Lead Opinion
Opinion
It is by now well established that, under the constitution of Connecticut, the state must “ ‘provide a substantially equal educational opportunity to its youth in its free public elementary and secondary schools’ Horton v. Meskill,
The record reveals the following relevant facts, as alleged in the operative complaint and construed in the manner most favorable to the pleader; see, e.g., Violano v. Fernandez,
The availability and quality of these essential inputs vary significantly in schools across the state, as demonstrated by statistics from the 2003-2004 school year cited by the plaintiffs. For example, at the Lincoln Ele
At the Roosevelt School in Bridgeport, which includes grades kindergarten through eight, 61 percent of the kindergarten students have attended preschool or Head Start, as compared with 76 percent statewide. The average size for a kindergarten class is twenty-six students there, as compared with nineteen statewide. For a seventh grade class, the average size is thirty students, as compared with twenty-two statewide. The library has nine print volumes per student, in comparison to twenty volumes per student statewide, and thirty-seven nonprint materials, as compared to 324 statewide. The library does not subscribe to any periodicals, while the average kindergarten through eighth grade school subscribes to fifteen periodicals. Roosevelt School does not offer any computer education instruction, while other schools statewide provide an average of eighteen hours per year. Roosevelt School also does not provide any world language instruction, while 66 percent of the kindergarten through eighth grade schools statewide
At the high school level, for example, Plainfield High School does not offer pull-out remedial instruction, in-class tutorials, after school programs, or summer school in mathematics or language arts, despite the fact that numerous students performed poorly in those subjects. Students at Plainfield High School took advanced placement tests in five courses, in comparison to the statewide average of nearly ten such courses. Finally, several dedicated specialty areas of Plainfield High School are in poor physical condition, including the all-purpose room, cafeteria, outdoor athletic facilities, educational technology and office/administrative space.
As evidence of the state’s failure to provide “suitable educational opportunities,” the plaintiffs further rely on educational “outputs” from the previously discussed schools, as measured by the “adequate yearly progress” on student achievement tests required under the federal No Child Left Behind Act; 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq.; including the Connecticut Mastery Test and the Connecticut Academic Performance Test.
The plaintiffs allege that these deficiencies are the product of a flawed educational funding system that has failed to provide and “effectively [manage]” the resources necessary to ensure suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities in the public schools, which are state agencies managed by local school districts. Specifically, schools are funded by two sources, namely, local property taxes and state grants to municipalities via the educational cost sharing system pursuant to General Statutes § 10-262Í et seq. Although the state board of education has taken the position that the state and municipalities should bear the costs of education equally, the educational cost sharing system grants have accounted for only 39 percent of school funding in Connecticut. The plaintiffs attribute this shortfall to: (1) the legislature’s failure to raise the “foundation” grant amount from $5891 since 1999; see
The plaintiffs claim further that the state’s failure to provide them with suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities has caused them irreparable
Accordingly, in their four count complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the state has violated: (1) article eighth, § 1, and article first, § § 1 and 20, of the state constitution by “failing to maintain a public school system that provides [them] with suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities”; (2) article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution by “failing to maintain a public school system that provides [them] with suitable educational opportunities”; (3) article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the state constitution by “failing to maintain a public school system that provides [them] with substantially equal educational opportunities”; and (4) article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the state constitution, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by acting under color of state law in “failing] to maintain a public school system that provides [them] with suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities,” which has disproportionately impacted African-American, Latino and other minority students. The plaintiffs seek a judgment declaring that: (1) they “have a right to receive suitable and substantially equal educational opportuni
Thereafter, the defendants moved to strike the first, second and fourth counts of the complaint, arguing that article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20, of the state constitution do not confer a right to “suitable” educational opportunities, and in particular, do not “guarantee equality or parity of educational achievement or results.”
“We begin by setting out the well established standard of review in an appeal from the granting of a motion to strike. Because amotion to strike challenges the legal sufficiency of a pleading and, consequently, requires no factual findings by the trial court, our review of the court’s ruling on the [defendants’ motion] is plenary. . . . We take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint that has been stricken and we construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency. . . . Thus, [i]f facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied. . . . Moreover, we note that [w]hat is necessarily implied [in an allegation] need not be expressly alleged. ... It is fundamental that in
I
Because it implicates our subject matter jurisdiction, we begin with the defendants’ contention that the trial court improperly concluded that this case is justiciable, and does not present a political question.
“We first set forth the fundamental principles that underlie justiciability. Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable. . . . Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute ... (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse ... (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power . . . and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant. ... As we have recognized, justiciability comprises several related doctrines, namely, standing, ripeness, mootness and the political question doctrine, that implicate a court’s subject matter jurisdiction and its competency to adjudicate a particular matter. . . . Finally, because an issue
“The political question doctrine itself is based on the principle of separation of powers ... as well as the notion that the judiciary should not involve itself in matters that have been committed to the еxecutive and legislative branches of government. To conclude that an issue is within the political question doctrine is not an abdication of judicial responsibility; rather, it is a recognition that the tools with which a court can work, the data which it can fairly appraise, the conclusions which it can reach as a basis for entering judgments, have limits. . . . Whether a controversy so directly implicates the primary authority of the legislative or executive branch, such that a court is not the proper forum for its resolution, is a determination that must be made on a case-by-case inquiry.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 572-73.
Following Baker v. Carr, supra,
We agree with the plaintiffs that our decision in Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
In Sheff, the state contended that the case was a nonjusticiable political question “expressly and exclusively entrusted to the legislature” by article eighth, § 1; id., 13; which directs the legislature “to implement this principle [of free public education] by appropriate legislation.” Conn. Const., art. VIII, § 1. Describing the distinction between cases that are justiciable and those that are not as an “uneasy line,” we emphasized that “courts do not have jurisdiction to decide cases that involve matters that textually have been reserved to the legislature, such as the implementation of a constitutional spending cap ... or the appointment of additional judges. ... In the absence of such a textual reservation, however, it is the role and the duty of the judiciary to determine whether the legislature has fulfilled its affirmative obligations within constitutional principles. . . . Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the [constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this [c]ourt as ultimate interpreter of the [c]onstitution.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
In Sheff, we emphasized that, in Horton I, supra,
“In light of these precedents, we are persuaded that the phrase ‘appropriate legislation’ in article eighth, § 1, does not deprive the courts of the authority to determine what is ‘appropriate.’ Just as the legislature has a constitutional duty to fulfill its affirmative obligation to the children who attend the state’s public elementary and secondary schools, so the judiciary has a constitutional duty to review whether the legislature has fulfilled its obligation. Considerations of justiciability must be balanced against the principle that every presumption is to be indulged in favor of subject matter jurisdiction. ... In this case, our precedents compel the conclusion that the balance must be struck in favor of the justiciability of the plaintiffs’ complaint.”
Moreover, our subsequent decision in Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, supra,
“We do not, however, view the plaintiffs’ prayer for relief so narrowly. Although the plaintiffs do seek, in part, such an order from the court, and although the text of the complaint presents such a remedy as the only way to vindicate the plaintiffs’ rights, a separate prayer for relief is simply ‘[t]hat judgment be entered declaring that ... § 10-51 (b) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied by [the board].’ When a complaint is challenged by a motion to dismiss, we view its allegations in the light favorable to the pleader. . . . We see no reason why the same principle should not apply to the prayer for relief. This latter prayer for relief is susceptible of an interpretation that would leave the formulation of the appropriate remedy to the legislative branch, rather than requiring the judicial branch to entangle itself in what probably would be the nonjudicial function of establishing a taxing district. Furthermore, there is precedent for this court, having determined that a particular legislative scheme is unconstitutional, to leave the remedy to the legislative branch, at least initially. . . . We, therefore, consider the question of justiciability on the premise that the plaintiffs seek a declaration of the unconstitutionality
In the present case, as in Seymour, the complaint clearly requests a declaration of a constitutional violation, with the precise remedy being left to the defendants in the first instance. Specifically, the plaintiffs ask that the court “order [the] defendants to create and maintain a public education system that will provide suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities [for the] plaintiffs.”
With respect to the other Baker factors, we first note that “[t]here are easily discoverable and manageable judicial standards for determining the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim[s].” Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, supra,
Further, deciding the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims does not inextricably involve us “in making an initial policy determination of a clearly nonjudicial, discretionary nature. Whenever a court engages in the process of determining whether a statute violates the constitution, matters of policy admittedly enter into the analysis. That does not mean, however, that, in applying the appropriate constitutional standards in the present case, we would be required to make some initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, supra,
Whether there is a risk of “multifarious pronouncements by other governmental departments on the question presented by the complaint” is not an inextricable concern. Id., 482. “Simply because the legislature has passed a statute adopting a particular fiscal formula cannot mean that a court may not entertain a constitutional challenge to that formula.” Id., 487-88. Thus, “this matter does not present an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a preexisting political decision. As previously discussed, it is well within the province of the judiciary to determine whether a coordinate branch of government has conducted itself’ in accordance with “the authority conferred upon it by the constitution.”
II
We now turn to the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, which are properly framed using the state constitutional
“It is well established that federal constitutional and statutory law establishes a minimum national standard for the exercise of individual rights and does not inhibit state governments from affording higher levels of protection for such rights. . . . Furthermore, although we often rely on the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of the amendments to the constitution of the
“The Geisler factors serve a dual purpose: they encourage the raising of state constitutional issues in a manner to which the opposing party — the state or the defendant — can respond; and they encourage a principled development of our state constitutional jurisprudence. Although in Geisler we compartmentalized the factors that should be considered in order to stress that a systematic analysis is required, we recognize that they may be inextricably interwoven. . . . Finally, not every Geisler factor is relevant in all cases.”
A
The Operative Constitutional Text
As noted previously, the text of article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.” Thus, the plaintiffs argue that the textual factor supports their claim because the use of the word “school” in article eighth, § 1, necessarily means institutions wherein “systematic” or “intellectual, moral and social” instruction is provided, and that not maintaining a minimum constitutional standard would eviscerate the legislature’s responsibilities thereunder. The defendants contend in response that § 2 of article eighth of the state constitution, which provides that the University of Connecticut shall be devoted to “excellence” in education, as well as the use of qualitative language in other states’ education clauses, indicates that the drafters acted intentionally to omit a particular qualitative standard from article eighth, § 1. The defendants rely, then, on Moore v. Ganim,
“In dealing with constitutional provisions we must assume that infinite care was employed to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state. . . . Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect must be given to every part of and each word in the constitution.” (Citations omitted.) Stolberg v. Caldwell,
As noted previously, the text of article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut, provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.” Article eighth, § 1, does not contain any qualitative language, in contrast to § 2 of article eighth of the constitution of Connecticut, which requires the state to “maintain a system of higher education, including The University of Connecticut,
The language of certain other states’ education clauses also supports the defendants’ textual argument superficially. The majority of the states have constitutional language that requires their legislatures to establish and maintain schools that are “adequate,” “general,” “thorough” or “efficient,” which supports the defendants’ argument that the drafters of article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut could have imposed similar qualitative standards. See, e.g., Ark. Const., art. 14, § 1 (“[intelligence and virtue being the safeguards of liberty and the bulwark of a free and good government, the State shall ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools and shall adopt all suitable means to secure to the people the advantages and opportunities of education”); Colo. Const., art. IX, § 2 (“[t]he general assembly shall, as soon as practicable, provide for the establishment and maintenance of a thorough and uniform system of free public schools throughout the state, wherein all residents of the state, between the ages of six and twenty-one years, may be educated gratuitously”); Fla. Const., art. IX, § 1 (a) (“The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It
The Holdings and Dicta of This Court
This factor similarly is not dispositive of the plaintiffs’ appeal because this case presents a question of first impression, namely, the qualitative content of the education clause with respect to inadequacy without considerations of inequality.
This court first determined, with respect to the applicable level of scrutiny, that, “in Connecticut the right to education is so basic and fundamental that any infringement of that right must be strictly scrutinized.”
Justice Loiselle dissented from the majority’s holding that education is a fundamental right under the state constitution. Id., 655-56. He characterized the majority’s opinion as “requiring ... an equalized pot of money per town”; id., 658 (Loiselle, J., dissenting); and stated that “the constitution requires free education, and ‘appropriate legislation’ is legislation which makes education free. I will concede that when the constitution says free education it must be interpreted in a reasonable way. A town may not herd children in an
Our most recent decision with respect to article eighth, § 1, is Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
On the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, this court framed the issue as “whether the state has fully satisfied its affirmative constitutional obligation to provide a substantially equal educational opportunity if the state demonstrates that it has substantially equalized school funding and resources.”
