its of fact
1257
duty
legislature,
to a
hold-
Provisions and
correlated
Education
Constitution’s
7,
obligated
legislature
§ 1
System
ing
Statutory Education
Art.'
support a
affirmatively
and
act
establish
ex-
right of education
The fundamental
system
public
comprehensive
education.
Wyoming
recognized by the
Consti-
pressly
Washakie,
1
9
At time of words pendent group of forming items unified these clauses carried these definitions: whole; group objects of artificial or an complete: having deficiency; wanting no organization forming especial- a network part element; whole; perfect; no or en- ly distributing something serving or tire; full; purpose; a common form; having always uniform: action, the same practice, profes- instruction: or teaching; sion of system: any or assemblage combination thorough: detail, painstak- marked full thing adjusted regular as a and connect- ing; whole; ed waste; productive efficient: without instructing instruction: the act of or teach- adequate: specific require- sufficient for a ing; knowledge; communication of edu- ment; cation; enlightenment; proper: by suitability, marked rightness or executed; thorough: fully having fit; no defi- appropriateness; ciencies; hence, complete respects; in all develop mentally, educate: morally, or unqualified; perfect; aesthetically especially by instruction. Collegiate Dictionary, Webster’s 10th Ed. acting efficient: with due able act (1994). effect; adequate performance; bring- requisite knowledge, to bear definitions, In synthesizing these skill, industry; capable, competent; complete we can “a sys define and uniform public tem of instruction” as adequate: equal requirement or occa- organization an forming a network for sion; commensurate; sufficient, fully serving purpose a common of instruct- fit; suitable or ing/educating public organization fit; suitable; proper: appropriate; necessary parts has all the or elements and form; always has the same sense, education:27 education in broad man, can comprehends thorough with reference all we define “a and efficient disciplines public enlightens adequate un- proper youth” instruction of the derstanding, temper, state’s corrects the culti- as taste, vates forms the maimers organization forming a network for habits; sense, in a serving narrower it is the purpose the common special training pursued, course of organization schools which is marked *20 27. study Because Art. 7 uses the word "instruction” also its definition. 1, "education,” § while Art. 23 uses the word we
1259
in
respects
beginning broad foundations were laid
complete in all
full detail or
reasonably
the interest of education.
without waste
productive
appropriate or suitable
for the
sufficient
Message
Hoyt’s
John
to the
Governor
W.
of the state’s
teaching/education/learning
Assembly of
Legislative
Wyoming Ter-
Sixth
age
children.
(Nov. 6,1878),
Wyoming
ritory
in
Territory,
the further
intent
We can ascertain
1869-1890, at
Messages
the Governors:
considering
purpose
n.d.)
these words
(n.p.,
served.
education
which the framers believed
history,
From this
we can conclude
were used in the
At the time these clauses
as
intended the education article
framers
Wyo
wording
article at
education
provide
legislature
mandate to the state
to
1889,
in
sim
ming’s constitutional convention
education
of a character which
every
in
provisions were
ilar education
found
provides Wyoming
with a uniform
students
constitution, reflecting
contempo
state
opportunity
equipped
to
for their
become
rary
a vital and
sentiment that education was
citizens, participants
future roles
in the
as
concern,
not
an end
legitimate state
as
political system,
competitors
both eco
itself,
populace
educated
but because an
nomically
intellectually.
Kukor v.
See
of survival for the
viewed as a means
demo
Grover,
568,
469,
148
436 N.W.2d
Wis.2d
Meyer
principles
the state.
v. Ne
cratic
(1989) (citing cases which have held
589-90
braska,
390, 400,
625, 627,
43
262 U.S.
S.Ct.
provisions’
re
similar constitutional
histories
(1923);
v. Yo
(xvii) agency’s budget adopted by ... taking appropriate Include re- admin- quest: superinten- istrative action with the state any dent or withhold state funds from (A) governor Recommendations to the failing school district or institution to com- appropriations for from the school founda- ply any applicable with or law with the program tion appropria- account and for prescribed by minimum standards necessary pay- tions to the account to fund board; ... required ments school districts as (v) or Initiate facilitate law; discussions re- garding the needs im- means for (B) governor Recommendations to the education; proving ... appropriations for from the foundation (xiv) improvement goals Establish for program special programs; for public for assessment of student (C) governor Recommendations to the progress based the national assess- for capital ap- construction related ment progress pro- of educational testing propriations under 21- W.S. 21-15-105 and gram; 15-106. (xv) Promulgate regulations rules and (xviii) In with accordance W.S. 21-2-501 development, ap- assessment and 21-2-701(a)(ii), promulgate rules to as- proval of school perfor- district teacher sure that each child with re- disabilities systems. mance evaluations Rules and appropriate ceives a free and education regulations adopted under paragraph this capabilities, accordance with his ... flexibility shall allow each district in devel- (c) (a) In addition subsection of this oping an evaluation which meets section, superintendent the state may take district; the individual needs of the ... appropriate administrative action with the (e) (b) addition subsection of this necessary state board as to withhold funds section, the state board shall establish any from or school district state institution goals public statewide for Wyoming edu- any failing comply with applicable law cation. the minimum prescribed standards § (Supp.1995). 21-2-304 Wyo.Stat. the state board. legislature imposes on these duties (Supp.1995). 21-2-202 Wyo.Stat. local school boards quality relevant to the The legislature imposes these duties on the elementary secondary sys- education state board of education qual- relevant to the tem: ity elementary secondary education trustees, § 21-3-110. Duties of boards system: (a) The board trustees in each school § 21-2-304. Duties state board of district shall: education. (i) rules, Prescribe and regula- enforce (a) The state board of education shall es- policies tions and government its own policies public tablish government and for the of the schools state consistent with the Consti- jurisdiction. under its regula- Rules and tution and statutes.... tions shall be consistent with the laws (b) In any addition to other as- duties regulations state and rules and signed law, to it the state board shall: superintendent state board and the state (i) open public shall be inspection; ... Prescribe minimum standards with (xv) Provide, schools and other educational in each district maintain- institutions receiving money school, from high study a course of ade-