We applied the strict scrutiny analysis from Horton v. Meskill,
Indeed, as in Horton I, the separate opinions in Sheff provide even stronger support for the plaintiffs’ claims herein, as the plaintiffs in Sheff also raised an educational adequacy claim that was not addressed directly by the majority opinion. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
In contrast, Justice Borden rejected the plaintiffs’ educational adequacy claim in his dissenting opinion, although he concluded that “it is not necessary in this case to decide whether article eighth, § 1, embodies a requirement that the state provide a minimally adequate education or, if it does, the extent to which such a requirement is subject to judicial review . . . [or] to define the specific contours of such an education.” Id., 142. Justice Borden assumed that there was a constitutional right to an adequate education, but rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on state mastery test scores as a standard for determining whether that right had been violated, noting that, “[n]ot only the trial court’s findings in this case, but also common sense tells me that any appropriate standard by which to measure the state’s assumed obligation to provide a minimally adequate education must be based generally, not on what level of achievement students reach, but on what the state reasonably attempts to make available to them, taking into account any special needs of a particular local school system.” (Emphasis added.) Id., 143. Describing students’ problems such as low birth weight, maternal drug use and other “early environmental deprivations”; id., 144; Justice Borden concluded that, “[although schools are important socializing institutions in our democratic society, they cannot be constitutionally required to overcome every serious social and personal disadvantage that students bring with them to school, and that seriously hinder the academic achievement of
Other decisions from this court provide additional insight into the limits of the state’s responsibilities under the education clause, and consistent with Justice Borden’s dissenting opinion in Sheff, indicate that the state’s responsibilities under article eighth, § 1, are not unbounded, and do not require the state to take measures that will maximize the potential of specific students or mitigate the effect of every possible negative external factor for which the state bears no direct responsibility.
Similarly, in Broadley v. Board of Education, supra,
C
Constitutional History
As noted by the parties and the brief of the amici curiae, Christopher Collier, the state historian emeritus, and Simon J. Bernstein, the principal draftsman and proponent of article eighth, § 1, at the 1965 constitutional convention, Connecticut’s deeply rooted commit
Thus, Bernstein stated that he had introduced the resolution that ultimately was enacted as article eighth,
Although the proponents of article eighth, § 1, did not articulate a substantive standard, they emphasized the historical importance of education to Connecticut in the context of its role in fostering meaningful civic participation in a representative democracy. Thus, in the absence of any contravening evidence in the historical record supporting the proposition that the education provision only is hortatory and lacks real substance,
D
Federal Precedents
Having reviewed those Geisler factors specific to Connecticut, we now turn to a review of those considerations that go beyond our borders. We note, however, that “not every Geisler factor is relevant in all cases.” State v. Morales, supra,
We note briefly, however, that the defendants rely on passages from San Antonio Independent School District,
E
Sister State Decisions
A review of the sister state decisions in this area is of paramount importance to this appeal, which presents a question of first impression in an area of constitutional law that uniquely has been the province of the states. Cf. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, supra,
We begin, then, with New York case law, which, as explained by the amici curiae Campaign for Educational
A subsequent decision rendered after the remand trial in Campaign I further developed this standard to provide that students have a right to a “meaningful high school education, one which prepares them to function productively as civic participants,” although not necessarily a high school diploma. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State,
Similarly, South Carolina’s education clause provides broadly that “[t]he General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.” S.C. Const., art. XI, § 3. In Abbeville County School District v. State,
In Tennessee, the state education clause provides that “[t]he State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools. The General Assembly may establish and support such post-secondary educational institutions, including public institutions of higher learning, as it determines.” Tenn. Const., art. XI, § 12. The Tennessee Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as requiring the legislature to “maintain and support a system of free public schools that provides, at least, the opportunity to acquire general knowledge, develop the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally prepare students intellectually for a mature life.” Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter,
Finally, in one of the earliest adequacy cases, the Washington Supreme Court interpreted its education clause, which provides that “[i]t is the paramount duty
These cases are illustrative, as our research has revealed that those state courts that have reached the
F
Economic and Sociological Public Policy Considerations
Finally, we address the sixth Geisler factor, which requires consideration of the economic and sociological concerns presented by this appeal.
In addressing the problems wrought by racial and ethnic school segregation, we previously have acknowledged the policy behind public education, quoting the United States Supreme Court and stating that “a sound education is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. . . . The American people have always regarded education and [the] acquisition of knowledge as matters of supreme importance. . . . We have recognized the public schools as a most vital civic institution for the preservation of a democratic system of government . . . and as the primary vehicle for transmitting the values on which our society rests. . . . And these historic perceptions of the public schools as inculcating fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system have been confirmed by the observations of social scientists. . . . [Education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive Uves to the benefit of us aU. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our [n]ation
Moreover, although individual plaintiffs bear the brunt of constitutional educational deprivation, “that deprivation potentially has an impact on the entire state and its economy — not only on its social and cultural fabric, but on its material well-being, on its jobs, industry, and business. Economists and business leaders say that our state’s economic well-being is dependent on more skilled workers, technically proficient workers, literate and well-educated citizens. And they point to the urban poor as an integral part of our future economic strength. ... So it is not just that their future depends on the [s]tate, the state’s future depends on them.”
Thus, although “[pjradentia! and functional considerations are relevant to the classical enterprise of constitutional interpretation, especially where, as here, the constitutional provisions at issue are so remarkably open-textured”; Fonfara v. Reapportionment Commission,
Ill
The wealth of information yielded by our Geisler analysis has served well to explain the ambiguous text of Connecticut’s education clause, article eighth, § 1, of our state constitution. Thus, we conclude that article eighth, § 1, entitles Connecticut public school students to an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting. A constitutionally adequate education also will leave Connecticut’s students prepared to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state’s
We note that the failure of students to achieve the goals of a constitutionally mandated education may be the result of specific deficient educational inputs, or potentially, be caused by factors not attributable to, or capable of remediation by, state action or omission, a complicated question that is at this point beyond the procedural posture of this case.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court improperly granted the defendants’ motion to strike because further proceedings are required to determine as a question of fact whether the state’s educational resources and standards have in fact provided the public school students in this case with constitutionally suitable educational opportunities.
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.
In this opinion KATZ and SCHALLER, Js., concurred.
Notes
Article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.”
We note that the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the named plaintiff, the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., after concluding that it lacked representational standing under Connecticut Assn. of Health Care Facilities, Inc. v. Worrell,
The individual plaintiffs in this case are: (1) Nekita Carroll-Hall, who resides in Bridgeport with her children Ana-Simone Hall and Jacob Hall; (2) Marta Calderon, who resides in Bridgeport with her grandson Angel Calderon; (3) Richard Molinaro, who resides in Danbury with his granddaughter Jada Mourning; (4) Sherry Major, who resides in Willimantic with her sons Joseph Major and James Major; (5) Nancy Diaz, who resides in Hartford with her son Joshua Diaz; (6) Glenny Pentino, who resides in New Haven with her daughter Quintana Riveras; (7) Lawrence Porter, who resides in East Hartford with his children Katelyn Porter and Sean Porter; (8) Maria Santiago, who resides in New London with her daughter Carimaiie Colon; (9) Donna Fmnemore, who resides in Plainfield with her sons Benjamin Wisniewski, Brandon Wisniewski and Brian Wisniewski; and (10) Juana Feliciano, who resides in New Britain with her sons Christian Alvarado and Victor Alvarado. We note, however, that Porter, Santiago, Feliciano and their children are no longer involved in this appeal.
Chief Justice Rogers granted the plaintiffs’ petition for certification of an immediate expedited appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a, which provides in relevant part: “(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of sections
“(b) The Chief Justice shall, within one week of receipt of the appeal, rule whether the issue involves a substantial public interest and whether delay may work a substantial injustice. . . .”
The defendants in this case are named only in their official capacities and are: (1) Governor M. Jodi Rell or her successor; (2) Mark K. McQuillan, successor to Betty J. Sternberg as commissioner of education; (3) Allan B. Taylor, Beverly Bobroske, Donald J. Coolican, Lynne S. Farrell, Janet M. Finneran, Theresa Hopkins-Staten, Timothy J. McDonald, Patricia B. Luke, Alice L. Carolan and John H. Foss or their successors on the state board of education; (4) Treasurer Denise L. Nappier or her successor; and (5) Comptroller Nancy S. Wyman or her successor.
After the trial court granted the defendants’ motion to strike counts one, two and four of the amended complaint, it granted the plaintiffs’ motion for written permission to appeal from the judgment on those counts pursuant to Practice Book § 61-4 (a), which permits an appeal from a trial court decision “that disposes of at least one cause of action where the judgment does not dispose of either of the following: (1) an entire complaint, counterclaim, or cross complaint, or (2) all the causes of action in a complaint, counterclaim or cross complaint brought by or against a party . . . [upon] a written determination that the issues resolved by the judgment are of such significance to the determination of the outcome of the case that the delay incident to the appeal would be justified, and the chief justice or chief judge of the court having appellate jurisdiction concurs. . . .” Rather than appealing from that judgment to the Appellate Court, the plaintiffs filed a petition pursuant to § 52-265a seeking certification of an immediate expedited appeal to this court, which Chief Justice Rogers granted on October 31, 2007. See footnote 4 of this opinion.
The plaintiffs also make similar allegations with respect to the South Street Elementary School in Danbury, and emphasize that its library has seventeen print volumes per student, as compared to twenty-five statewide, and the school provides 966 hours of instruction per year, as compared to 985 statewide.
Similarly, East Hartford High School does not provide any pull-out remedial instruction or in-class tutorial instruction in mathematics and language arts, despite having numerous students who performed poorly in those subjects. East Hartford High School has 6.9 students per academic computer, in comparison to the statewide average of 3.3. Finally, 29 percent of East Hartford High School’s computers are moderate or high powered, in comparison to the state average of 77 percent.
For example, the fourth grade plaintiff students at the Lincoln, South Street and Roosevelt Schools, in New Britain, Danbury and Bridgeport respectively, tested significantly below the 2004 state averages for “goal” and “proficiency” on the Connecticut Mastery Test for mathematics and reading. The plaintiffs make similar claims with respect to the Plainfield and East Hartford tenth grade students’ scores on the Connecticut Academic Performance Test.
The statewide average rates of completion for algebra I, chemistry and three or more credits in science are 90, 69 and 85 percent respectively. The respective percentages of East Hartford High School graduates who have completed those courses are 56, 42 and 57 percent. The respective percentages of Plainfield High School graduates who have completed those courses are 76, 43 and 74 percent.
For example, although 47 percent of the fourth grade students at Lincoln scored below proficiency in math, and 66 percent scored below proficiency in reading, 99.8 percent of the school’s students were promoted to the next grade level. In contrast, Roosevelt School exhibited a rate of retention more than double that of the state average. Similarly, 16.7 percent of students at the East Hartford and Plainfield High Schools were retained, a rate more than triple that of the statewide average.
General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 10-262f (9) provides in relevant part: “ ‘Foundation’ means . . . (G) for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2000, to June 30, 2007, inclusive, five thousand eight hundred ninety-one dollars.”
We note, however, that No. 07-3, § 61 (9), of the 2007 Public Acts amended § 10-262Í (9) by adding a new subparagraph (H) to increase the foundation amount, and that General Statutes § 10-262f (9) (II) now provides in relevant part: “ ‘Foundation’ means ... for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2008, to June 30,2012, inclusive, nine thousand six hundred eighty-seven dollars.” We take no position as to whether this statutory change suffices to address the problems complained of by the plaintiffs herein.
General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 10-262f (2) provides: “ ‘Base aid ratio’ means one minus the ratio of a town’s wealth to the state guaranteed wealth level, provided no town’s aid ratio shall be less than six one-hundredths.”
We note, however, that No. 07-3, § 61 (2), of the 2007 Public Acts amended § 10-262Í (2), and General Statutes § 10-262Í (2) now provides: “ ‘Base aid ratio’ means one minus the ratio of a town’s wealth to the state guaranteed wealth level, provided no town’s aid ratio shall be less than nine one-hundredths, except for towns which rank from one to twenty when all towns are ranked in descending order from one to one hundred sixty-nine based on the ratio of the number of children below poverty to the number of children age five to seventeen, inclusive, the town’s aid ratio shall not be less than thirteen one-hundredths when based on data used to determine the grants pursuant to section 10-262h for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.” We take no position as to whether this statutory change suffices to address the problems complained of by the plaintiffs herein.
The defendants conceded before the trial court that count three of the plaintiffs’ complaint, which alleges only that the plaintiffs have been denied “substantially equal” educational opportunities, states a viable cause of action under Horton I, supra,
The trial court also rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on remarks at the 1965 constitutional convention proceedings by Simon J. Bernstein, the proponent of article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution as “far too slender a reed” to support their claims, and concluded that, although public policy supported the “notion of a suitable education as a fundamental right,” it was deterred by prudential concerns about judicial intrusion into public education policy set by state and local legislative bodies.
Citing Justice Loiselle’s dissenting opinion in Horton I, supra,
We note that the defendants did not raise the justiciability issue as an alternate ground for affirmance pursuant to Practice Book § 63-4 (a) (1), or file a cross appeal from the trial court’s justiciability ruling pursuant to Practice Book § 61-8. Nevertheless, we consider this issue on its merits because it implicates our subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, may be raised at any time. See, e.g., Office of the Governor v. Select Committee of Inquiry,
We note that the justiciability conclusion in Sheff was unanimous, as the three dissenters, Justices Borden, Callahan and Palmer, who also subsequently rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that their right to a minimally adequate education had been violated, nevertheless found that claim justiciable. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
We further disagree with the argument of the defendants and Justice Zarella in his dissenting opinion that the present case is distinguishable for justiciability purposes from Sheff and Horton I because it is an adequacy of education case, rather than an equality case. Our holding in Sheff with respect to article eighth, § 1, does not refer specifically to the constitution’s equal protection provisions, and relies expressly on the “appropriate legislation” clause from article eighth, § 1, to justify judicial examination of educational statutes. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
In particular, we note our specific disagreement with Justice Zarella’s reliance on the proposition from Simmons v. Budds, supra,
In his dissent, Justice Zarella refers to a report commissioned by the plaintiffs in this case, and relies on it in support of the proposition that, “the inescapable fact... is that the plaintiffs are asking this court to order the legislature to rearrange its spending priorities by increasing the annual appropriation for public elementary and secondary education by nearly 92 percent over the present level of funding in order to satisfy the constitutional mandate of providing Connecticut schoolchildren with a suitable education. ” See Augenblick, Palaich & Associates, Inc., “Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut” (June, 2005) p. v, available at http:// www.schoolfunding.info/states/ct/costingout_ct.php3 (last visited March 9, 2010) (copy contained in the file of this case in Supreme Court clerk’s office). We decline to consider this report prematurely in the context of
Justice Zarella relies on the specter of the decades old New Jersey education litigation in the long lines of cases stemming from Robinson v. Cahill,
We view Justice Zarella’s reliance on the decades old New Jersey education litigation in the lines of cases stemming from Robinson v. Cahill,
Justice Zarella notes that “student achievement is not merely a function of what takes place at school, but is also influenced by economic, social, cultural and other factors, some unknown and perhaps unknowable, beyond the control of the educational system.” Justice Zarella, whose observation has been echoed by, inter alia, President Barack Obama; see footnote 20 of the dissenting opinion; undoubtedly is correct, which counsels against an excessive reliance on outputs such as test scores in assessing whether the state has fulfilled its constitutional obligations. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
As we noted in Sheff, the vast majority of jurisdictions “overwhelmingly” have concluded that claims that their legislatures have not fulfilled their constitutional responsibilities under their еducation clauses are justiciable. Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Indeed, other courts have arrived at the same conclusion in cases decided subsequent to Sheff. See Lobato v. State,
Thus, we continue to follow Sheff and disagree with the defendants’ and the dissent’s reliance on Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles,
“[I]n deciding whether the complaint presents a justiciable claim, we make no determination regarding its merits. We do not consider, for example, whether it would survive a motion to strike on the ground that it does not state a valid cause of action for deprivation of the constitutional rights asserted, or whether it would survive a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the undisputed facts show that no such constitutional deprivations have occurred. We consider only whether the matter in contro
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Zarella notes Ms agreement with “commentators who question [Geisler’s] legitimacy on the ground that ‘it is no more than a checklist from wMch to select [various interpretive] tools’ and that it provides no guidance as to the significance of selecting ‘any particular method in any particular case.’ ” Justice Zarella also considers the Geisler test to be “more harmful than beneficial because, without such guidance,
For additional examples of state constitutional provisions that utilize qualitative language, see Ala. Const., art. XIV, § 256 (“[t]he Legislature shall establish, organize, and maintain a liberal system of public schools throughout the state for the benefit of the children thereof between the ages of seven and twenty-one years”); Ariz. Const., art XI, § 1 (A) (“[t]he legislature shall enact such laws as shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of ageneral and uniform public school system”); Del. Const., art. X, § 1 (“[t]he General Assembly shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and efficient system of free public schools, and may require by law that every child, not physically or mentally disabled, shall attend the public school, unless educated by other means”); Idaho Const., art. IX, § 1 (“[t]he stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools”); HI. Const., art. X, § 1 (“The State shaU provide for an efficient system of high quality public educational institutions and services. Education in public schools through the secondary level shaU be free.”); Ind. Const., art. VUI, § 1 (“[k]nowledge and learning, generaHy diffused throughout a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; it shaH be the duty of the General Assembly to encourage, by all suitable means, moral, inteUectual, scientific, and agricultural improvement; and to provide, by law, for a general and uniform system of Common Schools, wherein tuition shaU be without charge, and equaUy open to aU”); Kan. Const., art. VI, § 6 (b) (“[t]he legislature shaU make suitable provision for finance of the educational interests of the state”); Ky. Const., § 183 (“[t]he General Assembly shaU, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the State”); Md. Const., art. VUI, § 1 (“[t]he General Assembly, at its First Session after the adoption of this Constitution, shaU by Law establish throughout the State a thorough and efficient System of Free Public [s]chools; and shaU provide by taxation, or otherwise, for their maintenance”); Minn. Const., art. XHI, § 1 (“The stabiUty of a repubUcan form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of pubUc schools. The legislature shaU make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as wiU secure a thorough and efficient system of pubUc schools throughout the state.”); Mont. Const., art. X, § 1 (“[1] It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which wiU develop the fuU educational potential of each person. EquaUty of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state. [2] The state recognizes the distinct and unique cultural heritage of the American Indians and is committed in its educational goals to the preservation of their cultural integrity. [3] The legislature shaU provide a basic system of free quaUty pubUc elementary and secondary schools. The legislature may provide such other educational institutions, pubUc Ubraries, and educational programs as it deems desirable. It shaU fund and distribute in an equitable manner
In Moore, we noted that, although both public education and providing for the poor have deep historical roots, and “the framers of the education clause had looked to the historical statutory tradition of free public education in this state to support its explicit inclusion in the state constitution, they did not consider this tradition in and of itself to create a state constitutional obligation. ... To the contrary, they found it appropriate to amend the constitution in order to give public education constitutional status.” (Citation omitted.) Moore v. Ganim, supra,
The dictionary further defines “school” in relevant part as “an organization that provides instruction . . . .” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed. 1998).
The first wave of education litigation nationwide focused largely on inequality claims, with inadequacy claims arising more recently within the last twenty years. See J. Dinan, “The Meaning of State Constitutional Education Clauses: Evidence from the Constitutional Convention Debates,” 70 Alb. L. Rev. 927, 927-28 (2007); W. Koski & R. Reich, “When ‘Adequate’ Isn’t The Retreat from Equity in Educational Law and Policy and Why it Matters,” 56 Emory L. J. 545, 558-60 (2006); C. Lockard, note, “In the Wake of Williams v. State: The Past, Present and Future of Education Finance Litigation in California,” 57 Hastings L.J. 385, 393-95 (2005).
Although this Geisler factor also contemplates reviewing decisions of the Appellate Court, neither the parties’ briefs nor our independent research has identified any relevant opinions from that court.
Although our analysis under this Geisler factor focuses on our more recent case law applying and interpreting article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution, we acknowledge that this court's older case law has documented the historical importance of public education in Connecticut as well, a factor we consider in greater detail in part n C of this opinion. See State ex rel. Huntington v. Huntington School Committee,
The court noted the long history of public education in Connecticut since colonial days, and the existence of the basic public educational system since that time, with “the state recognizing that providing for education is a state duty and function now codified in the constitution, article eighth, § 1, with the obligation of overseeing education on the local level delegated to local school boards which serve as agents of the state. . . . The General Assembly has by word, if not by deed, recognized in the enactment of § 10-4a of the General Statutes . . . that it is the concern of the state that ‘each child shall have . . . equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences.’ Indeed the concept of equality is expressly embodied in the constitutional provision for distribution of the school fund in the provision (article eighth, § 4) that the fund ‘shall be inviolably appropriated to the support and encouragement of the public schools throughout the state, and for the equal benefit of all the people thereof.’ ” (Citations omitted.) Horton I, supra,
Thereafter, in Horton v. Meskill,
Further developing the rule of Horton I, this court adopted a three step analysis for the strict scrutiny of educational finanсing plans, which provided: “First, the plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that disparities in educational expenditures are more than de minimis in that the disparities continue to jeopardize the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to education. If they make that showing, the burden then shifts to the state to justify these disparities as incident to the advancement of a legitimate state policy. If the state’s justification is acceptable, the state must further demonstrate that the continuing disparities are nevertheless not so great as to be unconstitutional. In other words, to satisfy the mandate of Horton I, a school financing plan must, as a whole, further the policy of providing significant equalizing state support to local education.” Id., 38.
Applying this test, the court concluded that, although there were “continued significant disparities in the funds that local communities spend on basic public education,” the legislation nevertheless “was a constitutionally acceptable response to the problem of disparate local educational expenditures” because, “if adequately funded, the GTB program would provide sufficient overall expenditures for public school education, that its five-year phase-in assured an efficient use of educational resources, and that its design would provide equity in the distribution of educational funds and a proper balance between state and local contributions thereto. In addition, the court found that the program retained a salutary role for local choice by guaranteeing minimum funds without imposing a ceiling on what a town might elect to spend for public education.” Id., 39-40.
“The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 1, provides: ‘All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.’
“The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 20, as amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, provides: ‘No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.’ ” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra, 238 Conn. 3-4 n.2.
The court noted that “[s]tate financial aid is distributed so that the neediest school districts receive the most aid. Accordingly, in the 1990-91 and 1991-92 school years, overall per pupil state expenditures in Hartford exceeded the average amount spent per pupil in the twenty-one surrounding suburban towns. The state reimburses Hartford for its school renovation projects at a rate that is considerably higher than the reimbursement rate for the twenty-one surrounding suburban towns.” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
The court emphasized that “[n]othing in the description of the relevant legal landscape in any of our cases suggests that the constitutional right that we articulated in Horton I was limited to school financing,” and that the “addition of [the] term [‘segregation’] to the text of our equal protection clause distinguishes this case from others in which we have found a substantial equivalence between our equal protection clause and that contained in the United States constitution.” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
We stated that, although poverty is not by itself a suspect classification, the trial court’s “extensive findings about the significant role that adverse socioeconomic conditions play in the difficulties encountered by Hartford schoolchildren” did not “undermine the plaintiffs’ claim.” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
We first concluded that the state met its initial burden of proving the legitimacy of the districting statute, which was enacted “not to impose or to foster racial or ethnic isolation, but to improve educational quality for all Connecticut schoolchildren by increasing state involvement in all aspects of public elementary and secondary education,” as well as to “[further] the legitimate nonracial interests of permitting considerable local control and accountability in educational matters.” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
We note that in Campbell v. Board of Education,
Bernstein had noted previously that “[i]t may come as a matter of some surprise to all of us who have grown up in this [s]tate of Connecticut, which considers itself a well educated populace [with] schools dating back to our early history. Our [cjonstitution as it is presently written does not say anything about a provision for public education on any level.” Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 1, p. 311. Bernstein noted further that “the history of education in Connecticut is as early as the day our [c]olonies were founded in 1636 when Hartford was founded, they wasted no time in getting a school master for Hartford. . . . We have a great history and tradition requiring that the public body supply our children with free public education.” Id., p. 312.
Indeed, the delegates at the 1965 constitutional convention enacted article eighth, § 1, with the knowledge that Connecticut was the only state in the United States that did not have an education guarantee in its state constitution. See J. Zaiman, “First Constitutional Guarantee Of Free Education Is Approved,” Hartford Courant, October 20, 1965, pp. 1, 5.
Bernstein’s remarks echo the sentiments of several notable early proponents of public education, including Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann. See T. Jefferson, Notes on Virginia (1782), Query XTV (“[o]f all the views of this law [for public education], none is more important, none more legitimate, than that of rendering the people the safe as they are the ultimate guardians of their own liberty"), “Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government,” available at http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ jeffl370.htm (last visited March 9, 2010); Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams (1813) (“[t]his [bill] on education would [raise] the mass of the people to the high ground of moral respectability necessary to their own safety and to orderly government”), “Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government,” available at http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/ jeffl370.htm (last visited March 9, 2010); see also McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education,
The defendants have cited a law review article that comprehensively has reviewed the histories of the various states’ education clauses, and classifies article eighth, § 1, into a category of clauses that are “hortatory,” and drafted for the “purpose of recognizing or confirming actions already taken by legislatures. ” J. Dinan, “The Meaning of State Constitutional Educаtion Clauses: Evidence from the Constitutional Convention Debates,” 70 Alb. L. Rev. 927, 941 (2007); see id., 943-44. Given Bernstein’s emphasis on putting education “on par with the bill of rights”; Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 3, p. 1039; and Woodhouse’s comments about making Connecticut’s public education system one of the best nationwide; id., p. 1063; we disagree with Professor Dinan’s narrower view of the constitutional history.