1261 § to adhere to mini- 21-9-101. Schools of district for pupils quate prepare promulgated state mum standards University Wyoming28 of admission of education. board community colleges Wy- of and the various of each school oming; ... The board of trustees cause the the state shall district within (xvii) of each Require performance jurisdiction to adhere to under its schools evaluated teacher be initial contract relating to edu- the minimum standards annually. The teach- writing at least twice promulgated programs cational of copy of each evaluation receive a er shall of state board education. performance; his Wyo.Stat. (1992). § 21-9-101 (xviii) performance a teacher Establish Additionally, legislature has mandated require perfor- system and evaluation That mandate in- area. curriculum29 one continuing teacher of contract mance each area, subject specified a specified a cludes ... evaluated content, standard, specified specified a and a (xix) type of required assessment: evaluations Performance improvement of shall serve a basis and fed- Instruction state 21-9-102. instruction, of curriculum satisfactory enhancement required; eral constitutions of implementation, graduation. measurement program prerequisite examination performance and teacher both individual colleges in this All schools and state growth development and professional and any supported in manner are all within performance level of teachers give in the essen- shall instruction funds district, ... the school and of the United States constitution tials Wyoming, constitution of the state Wyo.Stat. (Supp.1995). § 21-3-110 study including the of and devotion ideals, no legislature specifies local school and and American institution high diploma, school pro- student shall receive comply are to with the education boards degree degree or baccalaureate entire state: associate gram established for the semester, from the context units selected [T]hree cultural to the 1995 fall 28. For admission sciences, per- visual or or soсial behavioral University Wyoming required: arts, humanities, foreign languages. forming or Wyoming high schools need Graduates of 1. Viewbook, Wyoming, 1994- Freshman Univ. averages high grade point cumulative 95. or above- 2.75 meaning of decisions indicate Several high [Cjomplete units in at least 13 curric- a standardized school includes ''uniform” (one following pre-college unit curriculum 577-78; Kukor, Thompson at 436 N.W.2d ulum. = year): one 793, 809-10, P.2d Engelking, v. 96 Idaho English/communication/language Four units (1975); 635, Equal 651-52 Idaho Schools for required, at three units are least arts 573, Evans, 579-580, 850 v. 123 Idaho Educ. writing component. containing a substantial (1993). A state- 730-731 standardized P.2d Speech communication-based and other concept foreign is not a wide curriculum writing components courses with substantial Superintendent Wyoming. the State requirement. may meet this legislature a uni- informed the Instruction Public form, may complete in En- three units You also standardized, integrated curriculum plus glish/communication/language arts two Fromong, 260-62. supra note needed. foreign language this re- same units of the study suggested published a course office That quirement. through the efforts of educators and including the mathematics [TJhree units of uniformity. Id. at 263-66. progressed towards I, college algebra concepts preparatory aof Legislature the state mandated The 1913 State II, geometry sequence_ algebra Rec- develop study for the superintendent a course II, geometry, higher- algebra reading, spell- or ommend ... elementary of the state: during your year. history, language course senior level math ing, writing, States United arithmetic, required. history At least of science are grammar, Three units numbers physical Wyoming, sciences: treatment government from the humane one unit must be civil animals, physiol- college preparatory geography, chemistry, study physics, or a nature special hygiene, with instruction physical ogy The other two units science course. narcotics, and biological, drinks effects of alcoholic may be combination of from agriculture. life, Id. at 272. earth/space physical, sciences. previously passing satisfactory require without The rules further districts and principles examination on the of the consti- performance schools meet district and school *23 tution of the United and the States requiring standards and list the areas action. Wyoming. The given instruction shall be performance prescribed. No level of (3) years for at least three in the elementa- Section 9. District Stan- Performance (1) ry grades year and one each in the dards. secondary college grades. and (a) The parents, district shall involve com- Wyo.Stat. (1992). § 21-9-102 munity, professional and in develop- staff Wyo.Stat. This statute is enforced in 21- ing performance student standards (1992) provides: 9-103 knowledge common core of and skills and § 21-9-103. Penalty carry failure in implementing programs which will im- requirements out of W.S. 21-9-102. prove student results. Willful on part failure (b) per- district shall address student or college administrator or instructor officially adopted formance standards in an carry requirements out the of W.S. 21-9- planning process by reinforced board of 102 shall be sufficient cause for the remov- policies. education process This must person position. al of such from his show, implementation demonstrate, its and reviewing In these various statutes which performance how student standards have implement provisions, the constitutional we planning affected for facilities and annual have identified shortcoming. Despite budget priorities. legislature’s requirement that the state board (c) The district shall board-ap- have a prescribe standards, of education minimum proved process in which perfor- student promulgated board’s permit rules identified, monitored, mance results are local school districts to establish those mini- reported. process shall include mum standards and then evaluate for them- report an annual card widely disseminated they selves whether have met those stan- patrons of the district. dards. State Board of Education (d) The district shall demonstrate that VI, Regulations, Rules and Chapter development staff (1993). per- relates to student Accreditation formance. Chapter VI promul- of the State Board’s (e) gated govern administration shall rules monitor build- school accreditation. In ing operations legal require- all order to to assure achieve maintain state school ments, federal, state, local, accreditation, are met in state board each requires school. public school students shall meet performance the student standards at Section 10. School Stan- Performance by level set the school and district: dards. Section Knowledge. 7. Common Core of (a) Each school shall adopt district student All school students shall meet the performance site-specific standards and performance student standards at the level performance student standards. by set the school and district the follow- (b) Each develop- school shall have staff knowledge:30 areas of ... plan ment based district and school Section 8. Common Core Skills. All performance goals. student public school shall students meet student performance (c) standards at the level set procedures Each school shall have the school following and district in the involving personnel affected in decision skills:31.... making.