By way of background, we note briefly that San Antonio Independent School District was a “class action on behalf of schoolchildren throughout [Texas] who are members of minority groups or who are poor and reside in school districts having a low property tax base,” in which the plaintiffs alleged that the state’s educational funding system violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, supra,
The court also stated that “[t]he ultimate wisdom [about educational problems] is not likely to be divined for all time even by the scholars who now so earnestly debate the issues. In such circumstances, the judiciary is well advised to refrain from imposing on the [s]tates inflexible constitutional restraints that could circumscribe or handicap the continued research and experimentation so vital to finding even partial solutions to educational problems and to keeping abreast of ever-changing conditions.” San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, supra,
Finally, the significance of the cautionary language in San Antonio Independent School District is further mitigated by the Supreme Court’s emphasis that, unlike the present case, that case did not present any educational adequacy claims. Indeed, the majority opinion noted that, “[e]ven if it were conceded that some identifiable quantum of education is a constitutionally protected prerequisite to the meaningful exercise of either
States whose education clauses are similar to Connecticut’s with respect to an absence of qualitative language, but lack published appellate case law addressing any adequacy requirement thereunder, are Alaska, California, Hawaii, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Utah and Vermont. See Alaska Const, art. VH, § 1 (“The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State, and may provide for other public educational institutions. Schools and institutions so established shall be free from sectarian control.”); Cal. Const., art. IX, § 5 (“the Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district at least six months in every year, after the first year in which a school has been established”); Haw. Const., art. X, § 1 (“[t]he State shall provide for the establishment, support and control of a statewide system of public schools free from sectarian control, a state university, public libraries and such other educational institutions as may be deemed desirable, including physical facilities therefor”); Mich. Const., art. VHI, § 2 (“The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. Every school district shall provide for the education of its pupils without discrimination as to religion, creed, race, color or national origin.”); Miss. Const., art. VHI, § 201 (“[t]he Legislature shall, by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of free public schools upon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may prescribe”); Mo. Const., art. IX, § 1 (a) (“[a] general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law”); Utah Const., art X, § 1 (“The Legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of the state’s education systems including: [a] a public education system, which shall be open to all children of the state; and [b] a higher education system. Both systems shall be free from sectarian control.”); Vt. Const., c. H, § 68 (“[l]aws for the encouragement of virtue and prevention of vice and immorality ought to be constantly kept in force, and duly executed; and a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth”). In California, however, a recent equal protection challenge, with adequacy overtones, to the state’s oversight of the public education system, was settled following a one time payout of $1 billion. See C. Lockard, note, “In the Wake of Williams v. State: The Past, Present and Future of Education Finance Litigation in California,” 57 Hastings L.J. 385, 414-15 (2005).
The court stated that the trier of fact would “have to evaluate whether the children in [the] plaintiffs’ districts are infactbeingprovidedthe opportunity to acquire the basic literacy, calculating and verbal skills necessary to enable them to function as civic participants capable of voting and serving as jurors”; Campaign I, supra,
After the proceedings on remand, although the state Senate had agreed with the recommendation of a commission appointed by New York’s governor that a $1.93 billion appropriation was needed to cover the shortfall and
The court previously had concluded that the legislature was required to fund an “adequate education,” but initially did not further “define the parameters of the education mandated by the constitution as that task is, in the first instance, for the legislature and the [g]ovemor.” Claremont School District v. Governor,
In Rose, the Kentucky Supreme Court had concluded that the state’s education financing system violated its constitution; Ky. Const., § 183; which provides that, “[t]he General Assembly shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the [s]tate.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., supra,
An appeal is pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court in Abbe-ville County School District after an extensive trial on remand at which the trial court concluded that “the money allotted to the plaintiff districts, the system of teacher licensure, the state of the facilities, and most other inputs were sufficient. However, the trial court concluded the funding ol' early childhood intervention programs did not satisfy the constitutional requirement to provide a minimally adequate education. The trial court found that the state has a duty to ameliorate the inequality between underprivileged and more privileged children by establishing an educational system that overcomes the effects of poverty for children in prekindergarten and kindergarten programs.” B. DuRant, comment, “Education Law: The Political Question Doctrine: A Doctrine for Long-Term Change in Our Public Schools,” 59 S.C. L. Rev. 531, 535 (2008).
As previously noted in greater detail in footnote 24 of this opinion, courts in several states have concluded instead that disputes over educational adequacy present noiqusticiable political questions. See Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles,
We have discussed in detail only those cases from states whose education clauses are worded and structured closely to article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut. The vast majority of the other states have reached the same conclusion, namely, that students are entitled to a sound basic, or minimally adequate, education in the public schools, on the basis of differently worded education clauses, which make them strongly indicative of a national trend and informative with respect to the articulation of a specific legal standard; see part III of this opinion; although not necessarily as valuable with respect to the baseline question of interpretation, namely, whether article eighth, § 1, embodies minimum qualitative standards at all. See Opinion of the Justices No. 338,
We note that the plaintiffs also have raised a procedural claim, namely, that the trial court improperly evaluated the legal sufficiency of their constitutional claim without first giving them the opportunity to develop a factual record, particularly with regard to the economic and sociological considerations of the sixth Geisler factor. In response, the defendants contend that the trial court properly applied Geisler in the context of a motion to strike, as state constitutional claims present pure questions of law that do not require factual findings by the trial court. We agree with the defendants. We frequently have considered constitutional claims in the context of motions to strike; see, e.g., Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health,
The statistics cited by the defendants in support of the proposition that Connecticut’s public schools already educate their students effectively do not support their position that article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut does not entitle students to an adequate education. These statistics, and those offered by the plaintiffs to prove the opposite proposition, likely will have their place in determining at trial whether a constitutional violation requiring remedial action actually exists as a question of fact, but do not support the baseline argument that article eighth, § 1, lacks a substantive adequacy component.
The defendants contend that the plaintiffs have shifted gears inappropriately by arguing on appeal the right to a “minimally adequate” education, although their pleadings and memoranda before the trial court focused on the right to a “suitable” education. See, e.g., Reardon v. Windswept Farm, LLC,
“a. All students must receive an educational experience that prepares them to function as responsible citizens and enables them to fully participate in democratic institutions;
“b. All students must receive an opportunity to complete a meaningful high school education that enables them to advance through institutions of higher learning, or that enables them to compete on equal footing to find productive employment and contribute to the state’s economy;
“c. All students must receive a suitable opportunity to meet standards which the state has set based on its estimation of what students must learn in order to achieve the goals of [General Statutes] § 46a-42b.”
In our view, the defendants’ argument on this point boils down to rather insignificant semantics, as we view the terms “suitable” and “minimally adequate” as synonymous in this context. Cf. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th Ed. 2001) (defining “suitable” as “proper,” “able, qualified” and “adapted to a use or purpose”). Indeed, the plaintiffs’ explication of a “suitable” education in paragraph forty-six of their amended complaint accords with other jurisdictions’ explication of what constitutes a “minimally adequate” education under their state constitutions. See, e.g., Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc., supra,
In his dissent, Justice Zarella reviews the education statutory scheme, General Statutes § 10-1 et seq., under which local school boards are agents of the state that are responsible for implementing the principle of a free public education in accordance with General Statutes § 10-218 et seq.; see, e.g., West Hartford Education Assn. v. DeCourcy,
We emphasize that our conclusion herein is not intended to supplant local control over education, nor, as the defendants argue, deprive “parents [of] a true say in their children’s education.” We are cognizant of the risks and separation of powers concerns attendant to intensive judicial involvement in educational policy making; see footnote 22 of this opinion; and emphasize that our role in explaining article eighth, § 1, is to articulate the broad parameters of that constitutional right, and to leave their implementation to the expertise of those who work in the political branches of state and local government, informed by the wishes of their constituents. So long as those authorities prescribe and implement a program of instruction rationally calculated to enforce the constitutional right to a minimally adequate education as set forth herein, then the judiciary should stay its hand. Cf. Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, supra,
We note that Justice Schaller writes a separate concurring opinion to “express prudential concerns regarding the next stage of this litigation and to offer suggestions in the form of a preliminary template based on what [he] anticipate^] may arise at trial.” (Emphasis in original.) Specifically, Justice Schaller explores several methodologies for assessing adequacy, as well as concerns about how to assess the adequacy of education in light of other social factors such as poverty, and also considers potential remedies should a violation be found after remand. Although Justice Schaller’s observations are thoughtful and weE considered, we emphasize that, beyond the poEtical question issues discussed in part I of this opinion, we take no position on the appEcable assessment mechanisms or potential remedies, which present questions beyond those appropriately considered in the narrow procedural posture of a motion to strike.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring in the judgment. I agree with the plaintiffs
I
JUSTICIABILITY
The state contends that the plaintiffs’ claims under article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution give rise to a nonjusticiable political question. Although I agree with the plurality’s determination that the plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims are justiciable, I disagree with the plurality’s assertion that Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Before considering these two points, I turn first to this court’s relatively brief discussion of justiciability in Sheff, in which we first explained that the defendants in that case had asserted that the plaintiffs’ claims were nonjusticiable because “the relief [that the plaintiffs sought] would . . . require this court to respond to a
We then noted: “The defendants [in Sheff] do not challenge the continued validity of Horton I and Horton III . . . but argue that their claim of nonjusticiability differs. That argument is unavailing. The plaintiff schoolchildren . . . invoke the same constitutional provisions to challenge the constitutionality of state action that the plaintiff schoolchildren invoked in Horton I and Horton III. The text of article eighth, § 1, has not changed.” Id., 14-15. The court in Sheff concluded that, “[i]n light of these precedents . . . the phrase ‘appropriate legislation’ in article eighth, § 1, does not
Thus, our justiciability determination in Sheff was predicated entirely on Horton I and Horton III, and two subsequent cases, Nielsen v. State, supra, 236 Conn. I, and Pellegrino v. O’Neill, supra,
I also disagree with the plurality’s reliance on our justiciability determination in Sheff for a second reason, namely, because Sheff and the present case involve different rights under the state constitution that implicate materially different jurisprudential considerations. In Sheff the plaintiffs alleged that they had been deprived of their right to an equal educational opportunity under article eighth, § 1, and article first, §§ 1 and 20; see Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
I nevertheless agree with the plaintiffs that their claims under article eighth, § 1, are justiciable. First, I am not persuaded that the language of article eighth, § 1, so clearly removes the issue of its implementation from judicial review as to preclude the judiciary from exercising the authority that it otherwise possesses to consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Although the “appropriate legislation” language of article eighth, § 1, affords the legislature considerable latitude in determining how best to meet the constitutional mandate of free public elementary and secondary school education; see part II of this opinion; there is nothing in the wording or history of that provision to indicate that its drafters intended to shield its implementation by the legislature from any and all measure of judicial
II
THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD
By its terms, article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution is not merely precatoiy or hortatory. On the contrary, it imposes an affirmative, mandatory obligation on the legislature to enact legislation appropriate to the task of maintaining a system of free public elementary and secondary schools. The issue, therefore, is whether article eighth, § 1, obligates the state to ensure that those free public schools provide to the students attending them an educational opportunity of a certain level or quality. I believe that it does.
For several reasons, I am unable to conclude that article eighth, § 1, is satisfied as long as the state maintains a system of public elementary and secondary schools no matter how fundamentally inadequate some or all of those schools may be. It is apparent that Simon Bernstein, one of the delegates at the state constitutional convention of 1965, and other delegates who supported the idea of constitutionalizing the right to free public schools were proud of Connecticut’s long-standing commitment to the education of its schoolchildren, and they urged their colleagues to support the proposed right as an expression of the state’s continued recognition of that responsibility. See Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 1, p. 312, remarks of Bernstein (“[w]e have a great history and tradition requiring that the public body supply our chil
Finally, I agree with Justice Schaller that our determination in Horton I concerning the right to an equal educational opportunity informs our determination of whether that right also includes a qualitative component. As Justice Schaller explains in his concurring opinion: “To be sure, the court concluded in Horton I only that the plaintiffs [in that case] were entitled to receive an education that was substantially equal in quality to the education that was provided to other children, not that they were guaranteed an education meeting a minimum qualitative standard. ... It is not possible to infer generally from a requirement of equality a requirement of adequacy. On the other hand, the idea that it is the quality of education to which Connecticut children have an equal right, rather than merely equality in education financing, supports the general proposition that the interest that children have in the fundamental right to education guaranteed by [article eighth, § 1] is inextricably linked to the quality of the education provided. Put another way, our conclusion in Horton I that the plaintiffs [in that case] had a right to substantially equal educational funding is based on the right to an education of substantially equal quality. The notion that children have a right to an education of substantially equal quality presupposes that ‘quality’ is an essential component of [article eighth, § 1]. We
Having determined that article eighth, § 1, contains a qualitative component, the following question remains: What is the nature and scope of the right guaranteed under that provision? For the reasons that follow, I conclude, first, that the right established under article eighth, § 1, requires only that the legislature establish and maintain a minimally adequate system of free public schools. I also conclude that the legislature is entitled to considerable deference with respect to both its conception of the scope of the right and its implementation of the right.