30. The rules list the solving, areas of a interpersonal common core 31. Problem communica- arts, studies, knowledge language tions, social keyboarding computer applications, mathematics, science, performing fine arts skills, thinking, creativity, including critical life arts, education, physical safety, health and hu- (CPR) cardiopulmonary training. resuscitation manities, options, foreign career cultures includ- ing language, applied technology. unjustified
(d) raising planned strate- and revenue distribution shall have Each school disparities presence and the of either kind to measure student gies procedures unjustified disparity violates fundamental performance. Washakie, right to education. evil (e) adopt procedures for shall Each school part by disparate spending, caused in strategiеs on the basis changing local valuation but also in whole assessed accomplishing adopted degree of success case, present system. In the entire at- goals. Particular performance student disparate challengers allege the still evil is given addressing needs tention will be arbitrary spending, and irra- caused *24 ethnic, group for gender, or socioeconomic employed in distribution: tional devices school or are below either results divisor, municipal divisor and the class- performance levels. district (CRU). They allege room unit value these (f) parents, involve and Each school shall no to devices have relation educational costs in appropriate, processes students when and allocation of educational dollars must leading improved student results. to quality on need related to of education. based adopt procedure a (g) Each school shall assessing school climate. Washakie declared that our state constitu- Risk 11. At Students. The dis- Section equal opportunity for guarantees tion an policies procedures for trict shall have quality education. Washakie held this funda- identify to every school in the district right by unequal could not be denied mental Washakie, however, with at-risk students. addi- intervene funding. did not define tion, provide education,” all shall instruction “equal quality opportunity for a through curriculum appropriate the school equality although it said that until financial prevention at the of at-risk behav- reached, achieving directed hope no there was of ior. Washakie “equality quality.” required the system legislature to reform the educational permit graduation Finally, these rules conformity “sense of this deci- with the mastery of knowl- of the common core Washakie, at 606 P.2d 337. sion.” edge by set the dis- and skills at the levels require legisla- sense Washakie was to graduation re- trict and the schools. This system, ture to examine the entire education Wyo.Stat. despite § 21-3- quirement is set funding, including and reform it order its 110(a)(xv) requires (Supp.1995) which quality provide “equal opportunity for a to an adequate pre- to provide a course district education.” college admission: pare students for Requirements. Graduation 12. Section Wyoming’s constitu- Washakie identified (a) per- A student shall master student responsibility and design tional educational within the common formance standards constitutional pertinent several recited the knowledge skills the levels at cores 7 of the state provisions contained Art. schools, by and the includ- clear, set the district provisions make As those constitution. schools. ing alternative complete control of the legislature has “the respect, system every includ- state’s of Education Rules Board State ing state into school districts division VI, Chapter Regulations, School Accredi- financing.” Id. providing for their (1993). tation permitted to is thus Each school district an education separately and define determine to be focus of this case find true We students, potentially for their creat- legislature complied hаs with its whether the sys- forty-nine autonomous education equal oppor- duty provide an constitutional tems. structuring tunity quality for a education sys- financing and the both school
DISCUSSION
level,
manner,
that main-
and at
tem in
system of
facts,
complete and uniform
“a
recitation of the
tains
As seen in the
“thorough and effi-
public
and a
of Was-
scope
instruction”
challengers allege that the
schools, adequate to
system public
cient
encompasses both revenue
hakie
decision
youth
proper
Jewelry
instruction
all
of the
va
v. Zale
Chey
Watch Co.
Co. of
Wyo.
7, §§ 1
state.”
ART.
and 9. This
enne,
Const.
(Wyo.1962).
371 P.2d
When
language
identifies three “duties” borne
transgression
legislature’s
is a failure to
order meet its constitu-
act,
duty
protect
rights
our
individual
in
equal
responsibility
provide
op-
tional
compelling legislative
required
cludes
action
portunity:
by the constitution.
“system
public
1. The
instruction”
uniform”;
“complete
must be
litigation32,
In school reform
defend
“system
of public
schools” must be
routinely
ers
scheme
advance
efficient”;
“thorough and
argument
judiciary’s
that the
determina
thorough
8. The
and efficient
tion of the nature and extent of the constitu
“adequate
schools must be
right
quality
tional
education violates the
proper
youth.
instruction” of the state’s
separation
powers
argu
doctrine. That
provisions imposing
Constitutional
aptly
ment was
Kentucky
answered
mandatory duty upon
leg
affirmative
*25
Supreme Court:
judicially
protect
islature are
enforceable
judiciary
power,
the
has
ultimate
rights,
individual
such as educational
define,
duty,
interpret,
apply,
the
con-
rights.
King Cty.
Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 of
words, phrases,
all
strue
sentences and
State,
476,
71,
v.
90 Wash.2d
585 P.2d
86-87
Kentucky
of
sections
the
Constitution as
(1978). Although this court has said the
necessitated
the controversies before it.
judiciary
legislative
will not encroach into the
It
solely
judiciary
is
the
of
function
policy making,
authority
field of
as the final
duty
so do. This
must be exercised even
on
questions
judiciary
constitutional
has
when such action
on
serves
a check
duty
the constitutional
to declare unconstitu
government
tional that
activities of another
transgresses
branch of
state con
Washakie,
319;
stitution.
606 P.2d at
Bulo
when the court’s
of
view the constitution
632,
presence
(1981);
32. The
of education
constitu-
Ga.
1265
branches,
Campbell County
Appellant
or will receive.
of other
contrary to that
is
correctly points out the
District also
School
public.
even
the existence of the
trial court failed
note
Inc., 790
For Better Educ.
Rose v. Council
county levy
findings
mandatory six mill
in its
proper role
(Ky.1989). Our
S.W.2d
According to
of fact numbers four and five.
meaning
language
interpreting
(1992),
Wyo.Stat.
mill
§ 21-13-201
a six
to determine
§§
of Art. 7 in order
1 and 9
county levy
levied on the assessed
must be
provisions impose upon the
the duties those
tax
property. Those
reve-
valuation of the
legislature.
dis-
then distributed
the school
nues are
Review
Standard
county
county by
trea-
tricts within the
in the district court’s
surer. These errors
Findings
Fact
findings
background
of fact did not contrib-
appeal,
the defenders
we
determinations and
ute to substantive
challenge
do not
district
present
they had
them further as
need not consider
Appellant-Plaintiff
findings of fact.
court’s
impact on the district court’s conclusions
no
County
Campbell
District does chal
of law.
back
lenge
district court’s
certain
post-Was-
findings concerning the
ground
Law
2. Conclusions of
legislation.
appeal,
On
district
hakie
indioates, a
recitation of facts
As
not be
aside
findings
fact mil
set
court’s
question was whether
the district
critical
Valley
clearly
unless
erroneous. Cottonwood
challenged post-Was-
should test
court
Roberts,
Ranch,
P.2d
Inc. v.
*26
test or
reforms
the rational basis
hakie
(Wyo.1994).
scrutiny
The district court
the strict
test.33
the
applied
depending on whether
in its find
both tests
The district court stated
raising
gen
feature was on the revenue
that the sums
reform
ing of fact number three
The
levy
or the revenue distribution side.
twenty-five mill
were
side
the local
erated
scrutiny
of
levels result
Program.
application
different
the
Foundation
diverted into
State
from
of the defenders’
County
pre-trial
ed
resolution
Appellant Campbell
District
Wyo.Stat.
§
distinction existed between
that a
correctly points out
21-13-
assertion
310(a)(ii)(A) (1992)
and education
right to education
from the
fundamental
directs revenues
view, a
mandatory
In their
differ
distribution.
levy
mill
and be
twenty-five
Wyo.Stat.
applied to non-wealth based
ent standard
computed
resource.
local
(1992)
21-13-311(a)
funding disparities
they urged
prop
the foun
directs that
proof
type
er constitutional standard was
program amount be determined
dation
qual
funding disparity caused harm to the
(including twenty- of
subtracting local resources
revenues)
court disa
computed
ity of
The district
from the
education.
levy
five mill
and,
trial, ruled,
greed
before
with defenders
guarantee
of
to which the district
amount
view,
re
did not
stays
correctly in our
Washakie
money
local
is entitled.
challengers
prove
harm to the
quire the
of State
and lowers the amount
district
Nevertheless,
the dis-
quality of еducation.
Program funds the local district
Foundation
Educ.,
Lujan
649 P.2d
following
ap-
v. Colorado State Bd.
school reform cases have
33. The
of
(two
plurality
(Colo.1982)
justices
plied
scrutiny:
strict
1005
scrutiny);
applied
McDan
Bishop,
have
rational
179
would
Elem. School Dist. v.
Roosevelt
Thomas,
632,
233,
(1994) (two justices
S.E.2d 156
248 Ga.
285
Ariz.
The School devilishly simple concept, but in the tively Nothing Education Clause our opera- in actual complex suggests and convoluted constitution fundamental among linkages tion. Subtle between applies only to right to an education Program the various Foundation elements itself, money needed change in one element will mean to fund that education. Education does usually produce some kind of aberration vacuum; it not occur in a is achieved as Seemingly misalignment in another.... public expenditures. Any the result of adjustments can minor modifications and provides greater expendi- system which altogether unexpected and unintend- have over others should tures for some children trying little to bun- results. It’s a like ed undergo exacting scrutiny. the most pushing a small child into a dle snowsuit — Skeen, 505 at 322. N.W.2d invariably other part on one causes some part pop out. Against foregoing extensive this above Program— Foundation backdrop, turn to a we now discussion Operations Funding 8 A BRief Look at arguments. We first parties’ constitutional (1990-91 Edition). disparities which the consider upon the The defenders’ reliance standard to be district court considered wealth-based. jurisdictions unpersuasive. applied in other is Minnesota, mainly rely upon v.
They
Skeen
(Re-
Disparities.
Funding
Wealth-Based
however,
(Minn.1993);
per student. The
state assessed
mill
optional
found
reve-
The district court
per
student.
valuation
$64.55
upon in
districts to
nues are relied
some
earlier,
disparity resulting from
cur-
option
explained
As
the local
reduce
funds from the
rent
of distribution of
levy
six mills available to
another
money
program. The amount
generates
district
revenue which
outside
foundation
*30
totally depen-
optional
local
mills is
program and
not lower
raised
the foundation
will
of individual
a
dent
the local wealth
aid to
school district.
amount
state
presence of such wealth
catego-
districts. The
mills include two distinct
These six
relationship
expense
of edu-
operations and
bears no
ries:
three mills for
three
any particular community.
in
cating
21-13-
students
mills
maintenance.
for
Wyo.Stat.
(D)
optional mills
(ii)(B),
have
102(a)(i)(B)-(C);
(Supp.1995).
of the districts
some
necessary
present statutory
a
source of
to
examination
become
of the
frame-
program.
maintain
educational
Other
legislature
a basic
work which the
has enacted clear-
wealthy
option-
less
districts deem
use of
ly
state control
so
ex-
demonstrates
and we
levy of a mill
al mills as futile because the
history
amined constitutional
to see if local
money.
justifi-
raises so little
The defenders’
constitutionally recognized
a
control is
inter-
optional
mill process
cation for
current
is
analysis
est. Historical
local control
reveals
local control.
district court
The
found the
constitutionally
is not a
recognized interest
availability
permitting
alternatives
other
disparity
equal
and cannot
for
in
basis
permitting
local discretion without
wide vari-
opportunity.
educational
ations in revenue demonstrated local control
compelling
state interest. The
History
b.
Local Control
optional mill
district court concluded the
fea-
The constitution devotes
almost
entire
equal
ture is wealth-driven in violation of
Wyo.
7,
to
article
education.
ART.
Const.
protection.
§§
very
1-14. The fourteen
specifi-
sections
legal
We affirm that
conclusion based once
cally
system
describe the intended
again upon
particular
Washakie. This
fi-
financing
system.
the methods for
that
system component
nance
creates wealth-driv-
reasons
and the constitutional framers’
disparity
opportunity
quality
en
edu-
intent behind such devotion to detail concern-
cation
violation of Washakie. The district
ing education are clarified
when
historical
accepted
provided
court
that local control
struggles during
days
education
territorial
compelling
disparity
reason
this
had it
are examined.
accomplished in
way.
been
a less onerous
history
during
of education
territorial
plain meaning
Washakie determined the
days
Wyoming
strong
reveals
citizens’
com-
our state constitution’s Education Article left
to
particular
mitment
education for a
pur-
legislature completely
no doubt
con-
earlier,
pose. As we noted
various territorial
system
trolled the state’s school
every
governors
purpose
preserv-
described this
as
respect, and the matter of
providing school
our free institutions
diffusion of
system
financing
as whole and
it is a
knowledge among
people.
Governor J.A.
responsibility
Washakie,
legislature.
Campbell’s
Legislative
Address to the First
tion an education is a function of 1869) op messages TERRITORY, control, paradoxical per- it would be to governors: n.d.). 1869-1890, (n.p., at 14 disparity mit because of local control. Al- Fromong, supra note at 24. though parties this, recognize they sug- gest local control a constitutionally recog- Act, Organic Under leg the territorial nized compelling interest and therefore a power islature did not have the create state interest. establish but could dictate a frame management work for of the schools. Fro puzzles This contention us since un supra mong, note at Between 1867 der Washakie there cannot be both state and 1873, agitation arose the local level for establishing local control in a constitutional establishment effective schools. system. parties do not define Id. message at 39^44. The 1873 Governor’s or explain they local control what mean when territorial urged it se they use the term local Legal control. com through cure a uniform of education gener mentators have noted local control is territory. out the Id. at 54. ally concept treated as a self-evident cannot, there is a meaning world, often failure to address age hope its We Still, or the values it is gain, intended serve.37 permanent our residents of parties’ Territory, contentions indicate their belief of population that class who fortune,” local previous “given some role hostages exists. Our have and have Briffault, (1992). 37. Richard The Role of Local Control Reform, in School Finance 24 Conn.L.Rev. *31 county and Fro preservation of was from district taxation. greatest interest in the
the ability The mong, supra note at 121. institutions, ad- our educational unless our support to as did counties education varied in equal those the most vantages are to willingness. Id. at 122. Control of the their It whether is doubtful favored State. county in system education was vested under advantages can be secured these superintendents and local school boards. uni- that not of education is These officials often made educational deci Territory, I trust throughout the form regard stu sions without for the needs of undergo revi- the law such that will dents, hiring unqualified such as teachers public appear by you as the interests sion purchasing regard textbooks without to demand. result, appropriate curriculum. As the the Id. at 54-55. legislation required development of the agreed with him on The Governor’s critics teachers, train the Territorial Institute to further question the school elucidated: curriculum, policies, set and select devise equal advantages are not educational Our textbooks. Id. at 133-152. state, they nor to the most favored can 1889, reporting the By some counties were be; ought reasonably expected they to system, with some state of their education similar, nor they equal but are to be libraries, boasting of excellent facilities with fa- equal to those in the expected to be education, delivering modern methods In new vored States. the settlements money buy. could Id. and the best teachers territory more our of which are —none report, failed at 97-99. counties Other majority years of school than six old—the reveals little commitment to and research ones; buildings contri- are inferior the consequent inadequacies in all education give juveniles that attend vances to Further, by Id. time areas. at partly them a correct idea correct convention, the constitutional Territorial rude; taught being is and the what longer operated. Id. at 257-58. Institute no that convenience and comforts surround Thus we the time of the consti- see in the are pupils both teacher and States convention, were educational issues tutional wholly wanting. often here problem establishing to the not limited practicably as education should be as near problems included inherent schools but those uniform, advantages” “equal those but rath- local control which caused variations of, slowly and governor speaks come will “equal advantages” than between er in by degrees, just they did favored “equal advan- the districts states he alluded to. comparison rest of coun- tages” young, schools are for con- try. The framers’ devotion of entire prepare them to become useful addressing stitutional article citizens, to see honest and we would like detail makes clear that the education such require compe- such laws enacted as will perceived to a response was drafted article over placed tent teachers to be them.... type system. for a of educational need certain Id. at 56. convention, By the time of the constitutional legislature importance of education was established. response In the territorial be right protected in the the cherished enacting yearly, culminating The framers gan laws 1, right § ad Art. 23 which declared comprehensive of 1873 which school code Further, time of the constitu- education. Also many problems. of these dressed convention, however, shortcomings taxa tional legislation property mandated local Wyo. control were obvi- support inadequacies local tion for the of schools. 