A number of considerations support the conclusion that the right under article eighth, § 1, places no greater an obligation on the legislature than to provide a minimally adequate educational opportunity to this state’s public elementary and secondary school students. First, article eighth, § 1, contains no language that mandates any particular standard or otherwise purports to delineate expressly the parameters of the right to a minimally adequate education. At first blush, the framer’s omission of such language might appear to be neutral with respect to the issue of the scope of the right created under article eighth, § 1. As the plurality has observed, however, the analogous provisions of a majority of state constitutions require the legislatures in those states to establish and maintain schools of a certain caliber, level or quality. See, e.g., Ark. Const., art. 14, § 1 (state must maintain “a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools”); Colo. Const., art. IX, § 2 (legislature directed to provide for “a thorough and uniform system of free public schools”); Fla. Const., art. IX, § 1 (a) (state
The history of article eighth, § 1, also indicates that the framers themselves did not believe that they were establishing a broad, new right. For example, the main sponsor of the proposed provision, Bernstein, urged its adoption because the other states already had seen fit to include similar provisions in their state constitutions. See Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention, supra, Pt. 3, p. 1039, remarks of Bernstein. Indeed, Bernstein expressly stated that the principle embodied in his proposal was “not anything revolutionary.” Id.; see also id., p. 1040, remarks of Albert E. Waugh (explaining that because Connecticut was only state not to have constitutional provision establishing right to free public education, adoption of proposed amendment was “natural and proper thing to do”). Thus, the intent and purpose of the framers, as reflected in the proceedings of the 1965 constitutional convention, coupled with the language of article eighth, § 1, strongly suggest that a particularly demanding qualitative requirement was not a matter of paramount importance. These considerations, taken together, nevertheless support the conclusion that article eighth, § 1, contemplates free public elementary and secondary schools that, at the least, are minimally adequate.
I also believe that the proper scope of article eighth, § 1, cannot be determined without due regard for the
The first such consideration is what this court has recognized as the legislature’s significant discretion in matters of public elementary and secondary school education. Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Special deference is warranted in the present case due to the fact that the framers reserved to the legislature the responsibility of implementing the mandate of a free public education under article eighth, § 1, by “appropriate legislation.” The ordinary meaning of these words vests the legislature with significant discretion. Indeed, because the framers provided no express guidance as to the nature or scope of the “appropriate” legislation required under article eighth, § 1, it is appar
Another compelling reason for judicial restraint in matters relating to educational policy is the potential that exists for a costly and intrusive remedy if it is determined that the state’s system of public education has failed to meet the constitutional standard of quality. The recent experience of our neighbors in Massachusetts and New York is instructive. In both of those states, trial courts found that certain schools were constitutionally deficient and imposed remedies that ultimately were upheld on appeal, costing billions of dollars. See Hancock v. Commissioner of Education,
These examples and similar cases from other jurisdictions reflect what one commentary recently has characterized as a distinct trend in education adequacy litigation away from judicial intervention and toward deference to the legislature. J. Simon-Kerr & R. Sturm, “Justiciability and the Role of Courts in Adequacy Litigation: Preserving the Constitutional Right to Education,” 6 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 83 (2010) (discussing cases). Although I agree with the plaintiffs that the prospect of an expensive remedy, or one that is likely to inject the court into matters of education policy, or both, should not preclude an adjudication of the merits of their education adequacy claims, the significant separation of powers issues that any such remedy invariably would spawn must be given due consideration in determining the scope of the right established under article eighth, § l.
With respect to the plaintiffs’ funding claim, it is noteworthy that a reрort commissioned by the named plaintiff, Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., contains an estimate indicating that, during the 2003-2004 school year, the state would have had to spend an additional $2.02 billion on elementary and secondary public school education to meet the constitutional standard advocated by the plaintiffs. See Augenblick, Palaich & Associates, Inc., Estimating the Cost of an Adequate Education in Connecticut (June, 2005) p. v, available at http://www.schoolfunding.info/ states/ct/CT-adequacystudy.pdf (last visited March 9, 2010). This “additional” annual amount is approximately 92 percent more than the amount that the state actually spent that year, i.e., approximately $2.2 billion, on those schools. See Office of Fiscal Analysis, Connecticut General Assembly, Connecticut State Budget 2003-2005, p. 13. For present purposes, it is not important whether the $2.02 billion figure is, in fact, accurate; what is important is that, under the plaintiffs’ conception of the nature and scope of the right established under article eighth, § 1, the state would be required to spend, at a minimum, many hundreds of millions of additional dollars on the state's public elementary and secondary schools. I fully appreciate, of course, that, at this preliminary stage of the litigation, it would be unfair to use the report or its $2.02 billion estimate for anything other than a very rough indicator of the magnitude of the problem from the plaintiffs’ perspective. The potential cost of the remedy as estimated in the report, however, is sufficiently great that it cannot be ignored for purposes of determining the scope and parameters of article eighth, § 1.
In accordance with the foregoing principles and considerations, I agree generally that the following “essentials,” as explicated by the New York Court of Appeals, are necessary to satisfy the requirement of a minimally adequate education for purposes of article eighth, § 1. “Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn.
Although these basic, minimum requirements appear to be relatively straightforward, what level of resources or specific measures are necessary to satisfy them in practice is by no means self-evident. Undoubtedly, reasonable people with expertise in the field of education can and will disagree on whether one or more of these requirements has, in fact, been met with regard to a particular school or schools and, if the requirement has not been met, what more is necessary to satisfy it. In my view, the deference owed to the political branches in matters of education policy dictates that, unless the plaintiffs can demonstrate that the actions that the state has taken to satisfy the particular requirement in dispute cannot reasonably be defended as minimally adequate, the court must defer to the judgment of the political branches in the matter. Thus, if the state and the plaintiffs disagree as to whether the legislature has met its obligation under article eighth, § 1, with respect to any of the core or essential components of a minimally adequate education, to prevail on their claim of a constitutional violation, the plaintiffs must establish that the action that the legislature has taken to comply with article eighth, § 1, reasonably cannot be considered sufficient by any fair measure. Put differently, the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief unless they can dem
Ill
CONCLUSION
“Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate [the court’s] recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities .... It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education.” Brown v. Board of Education,
In light of our citizenry’s “abiding respect for the vital role of education in a free society”; San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, supra,
The plaintiffs are the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., and certain рarents and grandparents of students enrolled in various public schools throughout the state. See footnote 3 of the plurality opinion and accompanying text.
Article eighth, § 1,- of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.”
The defendants in this case are M. Jodi Rell, the governor of Connecticut, Denise Lynn Nappier, the state treasurer, Nancy S. Wyman, the state comptroller, Mark K. McQuillan, successor to Betty J. Sternberg, the former state commissioner of education, and various former and current members of the state board of education. See footnote 5 of the plurality opinion for a list of the particular defendants in this case. In the interest of simplicity, I refer to the defendants collectively as the state throughout this opinion.
I perceive no difference between an educational opportunity that is minimally adequate and an educational opportunity that the plurality characterizes as “soundly basic.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) I use the former terminology, however, because it mirrors the language used in the explication of the standard that I believe is most useful for purposes of explaining the essential requirements of article eighth, § 1. See part II of this opinion.
Article first, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “All men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.”
Article first, § 20, of the constitution of Connecticut provides: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry or national origin.”
Article first, § 20, has been amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, which added sex and disability, respectively, to the list of protected classes.
We stated in Sheff. “The defendants in Horton I originally asserted defenses based on justiciability, sovereign immunity and standing. The trial court ruled against the defendants on the issues of justiciability and standing . . . but did not address the issue of sovereign immunity. Horton v. Meskill,
Moreover, as I have noted; see footnote 7 of this opinion; the trial court in Horton I rejected the defendants’ justiciability claim in that case solely because “the interests of the opposing parties [were undisputedly] adverse”; Horton v. Meskill, Superior Court, Hartford County, Docket No. 185283 (January 21, 1974); a reason that is wholly inadequate in light of the significant jurisprudential considerations militating both for and against justiciability of claims raised under article first, §§ 1 and 20, and article eighth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution.
“It is well settled that certain political questions cannot be resolved by judicial authority without violating the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Baker v. Carr,
I do wish to note, however, my disagreement with the plurality’s assertion that “it is premature to consider the implications of specific remedies” for purposes of determining whether the present case is justiciable. Footnote 22 of the plurality opinion. In my view, it is not premature to consider those implications because, for the reasons set forth more fully in part II of this opinion, they are real and, therefore, bear on the issue of whether this court is capable of identifying and imposing an appropriate remedy if and when the plaintiffs prove a constitutional violation. I also disagree with the plurality’s assertion that “at least one of the plaintiffs’ desired remedies supports the justiciability of their claims,” namely, the plaintiffs’ request for an order requiring the state “to create and maintain a public education system that will provide suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities [for the] plaintiffs.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The plurality’s assertion is predicated on the notion that a case is likely to be justiciable if at least one of the possible remedies for a violation is to afford the legislature the opportunity to fix the problem. This principle, which this court first identified
“School” is defined as “an organized source of education or training: as ... an institution for the teaching of children ... a place where instruction is given . . . .” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary.
I therefore disagree with the plurality’s assertion that, “although [p]rudential and functional considerations are relevant to the classical enterprise of constitutional interpretation . . . these concerns, which . . . involve the potential for judicial overmanagement of the state’s education system and interference with the prerogatives of the political branches of government, are in our view better addressed in consideration of potential remedies
The plaintiffs have alleged that the current system of public school funding in this state is “flawed” as well as “arbitrary and inadequate . . . .”
In the present case, the plaintiffs’ anticipation of extended involvement by the court is reflected in their request for the appointment of a special master to conduct hearings and make recommendations to the court concerning the propriety of “any new system of education proposed by [the state].”
It goes without saying that a safe and secure environment also is an essential element of a constitutionally adequate education.
These instrumentalities of learning also may include modem technologies, such as computers, that are essential to a minimally adequate education. I express no view, however, as to whether such technologies, and if so, which ones, may be necessary to a minimally adequate education.
To the extent that the plurality also relies on this explication of the qualitative right afforded under article eighth, § 1,1, of course, agree with the plurality. I do not necessarily agree, however, with other statements of the plurality concerning that qualitative standard. For example, the plurality states that its “explication of a constitutionally adequate education under article eighth, § 1, is crafted in broad terms. This breadth reflects, first and foremost, our recognition of the political branches’ constitutional responsibilities, and indeed, greater expertise, with respect to the implementation of specific educational policies pursuantto [article eighth, § 1].” The plurality further states that, as with “any other principle of constitutional law, this broad standard likely will be refined and developed further as it is applied to the facts eventually to be found at trial in this case.” Although I agree with the plurality’s comment concerning the relative expertise of the legislative and judicial branches in matters of public education, I disagree with the plurality that it is appropriate to craft the constitutional standard “in broad terms.” In my view, the broader the standard, the more vague it is
In contrast to the traditional standard advanced by the plurality, the foregoing approach, which properly considers the significant discretion to which the legislative branch is entitled in matters of public elementary and secondary education; see Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Indeed, it is one thing for a court to determine whether the legislature has acted rationally in fulfilling its obligation under article eighth, § 1, and something entirely different for a court to decide which of two positions concerning the specific parameters of a minimally adequate education in practice — the position advocated by the plaintiffs or the one advocated by the state — is the better position. As I have explained, the latter methodology unduly involves the judiciary in matters of educational policy that are primarily reserved to the political branches, and for which the judiciary is both ill suited and ill equipped.
Consequently, I agree with the observation that “ [performance or achievement of the student population, taken generally, cannot ... be the principle [on] which [a constitutionally required minimally adequate education] is based. There is nothing in either the language or the history of article eighth, § 1, to support such a standard. . . .