1873 settling 58, Sess.Laws, 51; supra Fromong, ous. framers addressed Ch. to be state concern During the Territorial that education note at 67-69. The framers addressed at the state level.38 period, only source of rеvenue for schools adopt proposals a State recognize advised them 38. The was slow had Committee. That committee School Code framers' intent. Governor Kendrick carefully surveyed aspects Legislature all of the education to the Fourteenth State his address *32 legislature responsibility the with menting legislatively vested the that created and main- complete system. to establish and maintain a and tained system public uniform of instruction and to scrutiny Further of the Education Article provide sufficient revenue to create and might possible indicates one section be a system a thorough maintain and efficient of Wyo. 7, locus of local control. Art. Const. public proper schools which would deliver provision 11. That states: school-age instruction to the state’s children. legislature Sec. 11. Neither the nor the place framers left the means for the superintendent public instruction shall legislature proper- to fund local power prescribe have text books to be ty nothing indicating taxes. We find public used in the schools. signified local control. Given the interest in convention, At the constitutional Mr. Charles level, education at the local the sensible ex- explained: N. Potter39 planation is the framers believed interest It do territory won’t to let the nor the would if the be sustained communities contin- superintendent public pre- instruction in paying ued to assist for education. At the say scribe text books. I venture to there drafting, time of the framers were unaware corruption is not more than that which is parts of the vast natural resource wealth prescribing caused where the of text books of this state which would to a lead legislature. is left the system against finance which discriminated property-poor school districts and the Was- 1889) Proceedings and (Sept. Debates litigation. certainly hakie The framers did JOURNALSANDDEBATES OF THE CONSTITUTION- system. Indeed, by not intend such a the (The at 737 Convention, AL Daily plain Education requirements 1893). Article’s con- Sun cerning system funding, the education and it Shortly ratification, corruption after contemplated is clear the things: framers two spoke explained by he Potter dur- 1) all funds were educational resources for all attorney general. his service He said: 2) youth of the state’s and that mandate purpose object The evident and of this state, boards, not local through legisla- provision prevent Constitutional was to ture, system control of education. monopoly in the of text sale books to the pupils public in the schools. It was un- however, It accepted, must also be doubtedly prohibit adop- intended to prohibit the framers did local role any tion of series of text books but scope left the nature and local time, period of which would tend to reduce legislature. role to the discretion competition books, among publishers problems associated local control were impeding progress and of the schools framers, known to the they addressed State, by preventing them from by vesting authority, responsibility, them changing from time to time to such nеwer legislature, control effectively might better text published books as ensuring the state would establish the edu market, on come and be more system. long cation So as the constitutional advantageous public use schools. mandates of a complete public and uniform system instruction a thorough and effi Letter from C.N. Potter Hon. S.T. Farwell 1892) cient Wyo.Reports (Aug. which delivers in 1889-1906 proper met, nothing Opinions instruction are would Official of ATTORNEYGeneral appear prohibit n.d.); (n.p., from dele at 108-09 and in 1890-1918 Wyo.Reports Superintendent gating authority local imple- boards the of Public place, facilities, boards, excellent, including physical then in local which is often but is just competence, exactly teacher administrator as often curricu- reverse. lum, legislature adopted report and finances. the school code. Fro- Its caused Governor mong, supra note at 310-323. Kendrick to remark: responsibility, [P]ublic education is a state thirty-two years N. Charles Potter served on Court, judgment Wyoming Supreme
should not be left accidental from 1895-1927. *33 (The Co., any inquiry; providing trial or for Bristol S.A. INSTRUCTION at 33-34 cases; 1894). in civil or criminal changes of venue declaring any person age; of for limitation Attorney Potter’s elucida General actions; any to giving of effect infor- civil prompted provision tion of this was deeds; summoning mal or im- or invalid Superintendent of of Pub concern the State juries; paneling grand petit providing or law a territorial lic Instruction about schools; management the common for of superintendents to county all meet required money; regulating the rate of interest on for the entire state. and select textbooks conducting any or of opening the election required compliance with The constitution place voting; sale designating or of territorial law laws. Since this territorial mortgage belonging of to or real estate constitutional appeared to conflict with the disability; charter- minors or others under Attorney advice was provision, the General’s licensing toll bridges or or or ferries determined Potter’s clarification solicited. banks, roads; chartering compa- insurance prevent provision was meant to the evil companies; nies loan and trust remit- monopoly. Accepting this inter textbook of fines, forfeitures; ting penalties or creat- permits end local pretation, we see the result fees, ing, increasing, decreasing per- or the actual textbooks to be determination of officers; public of centages or allowances only to purchased by a school district avoid descent; granting law changing the of monopoly, provi of but the evil textbook individual, any or corporation, association cannot said to sanction or authorize sion be tracks, right lay railroad or down beyond specific into control that task local any special privilege, or exclusive immuni- areas such as determination sub broader whatever, ty amending or franchise or ex- students, ject taught areas to be course pun- isting purpose; charter for such for program poli content and other education crimes; changing the names ishment prevention of the evil of cies. Limited persons places; or or assessment monopoly, provision that cannot be textbook taxes; affecting of de- collection of estates set said also to mean the state cannot stan persons, minors or others under ceased purchased must dards with which textbooks disabilities; legal extending the time provi this comply. interpreted, Otherwise taxes; money refunding collection effectively limit the constitutional sion would treasury, paid relinquishing into the state quality for a stated in mandate part, in- extinguishing, or or whole provision §§ 1 and 9. This intended any debtedness, obligation of liabilities or designate local control. person or to corporation or perhaps that parties suggests One therein; any municipal corporation ex- recognized in local control is Wyo. Const. taxation; restoring empting property from 3, § It states: Art. persons infa- citizenship convicted of prohibited. Special § 27. and local laws creation, crimes; authorizing the ex- mous spe- local pass shall not or liens; creating of- impairing or tension following any laws in of the enumerat- cial prescribing powers or duties fices or cases, granting say: is to For ed that cities, counties, townships or officers divorces; out, laying altering or opening, districts; adop- authorizing or vacating working highways; or roads legitimation of children. In all tion or roads, streets, alleys or plats, town general can be cases where a law other county grounds; locating changing or special applicable no law shall made seats; county township regulating or af- added.) (Emphasis enacted. fairs; cities, incorporation towns or vil- 3, interpreting Art. amending the Our decisions lages; changing or or char- cities, enlarging § villages; regu- provision 27 viewed this or have ters of towns Art. justice; upon equal protection guarantees of lating practice in courts Inc., Builders, 1, 611 Phillips v. jurisdiction ABC regulating the and duties 821, police magistrates (Wyo.1980). P.2d 826 This section justice peace, pass only legislature is to constables; changing the rules of evidence means special general providing rather than laws so a statute a mechanism which local persons in operates may alike all same tax districts themselves order to en- Meyer Kendig, programs equitable v. 641 P.2d circumstances. hance their in an man- ner,40 (Wyo.1982); v. appears constitutionally per- Simons Laramie to be One, However, County inject No. P.2d Dist. missible. we two notes of First, (Wyo.1987). Skeen, purpose 1124-25 served dissenting caution. the two *34 provision in supreme justices the identification the of some state court did not believe thirty-seven general, scrutiny permits instances where not lo- strict a local enhancement cal, enacted, Skeen, laws must be is ensure care- mechanism. at 505 N.W.2d 322 by legislature (Page, JJ, Second, ful the the Gardebring, dissenting). consideration as to laws. KbiteR may interests affected enacted local also in enhancement result sub- suprа Newcomb, note at 96. Its stantive innovations which should be avail- purpose recogni- give part not to constitutional to all proper able school districts as a Simons, tion to an See 741 P.2d at proper interest. education. The definition of a edu- 3, § (declaring violation of Art. 27 al- necessarily cation is not static and will offending though argued state in- change. change statute’s Should that occur as a re- equalize funding innovation, tent was to sult local all students are enti- decision). compliance part with Washakie change tled the benefit of that as of a cost-based, proper state-financed education. provision’s enumeration management only means that if the Capital Financing Construction legislature passes concerning manage a law generally districts fund their schools, gener ment of common it must abe budding building new needs and renovation schools, applicable al all special one not a repair by issuing capital needs bonds for prohibition law. The section’s this area construction. The constitutional debt limit restriction, legislative must be read as a bonding is 10% of assessed valuation. recognition as constitutional of an interest. legislature Depart- the directed State ment of Education to conduct a statewide c. The Constitutional Local Level Role capital assessment of school construction found, As the district court evil the priorities needs and establish state based optional levy impact upon mill its was independent firm, need. An MGT of equal opportunity. “basic” In educational America, (MGT), reported Inc. studied and requirement view of the constitutional facility repair the needs for renovation and uniform, provide the a “proper” state edu totaled million a $268.7 with new construction question program, cation the arises whether replacement, totaling need million for $7.1 legislature permit the optional can mill levies just over capital million needed facili- $275 so local school district can raise funds ty expenditures. need, Despite reported this program outside state foundation legislature routinely capital transfers op order to enrich its students’ educational designated funds for facilities to the founda- portunities beyond those offered elsewhere program operational expenses. tion to meet the state. The district court found that since Washakie legislature has provided approximately requires legisla constitution million in grants approxi- loans and $46 system provid ture to create maintain mately “emergen- an additional million in $10 ing equal opportunity quality ato edu grants. trial, cy” only At the time of about cation. That must be function designated capital million funding. $5 legislature state wealth. Once the achieves cost-based, this, Despite constitutional mandate of the district court found the education, proper challengers state-financed then proved assum had not constitutional compelling has a reason harm capital evidencе and held the possible optional power equalized. 40. A method was recommended all mills expert defenders' trial who recommended that determines, by Program, Foundation formu- funding scheme constitutional. construction Washakie, respect In with la, funding We reverse. the amount of each school district construction, question “the we said capital require year’s operating will for the ex- physical facilities which finances for penses. This amount is called the state of education” is carry process on guaranteed entitlement. The school district disparate tax brush of “tarred with same reports expected local if a its revenue and Washakie, P.2d at 337. resources.” generate local less school district’s resources legislative changes, in actual Post-Washakie entitlement, guaranteed revenue than its from operation, have not removed tar pays compo- the difference. The main part pack- total educational this vital nent of the formula determines evidence, survey re- age. As we our funding school’s amount is the classroom availability from to- quirement “statewide theory, unit. a school can amount building resources for construction tal state *35 a per be determined either on student basis buildings on parity a or contribution Wyoming or classroom unit. utilizes the virtually has been for all school districts” Id. at 337. Capital year the ignored. construction classroom unit method and each many. financing and is unavailable for Safe legislature assigns a unit value. classroom physical which car- facilities with efficient year, In the classroom 1992-93 ry process are a neces- on the of education $92,331. figure unit value was That is not sary process. of educational element the total by Wyoming calculating set school districts readily must for funds be available State providing the actual cost of education for up do to a simply needs. It will not set those students; rather, legislatively it is a deter- funds that legislative scheme to raise for figure. mined and purpose and then turn around allow the purpose. of those funds to another diversion formula, sys- Based on another the divisor appropri- be purposes All educational must tem, many a school district calculates how comply ately responsibly funded to multiplies it has that classroom units a complete mandates of the constitutional $92,331 number to determine the amount system public and uniform instruction operating of its revenue.41 districts thorough efficient consisting of state receive add-on revenue adequate proper education of for the reimbursements school districts age the state’s school children. busing costs of their 75% their and 85% physical deprive hold deficient facilities We special costs for A feature of the education. equal opportunity of an educational students system is the recalculation formula divisor financing system that any allows such during may permit additional revenue facilities to exist is unconstitutional. deficient high- actually if is year the school enrollment capital present construction scheme The anticipated. municipal A divisor rule er than muster. pass infirm and fails to mu- incorporated an causes all schools within funding disparities now We consider re- nicipality largest divisor to receive considered to be which the district court gardless challengers The attacked of size. by the formula were caused distribution divisor, system, municipal the divisor not wealth-based. formula. the recalculation Funding Disparities Distribution Formula disparities court found the district 1. Distribution Formula relating challenged are the result of factors in rural preserve small schools to desire to earlier, explained As distribute areas, pre- revenue, state, assumption it more to through an costs the collected 1991-1992, generated beyond spent what was needed of revenue school districts paid expenses. out expenditures The total amount general for their through $548.5 million fund 98,951 $5,543 program was pupil Forty-five per the state foundation students. aid, expen- $498.5 $50 other million. The million $224.8 received million districts paid primarily through reve- recaptured $13.6 four ditures were million was from while pro- only portion nue which is outside the foundation excess source school districts. Since i.e., optional levy. gram, recaptured, $4.3 the local mill may retained million districts smallness, assumption larger serve