“[Rather, the] obligation to provide a minimally adequate education must be based generally, not on what level of achievement students reach, but on what the state reasonably attempts to make available to them, taking into account any special needs of a particular local school system.” Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
I acknowledge that portions of the plaintiffs’ complaint reasonably may be read as asserting a right to a quality of education under article eighth, § 1, that exceeds the parameters of the right as I conceive it. The plaintiffs have asserted extensive factual allegations, however, and their claims are cast in broad terms. The plaintiffs assert, for example, that, in some of their schools, the state is failing to provide a healthy and safe learning environment and adequate and appropriate textbooks, libraries and technology. They further allege significant disparities in “[education] input statistics” between the plaintiffs’ schools and the state school average in categories such as library materials per pupil, class size, and language and computer instruction. The plaintiffs also maintain that (1) “many [students] attend schools that do not have the resources necessary to educate their high concentration of poorly performing students,” (2) the state has failed “to provide the resources necessary to intervene effectively on behalf of at-risk students,” that is, students “who, because of [a] wide range of financial, familial, and social circumstances, [are] at greater risk of failing or experiencing other unwanted outcomes unless intervеntion occurs,” and (3) the state’s education funding system is “arbitrary and inadequate,” and not related to the actual costs of providing an education that meets constitutional standards. As a consequence, the plaintiffs contend, “Connecticut has an educational underclass” that is “being educated in a system [that] sets them up for economic, social, and intellectual failure.” Because this court is bound to construe the plaintiffs’ complaint “in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency”; Bemhard-Thomas Building Systems, LLC v. Dunican,
Concurrence Opinion
concurring. I agree with the plurality opinion’s conclusion that the education clause, article eighth, § 1, of the constitution of Connecticut
It has long been established, based on the express language of our constitution, that the education clause guarantees to citizens of this state an affirmative right to a free public education. See, e.g., Moore v. Ganim,
I
In construing the contours of our state constitution, the plurality employs the analysis established in State v. Geisler,
I undertake to examine the factors as helpful tools to inform and guide the constitutional analysis. One of the most basic ways to ensure that the factors function as sources of information and guidelines is to allow the question to shape the discussion, rather than routinely going through the list of factors. In other words, the Geisler analysis must adapt itself to each particular inquiry. Some factors that are extremely relevant and persuasive in one inquiry may yield little or no persuasive information in another inquiry. The structure, therefore, of any Geisler inquiry must derive from the subject matter. I begin, therefore, with the most basic guideline provided by Geisler, and apply the factors only to the extent that each applies. In the present case, I agree with the plurality that this basic approach will mean that relatively little weight should be accorded to federal precedent. Accordingly, I will first consider more pertinent factors, and will look to federal precedent briefly, for only the most general guidance. Similarly, although I find that sibling state precedent, two cases, in particular, provides some guidance, the use
In any case, our starting point, as always, should be with the applicable constitutional text. The education clause provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.” Conn. Const., art. VIII, § 1. Nothing in the express language of the education clause requires that our public schools are required to deliver an education that meets any specific qualitative standard. I rely on two fundamental concepts, however, to conclude that the mere absence of express qualitative language does not preclude us from interpreting the constitutional text to require that public schools provide a minimally adequate level of education. The first is the use of common sense and logic in understanding the ordinary meaning of the constitutional language. The second is the recognition that a Geisler analysis would be unnecessary in the presence of an express guarantee. The test, after all, was designed to provide us with guidelines for inferring the meaning of a text in the absence of an
As to the first concept, the education clause requires that there shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. It would defy common sense to conclude that the General Assembly could possibly satisfy its obligation by providing for bad — or unsuitable, inadequate, or unsound — public schools. That is precisely what we would have to assume if we were to suppose that the General Assembly could satisfy its obligation to provide such schools without any qualitative requirements. That interpretation, I submit, is unthinkable. As Justice Loiselle famously observed in his dissent in Horton I, “when the constitution says free education it must be interpreted in a reasonable way. A town may not herd children in an open field to hear lectures by illiterates.” Horton I, supra,
I agree with the plurality that it is significant, albeit not dispositive, that article eighth, § 2, of the state constitution, in contrast to § 1 of article eighth, the education clause, does contain express qualitative language, providing: “The state shall maintain a system of higher education, including The University of Connecticut, which shall be dedicated to excellence in higher education. The general assembly shall determine the size, number, terms and method of appointment of the governing boards of The University of Connecticut and of such constituent units or coordinating bodies in the system as from time to time may be established.” (Emphasis added.) Conn. Const., art. VIII, § 2. The education clause, of course, does not contain similar qualitative language. This difference, however, is not inconsistent with the plurality’s interpretation of the education clause to guarantee an adequate education to primary and secondary public school students. As I have discussed in this concurring opinion, the idea of a minimum qualitative standard is implicit in the defini
I believe that the most persuasive evidence in support of identifying a qualitative element in the education clause derives from the holdings and dicta of this court, to which I now turn. I agree generally with the plurality’s analysis of our previous holdings and dicta, and the bearing that those precedents have on the issue before the court. I offer a few highlights. As the plurality opinion notes, even prior to the addition of the education clause to our constitution following the 1965 constitutional convention, our case law has long recognized the state’s commitment to public education. See, e.g., State ex rel. Huntington v. Huntington School Committee,
Another landmark case, Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Justice Berdon’s concurring opinion in Sheff goes even further, reasoning that, from the elevation of education to a fundamental right through the passage of the education clause, “it logically follows that the education guaranteed in the state constitution must be, at the very least, within the context of its contemporary meaning, an adequate education.” (Emphasis added.) Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
The first four Geisler factors — that is, the text and our case precedent, which I have discussed, plus the historical background of article eighth and the economic and sociological considerations, both of which are effectively set forth by the plurality opinion — taken together, appear to me to bе highly persuasive on the issue. They convince me that the only reasonable interpretation of our education clause is that it implicitly includes a qualitative standard. The remaining two factors, sibling state decisions and federal precedent, although of significantly less relevance and persuasive value, provide further support for that conclusion. I turn first to the decisions of our sibling states.
There is some persuasive force in the fact that most state courts that have addressed the substantive issue have concluded that their state constitution guarantees a minimally adequate level of education.
The Supreme Court of North Carolina, in Leandro v. State,
As I noted previously in this concurring opinion, I consider the factor of federal precedent last because it has the least relevance in this particular context, in which the language of our state constitution differs from the federal constitutional language. I observe merely that, although education is not a fundamental
Finally, the General Assembly already has acknowledged statutorily the very same standard that we today hold is mandated constitutionally. Specifically, in General Statutes § 10-4a (1), the legislature identifies the educational interests of the state to include “the concern of the state that . . . each child shall have for the period prescribed in the general statutes equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, the duty that we now hold to be constitutionally required is one that the legislature already has recognized and undertaken of its own volition.
n
Having concluded that our education clause implicitly includes a qualitative element, I next turn to the question of how we should define the contours of the right sufficiently to guide the trial court in determining the issues in the present action without intruding on the authority of the other branches of government, that is, within the scope of the justiciable issue in this case. The plurality opinion settles on the formula proposed by the plaintiffs, concluding that the education clause “guarantees Connecticut’s public school students educational standards and resources suitable to participate in democratic institutions, and to prepare them to attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state’s economy, or to progress on to higher education. ” I suggest that it is important to explain more thoroughly the reasons for so defining the constitutional right. Otherwise, we run the risk of sacrificing the primary benefits of a Geisler analysis — enabling a principled development of our constitutional law and, by so doing, establishing and supporting the constitutional right with the authority of the court. Our sound reasoning comprises a crucial step in making a constitutional pronouncement with such far-reaching consequences. Regardless of the outcome of this litigation, this constitutional determination will continue to guide the legislative branch in carrying out its constitutional duty in
We must, accordingly, do more than merely conclude that our state constitution guarantees the right to an adequate education. That conclusion alone does not provide sufficient guidance to enable the trial court to determine whether the constitutional guarantee is being fulfilled or violated. It is essential to explain how we arrive at the stated goals that fully define the contours of the educational guarantee. Linguistic considerations alone support the conclusion that our task is not completed by stating that the education clause guarantees the right to an adequate education. That determination merely gives rise to the inevitable question as to adequacy “for what purposes?” Two general principles guide my inquiry as to the contours of the right. First, the question “for what purposes” suggests that the direction of the inquiry should be goal directed; that is, the inquiry seeks to determine the goals to be served by the adequate education. Second, in answering the question, it is necessary to examine why education has been elevated to the status of a fundamental right protected by our state constitution. In other words, only by understanding what we as a society so value in education, may we discern “for what purposes” such an education should be adequate. Accordingly, I examine in turn each of the purposes proposed by the plurality — in short, to prepare students to participate in democratic institutions and to become productive members of our society — to determine whether there is a sufficient basis in our law to conclude that each is an essential component of an adequate education.
More recent legislation also supports the conclusion that a principal purpose of education is to prepare children to participate effectively in our democracy. For example, General Statutes § 10-18 (a) (1) requires schools to provide courses in history, government and citizenship: “All . . . schools . . . shall provide a program of United States history, including instruction in United States government at the local, state and national levels, and in the duties, responsibilities, and rights of United States citizenship. No student shall be graduated from any such school who has not been found to be familiar with said subjects.” In 2007 and 2008, that statute was amended by the enactment of No. 07-138 of the 2007 Public Acts and No. 08-153 of the 2008 Public Acts, to add a new subdivision requiring that “elementary schools shall include in their third, fourth or fifth grade curriculum a program on democracy in which students engage in a participatory manner in learning about all branches of government.” General Statutes § 10-18 (a) (2). In 2000, the legislature enacted
This court also has acknowledged, repeatedly, that a principal purpose of education is to prepare students to participate as citizens in our democracy. In his concurring opinion in Horton I, Justice Bogdanski eloquently described the function of education in our society: “[T]he right of our children to an education is a matter of right not only because our state constitution
We explained further in Sheff, in which the function of education in preparing students to participate as citizens in our society was central to our holding, that “[i]t is crucial for a democratic society to provide all of its schoolchildren with fair access to an unsegregated education. As the United States Supreme Court has eloquently observed, a sound education ‘is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.’ Brown v. Board
Marian Wright Edelman, the president and founder of the Children’s Defense Fund, and a leading scholar in the area of educational theory, has stated that “education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it”
This court also has acknowledged the vital role that education plays in enabling citizens of this state to compete in the economic marketplace: “[Education provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all. In sum, education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our [n]ation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sheff v. O’Neil, supra,
I conclude that these authorities sufficiently support the plaintiffs’ contention that the education guaranteed by the education clause, article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution, must be adequate to prepare students to participate and engage in the processes of our democracy and to become productive members of our society.
Ill
I write also to express prudential concerns regarding the next stage of this litigation and to offer suggestions in the form of a preliminary template based on what I anticipate may arise at trial. During the next stage, which is likely to consist of pleading, discovery, trial and decision making in the Superior Court, I can envision several issues, among many, that are likely to prove especially challenging. These issues will have to be addressed by the trial court and the parties as they litigate, in a sense as proxies for the people of the state,
The New York Court of Appeals, in a decision that was rendered at a stage of litigation similar to the posture of the present case, succinctly articulated the task of the trial court in determining the appropriate measure of adequacy and whether it is being met. The court first determined, with somewhat more specificity than we do today, that the education article of the New York constitution “requires the [s]tate to offer all children the opportunity of a sound basic education. . . . Such an education should consist of the basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills necessary to enable children to eventually function productively as civic participants capable of voting and serving on a jury.” (Citation omitted.) Campaign I, supra,
In order to make that evaluation, the court first will have to determine the appropriate method for measuring adequacy. Measuring educational adequacy traditionally is accomplished by identifying input and/or output standards that serve as a measure of adequacy, then calculating the actual cost of attaining those inputs and/or outputs, a process referred to as “costing out.” S. Smith, “Education Adequacy Litigation: History, Trends, and Research,” 27 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 107, 114 (2004). “There are four methodologies to identify adequate education funding: (1) the professional judgment model; (2) the evidence based or ‘best practices’ model; (3) the successful schools model; and (4) the advanced statistical model.” Id., 115. “[T]he professional judgment and evidence based/best practices models can be viewed as input models in which expert educators and researchers identify inputs that are required to produce an adequate education system. These inputs are then costed out to arrive at an adequate funding level. The successful schools and advanced statistical models can be viewed as outcome models in which an analysis compares schools and/or school districts with varying demographics and student performance to their corresponding funding levels in order to identify adequate funding levels.” Id. Basically these methods combine to allow the trier of fact to consider the state’s general and per pupil expenditures along with the level of performance of children of the state on standardized tests, matriculation rates, and other measures of performance. An alternative means of measuring adequacy is to rely on statistical modeling stud
The North Carolina Supreme Court endorsed this general approach in Leandro v. State, supra,
In my view, it is not sufficient for the state merely to offer an opportunity for education without regard to the circumstances of the children to whom it is offered. In other words, because an opportunity exists only when it takes into account the conditions — social, economic, and other — that realistically limit the opportunity, the educational offering must be tailored to meet the adequacy standard in the context of the social and economic conditions of the children to whom it is offered. Although no one could reasonably argue that the state is constitutionally bound to be a guarantor of educational, civic, or economic success, the state is bound to provide an education that is adequate given the circumstances of the children to whom it must be provided. Depending on the circumstances, an offering that would suffice in one district of the state may not suffice in another.