economies offer classes than the smaller dis- (urban) schools, larger hand, larger of scale in and an tricts. theOn other dis- assumption courses, of scale do not diseconomies oc- tricts were able to offer more courses, regardless large may cur a school including how more than advanced grow. emphasized only cost- Washakie smaller districts. Also there some justified disparities are constitutional. The evidence adduced the students from post-trial larger district court’s decision letter accu- did districts not score as well as rately captured the essence the school students from the smaller districts as first year University districts’ concerns: Wyo- students ming. Wyoming system school funding preserve history attempts by recogniz- Here, attempt justi the defenders ing that funds should be made available to fy a funding disparity size-driven based those districts which have maintained unproven assumptions of cost and economies smaller schools order to continue to Washakie, Applying scale. we hold district, service all students within the justification demonstrably which is not cost- they might however remote be from a constitutionally based is infirm. larger population This center. often en- accepted court district that the distri- maintaining high tails several schools of bution formula disparities caused optimal than much less order size and found the classroom unit and divisor accommodate educational needs of *36 deficient, system to causing irrational and busing those students without them to cen- genuine funding a disadvantage to each stu- greater population ters of located some court, larger dent of the districts. The how- away.... distance ever, upheld system the entire distribution end of other the scale involves the since, in opinion, the district court’s the chal- larger system through districts the its lengers proof failed meet their burden imposes divisors economies scale.... they when not did measure all costs. The system provided divisor] no [The incentive district court also found sys- the distribution provided to lower class size and in fact significant tem disparity caused no of edu- disincentive those districts which at- quality cational opportunity, or educational tempted do so. it was that So the only genuine potential disparity. We legislature made a choice between main- reverse. schools, taining realizing smaller those that reiterate, apply To we strict they operating optimal were well under scrutiny component to the distribution capacity, at imposing while the time same Washakie, system. school finance 606 P.2d upon larger municipalities the disci- at 334-35. The state bears the burden of pline of economies of It is scale. interest- proving funding disparities cost-justified are that to note these forces two are virtu- compelling justifies or a disparity. reason ally mutually exclusive. If one were to Where the evidence funding establishes uniformly impose upon economies scale spending disparities unjustified by education districts, all it necessarily would mean the differentials, al challengers cost are not Yet, demise of the smaller schools. proving disparity burdened with of edu time, by imposing same economies of scale quality opportunity; cational or educational larger schools, on the such schools are Washakie, disparities presumed. those are precluded perceived enjoying from ad- 606 P.2d at A review of the district vantages of smaller classes. court’s findings fact reveals the dis legislative The effect of the choice is not parities caused the distribution formula particularly hard to discern. There was are not cost-based. showing much evidence choice re- money per sulted' in more student available 2. Findings Fact to the smaller larger districts than a. CRU main, disparity In the districts.
funding disparity created a in the class A review the district court’s find larger ings size. The districts were forced to of fact reveals the evidence did not Andersen, justifi- developer pres- Dr. necessary cost-based in cost. demonstrate day system, system’s in the originally conceived ent divisor testified the As cations. 1950’s, captured class- was not know fur- purpose the size of cost-related. We the CRU By study de- ther the state did not costs within various sized schools. rooms preamble operate promised amount in the of its 1983 termining the needed to schools, legislation. super- in various smaller transitional Former state sized classroom funding. Lynn assured intendent and former State schools were sufficient Simons view, reality of fund- Board of Education Jack Iversen the district court’s member in the was not ing the actual number of classrooms both testified divisor today lost. is cost-based. The district court determined state has been The CRU fact, system, in distributing unit for dollars and defies the law of merely a divisor economics, of class- onсe a school locked into not reflect actual number becomes does sizes, particu- At can are within a the 23 divisor. certain rooms which maintained longer advantage no take of economies lar district. scale, in fact mean- scale and diseconomies of quoted Barry court Nimmo’s The district increase, begin ing costs to occur as a publication which Department of Education beyond optimum The divisor moves size. computing class- “the method states recognize weight of system fails to this. The ‘objectively room unit does involve this evidence is that the distribution formula as actual determined external criteria —such upon is not costs. based education, or need for costs of demonstrated facility repairs legislatively major The district court found the divisor —but entirely funding disparities. on those formula based almost caused Since mandated year operations’ funding disparities and it are actual prior enrollment and not based differentials, and, they guarantee unjustified ‘likely that some eases cost are therefore, The district provides too little too much unconstitutional. “to the differ- particular particular school districts court found extent such *37 ences, genuine potential it could exists a differ- years.’” agreed The district court there opportunity.” buys. what each ence in educational Washakie not tell CRU funding disparity in edu- presumes results b. Divisors opportunity disparity. cational Originally, concept divi behind Municipal c. Divisor weighted to assure sors was CRUs were earlier, schools, explained another critical generally smaller believed to As favor of large A can a district’s than smaller element which limit school be costlier schools. municipal generate than will a divisor feature divisor will more CRUs funds is higher any within larger applied assigns same number of a divisor to school divisor city incorporated or or within five Low schools receive an town students. enrollment town, regard funding per incorporated city or the smaller divisors and more miles of effect, partic a having all a student less of size. all schools of student while schools largest single municipality a are population assigned type over 500 ular within are funding per single of 23 and less treated as a school. divisor receive concept The this as fair since student. views accepted schools Despite the belief smaller enjoy larger school districts costlier, municipal divi- the effect of the are allowing edu “economies of scale” efficient that a of 150 students sor is such per cating students for same dollars assigned a city in a town or be which is will num unit as smaller classroom districts with divisor, money, consequently less higher of students. bers com- same size school in a smaller than the study munity. district found the record district court a state The court found cost of investigate provable no actual costs needed showed difference failed By accident package running a to each these two schools. provide basic education however, location, one- in fund- one school receives and whether the differences student funding. justified by student were differences third more per municipal cisely comprehends The district court declared the the constitutional man- divisor court date: unconstitutional. district only assign found the reason to state’s through hope A. I would a cost of any city higher school within divisor to whole education foundation to the distribu- building town towns prevent was to from tion that we would not have inade- re- unnecessarily small schools which would opportunities children, quate inade- generate ceive a low divisor more fund- systems. your quate question To answer ing. proof offered that this was or No was can, directly I as there doesn’t have to problem. superintendents had been a I system. losers think if be it millions testified is nonsensical believe distribution is based on how much spent build an
would be
unneeded school
child,
it costs to educate a
then we’re
order to
limited amount
fund-
receive
educated,....
ensuring
get
the children
ing.
court
The district
concluded this made
“There doesn’t have
be losers in
equitable.
no sense and
affirm
We
system”
meaning
is
definitive of
ruling
municipal
the district court’s
equal
opportunity
proper
to a
educational
divisor statute is unconstitutional.
proper
education. The
of a
definition
edu
static,
change.
is not
will
cation
but
As
A Recalculation Formula
testimony
parties
trial
from all
revealed
challengers alleged
the recalcu
education,
rules of
and the
the state board of
inequity
large
lation formula resulted in
proper
today requires
education
that broad
districts because those districts on the low categories of students’ needs must be ad
end of the
scale will
an addi
divisor
receive
with appropriate
pro
dressed
education
single family
tional
if
two or
CRU a
grams. Today’s
recognize
prop
educators
community.
three children move into the
requires appropriate
er education
curriculum
However,
large
divisor,
in a
district with a 23
curriculum,
skills,
in core
core
advanced
should there be an increase of 297 students
placement
rapidly
courses
changing
com
(99
students,
junior
elementary
high
stu
schools,
puter technology, small
and small
students),
high
dents and 99
there
class
These
size.
and other indicia of edu
would not be
additional CRUs. The
opportunity
cational
must
afforded re
district
court did not address
its
this issue
gardless of school size or location.
order,
weight
final
but the
the evidence
equal
An
opportunity
prop
for a
convincing
population
that increased student
necessarily
er
contemplates
Funding
increased education costs.
in
*38
playing field will be leveled so each child has
creased
in a different
costs
manner based on
equal
an
chance for educational success.
arbitrary
See
school size and location is
and
Kukor,
(Babliteh, J.,
then wants am reminded remote broadcast basket, legislature provide Army-Navy game early a can mecha- football in the 1950s. first, During exciting play which it can be done. But nism an moment of else, announcer, quarter, must fourth person before all constitutional basket a who field, enjoys in his be filled. renown described the “Look, way: action on the field this there’s rolling fumble around the air!” CONCLUSION do any expertise While I not claim Nothing in this decision shall construed be funding, my impression educational it is with, impair, adversely to interfere affect begin developed formula be that with can will obligations existing bond various appropriate equal funding, baseline for throughout districts state. We whether a classroom an indi- on basis or on legislature realize the must afforded am- be Appropriately, vidual basis. student that ple adequate study, drafting ap- time adjusted be baseline will to account for dis- propriate legislation, reform and debate on parities representing actual cost differentials legislation. Consequent- passage of that from to district supported district Washakie, ly, provide did in as we we shall empirical data. I believe rec- the financial period legislature reasonable time districts, ords of the several school in the compliance. to achieve constitutional We or- accountant, competent hands of a cost will der that that shall achieve provide adjust- the facts essential to those 1, compliance July not later than Obviously ments. im- measurable factors place pacting remand to the costs of education We district court di- from place mysteries not total judgment enter consistent with are can be rections opinion jurisdiction factually and retain this until a demonstrated rather than assumed. body legislation This is the sort of constitutional enacted the Washakie effect, taking may and in such be court envisioned. It was vision of action never the necessary conformity. to assure court that Washakie the constitutional opinion expert
mandates could be satisfied arbitrary Certainly, ap- advisors. THOMAS, J., specially concurring files a proach is unconscionable when facts are opinion. available. THOMAS, Justice, concurring. majority suggests, may As the it essen- be complete in all majority I concur said in tial to “a and uniform has only depart case. As the member the current education” to from tradi- methodology participated County financing court tional tax who Washakie Herschler, simply implement levy 1 Sch. Dist. No. v. P.2d 310 and statewide nom., (Wyo.1980), adequate satisfy cert. will denied sub Hot be the constitutional County Springs readily v. mandates. That would Sch. Dist. No. 1 Washak avoid the ie, complications represented by 101 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 28 wealth-based U.S. (1980), express my recapture provi- I must the local mill levies and disappointment at legislative Equitable shortfall. sions. Washakie should have division of that sort edu- explain been cation would far sufficient the failure satis fund better than the fy requirements. leg propensities the constitutional current method with its for ca- tering has not promised islature done what it in its to local demands and issues. preamble legislation redesigning to the 1983 financing
the school structure. Instead of ORDER DENYING REHEARING AND *40 education, disparity reducing funding that REQUESTS RESPONDING TO disparity has been Whether exacerbated. FOR CLARIFICATION Department the State of Education’s efforts GOLDEN, Chief Justice. stymied by were lack of executive may event, study shortfall be debatable. The court after examination and happen intended petition rehearing what was never occurred. concludes: the court and decision of opinion 1. The Corner, THE CORNER Other pro- that it was language in its d/b/a implicit (Defendant) Appellant operation and not intended spective fi- statutory provisions for present disturb v. including operations, bond-
nancing of school PINNACLE, INC., Games d/b/a indebtedness. ed (Plaintiff). Plus, Appellee prospective clarifying the 2. than Other No. 95-11. questions opinion, all other operation of rehearing have petition raised Supreme Wyoming. Court within already considered resolved been opinion. the court’s Nov.
It is therefore granted relief that
ORDERED down opinion court’s handed
direction of the 8, 1995, prospective. are
on November that the school ORDERED
FURTHER con-
finance of the state statutes, validity existing and the
tinue under acts, enforceability future past in- obligations indebtedness
bonded statutes, long as applicable as
curred under effect, assured.
they in force and are remain judg-
FURTHER ORDERED court, and entered the district made
ment of mandate, or- consistent with this
on the
der. petition
FINALLY ORDERED denied, except rehearing be and is provided.
otherwise in this order December, day of
DATED this 5th