By way of illustration, some commentators argue that the most serious social disadvantage preventing a child from being able to learn is, of course, poverty. Relying on data obtained from the United States Census Bureau, the General Assembly’s Commission on Children reported in 2009 that one in ten Connecticut children under the age of eighteen in 2007 lived in a family with income below the federal poverty line — nearly 86,000 children. State of Connecticut General Assembly, Commission on Children, Fact Sheet on Child Poverty in Connecticut, 2009, available at http://www.cga.ct.gov/ coc/PDFs/poverty/child poverty report 0109.pdf (last visited March 9, 2010). Not surprisingly, those children were not evenly distributed throughout the state’s 169 towns. The 2000 census revealed that, in thirty-eight towns, the child poverty rate was less than 2 percent,
As challenging as these issues are, the trial court and, likely, this court, may have to face the issue of remedies, depending on the outcome of the adequacy phase of the trial. In that event, it may well be that the appropriate option available to the courts, to avoid a conflict concerning the separation of powers, would be the
The standard of educational adequacy that is required by our constitution must be met with respect to all children in our state, including those who face serious obstacles to benefiting from it as well as those who are readily equipped to benefit. The public educational system does not operate in abstraction but, rather, in the full social and economic context of our diverse society. The children who have the greatest need for an adequate education are those who face the greatest obstacles to obtaining that education. For many of our children, public education is, perhaps ironically, the principal means by which they can surmount the obstacles that must be overcome, in the first place, in order to benefit from the education. While the state is not bound under the constitution to be a guarantor of educational, social or economic success in the long run, the state is bound to provide a public education that is well suited to enable all children to achieve that success.
Article eighth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution provides: “There shall always be free public elementary and secondary schools in the state. The general assembly shall implement this principle by appropriate legislation.”
Because we are required only to interpret the education clause of the state constitution, I agree with the plurality that the case is justiciable. Although I agree with Justice Zarella’s dissent that the implementation of the fundamental right to education has been committed by the education clause to the General Assembly, defining that right with sufficient precision to guide the trial of this case is the prerogative — and the duty — of the judicial branch. The challenge going forward, however, may be deciding where judicial interpretation stops and legislative implementation begins. In part III of this concurring opinion, I express various prudential concerns regarding the difficult issues that may arise as the case progresses. In the course of that discussion, I suggest a preliminary template reflecting my judgment of what the trier of fact must consider in determining whether the constitutional obligation of providing an adequate education has been satisfied. I envision that the trial court will flesh out that template based on the factual record presented at trial.
I disagree with the plurality that either Savage v. Aronson,
Scholars actually refer to adequacy litigation as the “third wave.” See, e.g., W. Koski, “Achieving ‘Adequacy’ in the Classroom,” 27 B.C. Third World L.J. 13, 19-21 (2007); D. Verstegen, “Towards a Theory of Adequacy: The Continuing Saga of Equal Educational Opportunity in the Context of State Constitutional Challenges to School Finance Systems,” 23 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 499, 506-507 (2004). According to these scholars, the first wave was education finance litigation that sought relief under the federal constitution. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,
As the plurality explains, the idea that the education clause implicitly includes a qualitative element was acknowledged not only by the majority in Horton I, but also by the concurring and dissenting opinions. See, e.g., Horton I, supra,
The court in Sheff declined to address the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants failed to provide them with a minimally adequate education because the plaintiffs did not allege any nexus between that failure and the racial and ethnic isolation that formed the basis of the action, and because the plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that they had not claimed that the right to be free of such racial and ethnic isolation was a constitutionally required component of a minimally adequate education. Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
The constitution of Connecticut, article first, § 20, as amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, provides: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, sex or physical or mental disability.”
The courts in twenty states, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming, have interpreted their education clauses to include a guarantee that the education so provided must satisfy some minimally sufficient standard. See Opinion of the Justices No. 338,
The courts in eight states, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, have determined either that the issue is nonjusticiable, or, without making a specific determination regarding justiciability, nevertheless determined that the issue properly should be directed to the legislature. See Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles,
The courts in the remaining twenty-two states have yet to address the issue.
For this reason, I disagree with the plurality that the decisions of the courts of New Hampshire, Tennessee and Washington interpreting the education clauses of their respective state constitutions provide helpful guidance in interpreting our education clause. The New Hampshire education clause contains qualitative language upon which the court relied heavily in its interpretation of the state constitutional right to education: “Encouragement of [literature . . . [k]nowledge and learning, generally diffused through a community, being essential to the preservation of a free government; and spreading the opportunities and advantages of education through the various parts of the country, being highly conducive to promote this end; it
Similarly, the case law of Tennessee is of limited persuasive value. The education clause in the Tennessee state constitution provides that “[t]he State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support. The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools.” (Emphasis added.) Term. Const., art. XI, § 12. In interpreting that constitutional language, the Tennessee Supreme Court not only looked to the definition of “education,” but also relied on the recognition of the “inherent value” of education in the provision. Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter,
The education clause of the Washington state constitution, also relied upon by the plurality, is also linguistically dissimilar to our own. That clause provides: “It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.” (Emphasis added.) Wash. Const., art. IX, § 1. In interpreting the constitutional text, the Washington Supreme Court noted specifically that its state constitutional language was “unique . . . .” Seattle School District No. 1 v. State,
South Carolina’s precedent provides little guidance on this issue. In Abbeville County School District v. State,
General Statutes § 10-22 la (b) provides: “Commencing with classes graduating in 2004, and for each graduating class thereafter, no local or regional board of education shall permit any student to graduate from high school or grant a diploma to any student who has not satisfactorily completed a minimum of twenty credits, not fewer than four of which shall be in English, not fewer than three in mathematics, not fewer than three in social studies, including at least a one-half credit course on civics and American government, not fewer than two in science, not fewer than one in the arts or vocational education and not fewer than one in physical education.” (Emphasis added.)
M. W. Edelman, The Measure of Our Success: A Letter to My Children and Yours (1992) Pt. I, pp. 9-10.
M. W. Edelman, “We must convey to children that we believe in them . . . .” Ebony, August, 1988, p. 130.
It is worth noting that the New York Court of Appeals also stated that a relevant issue might be whether the plaintiffs could establish a correlation between funding and educational opportunity. Campaign I, supra,
As it evaluates the evidence concerning the adequacy of the education provided to public school students, the trial court will have to grapple with numerous difficult questions, including the following. Should the court, in determining whether a school is providing its students with an adequate education, use the same standards to evaluate the outputs of children in a town school system with relatively little poverty and the outputs of children in a town school system with high poverty rates? What should be used as the measure for a representative child or representative children in public school for purposes of determining whether the school system is failing in its duties? What is an appropriate measure for the correlation between a child’s failure to achieve as measured by academic outputs and the school system’s alleged inadequacies, given the difficulties in quantifying social, economic, and environmental factors that enable or impede a child from being able to learn and, ultimately, to succeed in obtaining higher education and employment? All of these concerns and others will challenge the trial court to fashion judicially manageable standards to resolve the present case.
In this regard, it should be noted that even if funding resources were unlimited — which they are not under any circumstances, especially, current circumstances — expenditures alone are not likely to remedy whatever deficiencies exist. It can be anticipated that sound expenditures, allocations and reallocations of resources, even to the point of structural change, along with wise choices with respect to all educational resources, including teachers, equipment, and proper standards, among others, will be essential.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I agree with the plurality’s conclusion that the claim by the plaintiffs, the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., and numerous parents and their public school children, that the defendants, Governor M. Jodi Rell and various state officials and members of the state board of education,
The plurality stated that, “[i]n considering whether a particular subject matter presents a nonjusticiable political question, we have articulated [six] relevant factors, including: a textuaily demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one ques
In Sheff v. O’Neill,
The court then rejected the Sheff defendants’ claim that this court’s decision in Simmons v. Budds,
It is clear, therefore, that this court has recognized that there is considerable overlap between the “prudential cautions [that] may shed light on the proper definition of constitutional rights and remedies”; Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Accordingly, although I recognize, as Justice Zarella argues in his dissenting opinion, that the claim that the plaintiffs have raised in the present case is not precisely the same as the claim raised by the plaintiffs in Sheff
I agree with the plurality that this question may be resolved by application of the factors set forth in State v. Geisler, supra,
With respect to federal precedent, I recognize that this factor has limited relevance in the present case because the federal constitution contains no analog to article eighth, § 1, of the state constitution. I disagree, however, with the plurality’s conclusion that the federal precedent is entirely irrelevant to our analysis. Rather, I believe the United States Supreme Court’s decision in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,
With respect to the text of article eighth, § 1, I disagree with the plurality’s conclusion that it is ambiguous as applied to the claims in this case.
With respect to the precedents of this court, I would conclude that our previous cases construing article eighth, § 1, provide no guidance in the present case because, as the plurality recognizes, they have involved claims of inequality, while this case presents for the first time a claim that that constitutional provision establishes a qualitative standard. There is ample precedent in our decisions, however, for the general proposition that prudential considerations such as an absence of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the case and the difficulty in crafting equitable relief are relevant to our determination of the scope of a state constitutional right. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
With respect to the history of article eighth, § 1, I disagree with the plurality that this factor supports its conclusion that the provision contains an implicit qualitative requirement. Rather, I would conclude that the statements of the delegates to the constitutional convention support a conclusion that the framers merely intended to guarantee that the legislature would continue to provide the free public school system that it traditionally had provided. Simon J. Bernstein, a delegate to the 1965 constitutional convention and the principal supporter of the provision that became article eighth, § 1, stated during convention proceedings that “we do have the tradition which goes back to our earliest days of free good public education and we have [had] good public schools so that this again is not anything revolutionary, it is something which we have . . . which is [in] practically all [constitutions in the [sjtates of our nation and Connecticut with its great tradition certainly ought to honor this principle.” Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), IT. 3, p. 1039; see also Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 1, p. 312, remarks of Delegate Bernstein (“[w]e have a great history and tradition requiring that the public body supply our children with free public education”). Thus, Delegate Bernstein’s statements emphasize that the provision was intended merely to honor and perpetuate Connecticut’s tradition of providing free public schools for all of its school aged children. See Moore v. Ganim, supra, 233
With respect to the decisions of our sister states, I disagree with the plurality that they are “of paramount importance” in determining the scope of article eighth, § 1. The plurality relies on cases from New York, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington in support of its interpretation.
With respect to economic and sociological concerns, the plurality concludes that the plaintiffs and the state itself have a vital interest in a school system that provides a sound basic education to every child in the state. I agree with this assessment. The majority also concludes that this interest trumps any prudential concerns, such as the absence of judicially discoverable and manageable standards and the inability of this court to craft appropriate relief, which “are in our view better addressed in consideration of potential remedies for any constitutional violations that may be found at a subsequent trial on the merits, which might well require staying further judicial action pending legislative action.” I disagree with this conclusion. Although this court has, on occasion, left the enforcement of a state
In summary, I would conclude that none of the Geisler factors supports the plurality's conclusions that: (1) “article eighth, § 1, entitles Connecticut public school students to an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting”; and (2) the constitutionally adequate education provided by the public schools will “leave Connecticut’s students prepared to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state’s economy.” Accordingly, I would conclude that the trial court properly determined that the plaintiffs have failed to state a claim that the state has violated its constitutional obligation to provide “free public elementary and secondary schools in the state”; Conn. Const., art. VHI, § 1; and that it properly granted the defendants’ motion to strike counts one, two and four of the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
See footnotes 3 and 5 of the plurality opinion, respectively, for the listing of the individual plaintiffs and defendants in this case.
“In Horton v. Meskill,
In Horton I and Horton II, this court did not directly address claims that the issues raised by the plaintiffs were nonjusticiable.
This court has on occasion treated the textual commitment of an issue to the legislature, respect for the other branches of government, the need to make policy decisions and the difficulty of crafting appropriate equitable relief as prudential factors relevant to the scope and contours of a constitutional right rather than factors depriving this court of jurisdiction. See Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
Specifically, the plaintiffs in Sheff claimed that the defendants had violated their state constitutional “right to a substantially equal educational opportunity”; Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
The plaintiffs contend that the trial court’s consideration of these prudential factors was premature and that they “would have been more properly
In their complaint, for example, the plaintiffs allege that 68 percent of the teachers at Lincoln Elementary School in New Britain have a master’s degree, while the state average is 80 percent.
As set forth in part II of the plurality opinion, the Geisler factors are: “(1) persuasive relevant federal precedents; (2) the text of the operative constitutional provisions; (3) historical insights into the intent of our constitutional forebears; (4) related Connecticut precedents; (5) persuasive precedents of other state courts; and (6) contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms, or as otherwise described, relevant public policies.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McKenzie-Adams,
I would also point out that, even if article eighth, § 1, were ambiguous, in accordance with the presumption that the state has acted constitutionally, “a well established jurisprudential doctrine counsels us to construe ambiguous constitutional principles narrowly.” Moore v. Ganim, supra,
In support of its interpretation of article eighth, § 1, the plurality relies on Justice Loiselle’s statement in his dissenting opinion in Horton I that this provision “must be inteipreted in areasonable way. A town [constitutionally] may not herd children in an open field to hear lectures by illiterates.” Horton I, supra,
I would note that the New York cases on which the plurality heavily relies were split decisions. In Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New York,
See Lobato v. State,
See Charlet v. Louisiana,
Dissenting Opinion
joins, dissenting. This case presents this court with a rare opportunity to consider the experience of our sister states in deciding whether to become involved in the resolution of an issue that raises important philosophical and practical questions regarding the legitimate exercise of judicial power. Rather than examining and learning from this experience, however, a majority of this court has elected to ignore it, thus setting the court on a path that will lead to decades of confusion and produce a trail of wasteful litigation. James Madison warned in the Federalist Papers that judges must refrain from lawmaking: “Were the power of judging joined with the legislative . . . the judge would then be the legislator.” The Federalist No. 47 (James Madison). Yet that is what will come to pass as a result of the court’s conclusion that the plaintiffs’
THE PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS
It is first necessary to understand exactly what the plaintiffs claim in order to fully appreciate the effect of this court’s decision on our state constitutional jurisprudence and the separation of powers. The plaintiffs do not claim that the current school funding system is in violation of the state constitution’s equal protection provisions because different towns are not receiving reasonably similar funding. Rather, they claim that Connecticut students are not receiving a “suitable” educational opportunity as measured by certain “outputs . . . .” Thus, irrespective of the relative equality of funding, the plaintiffs claim that, if certain performance based results or outcomes are not achieved, students will be deprived of a suitable educational opportunity.
The plaintiffs specifically allege in their complaint that their constitutional rights have been violated because the state has failed “to maintain an educational
n
LAW OF JUSTICIABILITY
“The principles that underlie justiciability are well established. Justiciability requires (1) that there be an
“Whether a controversy so directly implicates the primary authority of the legislative or executive branch, such that a court is not the proper forum for its resolution, is a determination that must be made on a case-by-case [basis]. . . . Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found [1] a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or [4] the impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or [5] an unusual need for unquestioned] adherence to apolitical decision already made; or [6] the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Unless one of these formulations is inextricable from the case at bar, there should be no dismissal for
Ill
APPLICATION OF THE BAKER FACTORS
A
Textually Demonstrable Commitment to the Legislature
I begin by noting thаt article eighth, § 1, does not refer to a “suitable” education or to an “adequate” education, nor does any other constitutional provision suggest that the state is obligated to provide Connecticut schoolchildren with a suitable or minimum standard of education. Even the plurality ultimately concedes in its discussion of the first Geisler factor that the defendants’
The lack of such a provision is consistent with the purpose of article eighth, § 1. As this court noted in Sheff, “[t]he primary motivation for the addition of arti-
I also conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable because article eighth, § 1, unequivocally delegates to the legislature the task of enacting “appropriate legislation” to ensure that Connecticut schoolchildren will be provided with a free public education. By implication, “appropriate legislation” includes whatever qualitative standards, if any, the legislature deems necessary to achieve its mandate.
We concluded in Nielsen, Pellegrino and Simmons that claims brought under each of the foregoing provisions were nonjusticiable because they could not be resolved without interfering with a clearly articulated duty of the legislature. See Nielsen v. State, supra,
The language of article eighth, § 1, is similar to the language in the preceding provisions — all of which impose an affirmative duty on the legislature — because it plainly and unambiguously provides that the “general assembly shall implement [the] principle [of a free public elementary and secondary school education by enacting] appropriate legislation." (Emphasis addеd.) There is no suggestion in this or in any other constitutional provision that the judicial branch has a role in the process, nor has the court referred to any Connecticut case permitting judicial intervention when the claim involves a constitutional provision that imposes an affirmative duty on the legislature. Moreover, it is counterintuitive to conclude, in light of Simmons, that, when a level of quality is mandated by the constitution, there is no justiciable issue because matters concerning educational quality fall within the legislative domain but that when no level of quality is mandated, there is. Thus, even if a “free” education could be construed to mean a suitable education, Simmons dictates that questions concerning educational quality are nonjusticiable.
Our decisions in Horton v. Meskill,
The plurality’s conclusion that Nielsen did not consider the “appropriate legislation” language of article eighth, § 1, to be a textual commitment to the General Assembly like the “plain and unambiguous” spending cap language in article third, § 18; Nielsen v. State, supra,
The plaintiffs in the present case appear to be asking this court to do something that the court in Nielsen could not have imagined, that is, to use the equal protection provisions of the state constitution as a vehicle to establish a substantive floor for educational achievement as a constitutional right. See, e.g., B. Neubome, “State Constitutions and the Evolution of Positive Rights,” 20 Rutgers L.J. 881, 887 (1989) (in absence of independent textual basis for substantive federal constitutional rights in education, health and housing, lawyers have sought to use federal constitution to protect poor by invoking equal protection and due process clauses “to bootstrap judges into a position [of] trump [ing] government refusals to spend money on critical services [that are] desperately needed by the poor”). This court, however, should do everything in its power to avoid using the equal protection provisions in this manner
In addition to the fact that the text of article eighth, § 1, specifically commits the function of providing a free public education to the legislature, this court has recognized on numerous occasions that providing Connecticut schoolchildren with an education is a function of the state that is properly exercised by the legislature. See, e.g., New Haven v. State Board of Education,
The funds appropriated for education are administered pursuant to an extensive and detailed statutory scheme incorporated in title 10 of the General Statutes, which vests ultimate power and authority for general supervision and control of the state’s educational interests in the state board of education. See General Statutes § 10-4.
To guide and assist the local boards in carrying out this duty, General Statutes § 10-220 (a) provides that “[e]ach local or regional board of education shall maintain good public elementary and secondary schools, implement the educational interests of the state as defined in section 10-4a and provide such other educational activities as in its judgment will best serve the
The effect of the court’s decision to permit — indeed, require — judicial involvement in educational matters will be to wrest control of education from the local boards and place it in the hands of the court. It is clear that this will happen because the plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the state’s failure to provide “suitable” educational opportunities is caused by inadequate and unequal educational “inputs,” which the complaint defines as “the resources and conditions, such as staff, programs, and environment, that constitute an educational system.” Such “resources and conditions,” however, are exactly what the legislature has directed local
The plurality asserts that its ruling is “not intended to supplant local control over education,” explaining that the purpose of court intervention is merely “to articulate the broad parameters of [the] constitutional right, and to leave their implementation to the expertise of those who work in the political branches of state and local government, informed by the wishes of their constituents. [As] long as those authorities prescribe and implement a program of instruction rationally calculated to enforce the constitutional right to a minimally adequate education . . . then the judiciary should stay its hand.” Footnote 59 of the plurality opinion. As New Jersey, Kansas and other jurisdictions have discovered, however, such a view is unrealistic. See part III B of this opinion. The court will not be able to limit its involvement in educational matters to vague declarations of principle but will be required to adjudicate constitutional challenges to the adequacy of specific state and local programs of instruction, which will place the court in a position to override decisions made by state and local authorities regarding the level and distri
This could not be what the proponents of article eighth, § 1, intended. If it were, they surely would not have described the provision as “not anything revolutionary.” Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 3, p. 1039, remarks of Bernstein. That the framers never would have contemplated this change of course also is evident from other parts of the convention records, in which delegates described the proposed provision on education as embodying nothing more than Connecticut’s long history and tradition of providing children with a free public education. See, e.g., Convention Resolution No. 109 (July 27,1965), reprinted in 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention Bulletins, Calendars, Resolutions, Files, Appendix (1965). Proponents of article eighth, § 1, demonstrated no interest in supplanting legislative or local control of education but, rather, stated that their intent was to correct an omission in the constitution and thus achieve consistency with the constitutions of other states. See Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 3, pp. 1039-40, remarks of Bernstein. In fact, there is nothing in the recorded history of the 1965 convention to suggest that the framers wanted to end the tradition of local control of education by granting the courts authority to determine how the principle of a free public education should be implemented. If that had been the framers’ intent, they would not have used specific language delegating such authority to the legislature. Indeed, cases interpreting the power of the state and local boards of education following adoption of article eighth, § 1, never have questioned the constitutionality of the statutory scheme or the authority of the legislature or the boards to determine the content of a suitable educational opportunity or an appropriate learning environment. I thus fail to compre
Nevertheless, the plurality, after failing to find any textual support in the constitution, claims that the principle articulated in Sheff that courts may enforce the constitutional right to substantially equal education opportunities also governs in the present case because our holding in Sheff “does not refer specifically to the [state] constitution’s equal protection provisions, and relies expressly on the ‘appropriate legislation’ clause from article eighth, § 1, to justify judicial examination of [education] statutes.” Footnote 18 of the plurality opinion. The plurality, however, adopts an extraordinarily broad interpretation of Sheff and ignores the fact that the court’s holding in Sheff was intended to resolve the claim, raised in the state’s affirmative defense, that “the text of article eighth, § 1, deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to consider whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief by way of an order to the legislature to provide a remedy for their impaired educational opportunities”; Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
The plurality asserts that, because Sheff did not refer specifically to the constitution’s equal protection provisions in its holding on article eighth, § 1, it intended to endorse judicial review of issues relating to public education generally that do not implicate equal protection concerns. The Sheff holding, however, merely repeated language used in the defendants’ affirmative defense, in which they argued that the “text of article eighth, § 1,” deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the relief that the plaintiffs requested under both the equal protection and education provisions of our state constitution. Id., 12. Moreover, the court interpreted the provision only after specifying that it was doing so “[i]n light of these precedents” involving inequalities in educational opportunities. Id., 15. In relying on Sheff to permit judicial review of education adequacy claims, the plurality expands the principles articulated in Sheff far beyond their stated meaning.
The plurality attempts to bolster its strained reading of Sheff to mean that educational issues arising under article eighth, § 1, are not textually committed to the legislature by resorting to a footnote in that opinion in which the court states that other jurisdictions “over
The plurality subsequently concludes that certain cases that the defendants cite, in which other jurisdictions have deemed education adequacy claims nonjusticiable, are inapplicable in the present case because they do not involve constitutional language similar to the “appropriate legislation” language contained in article eighth, § 1. See Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding, Inc. v. Chiles,
In sum, the plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable under the first Baker factor because there is no enumerated constitutional right to a suitable or a minimum standard of education, and there is a textually demonstrable commitment of issues concerning education to the General Assembly as part of its express obligation under the constitution to enact legislation to provide Connecticut schoolchildren with a free public education. This court has stated that, “[i]n dealing with constitutional provisions we must assume that infinite care was employed to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state. . . . Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect must be given to every part of and each word in the constitution.” (Citations omitted.) Stolberg v. Caldwell, supra,
Lack of Judicially Discoverable and Manageable Standards
I also disagree with the plurality that the second Baker factor poses no obstacle to judicial review because “[t]here are easily discoverable and manageable judicial standards for determining the merits of the plaintiffs’ claim[s].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) As I previously discussed, the constitution provides no qualitative or substantive standards regarding the type of public education to be provided to Connecticut schoolchildren, and there is nothing in the historical record indicating that the delegates to the 1965 constitutional convention considered such standards. The majority nonetheless concludes that Seymour v. Region One Board of Education, supra,
The principal issue before the court in Seymour and Horton I was the constitutionality of school financing legislation under one or more of the due process and equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. See Seymour v. Region One Board of
Courts are uniquely qualified to determine issues of equality and particularly unqualified to determine minimum educational standards. In Baker, the United States Supreme Court emphasized that “[¡Judicial standards under the [ejqual [pjrotection [cjlause are well developed and familiar, and it has been open to courts since the enactment of the [f] ourteenth [ajmendment to determine, if on the particular facts they must, that a discrimination reflects no policy, but simply arbitrary and capricious action.”
In Connecticut, educational financing legislation is strictly scrutinized under the equal protection clause pursuant to a three part test designed to evaluate whether the financing plan, as a whole, supports the policy of “providing significant equalizing state support to local education.”
After the Robinson cases, in which the court repeatedly gave the legislature additional time to act because it was reluctant to develop its own constitutionally based standards, there followed another line of cases in a still ongoing controversy challenging the constitutionality of the school funding formula and its ability to provide a “thorough and efficient education” for disadvantaged students living in “property-poor school districts” with special needs. Abbott ex rel. Abbott v. Burke,
Reacting with alarm to the proceedings in New Jersey, the Rhode Island Supreme Court noted in Pawtucket v. Sundlun, supra,
When the Kansas Supreme Court chose to follow the path taken by New Jersey, it found itself facing similar problems for the exact same reason, namely, the lack of objective, quantifiable judicial standards. What later was described as a “constitutional confrontation”; R. Levy, supra, 54 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1021; began in earnest when the Kansas Supreme Court ruled in Montoy v. State,
The difficulty of developing standards in the present case is brought into stark relief by the plaintiffs’ complaint, which, as I previously noted, describes the “essential components of a suitable educational opportunity” in vague generalities, such as “appropriate” class sizes, “highly qualified” administrators and teachers, an “adequate” number of horns of instruction and a “rigorous” curriculum with a “wide breadth” of courses,
I find the plurality’s assertion that it will not allow concerns about the crafting of a remedy to “deprive the plaintiffs of their day in court” remarkable in light of the fact that it is the existence of judicial standards, or lack thereof, that determines the court’s ability to adjudicate a matter, including the crafting of an effective remedy. This goes to the heart of the doctrine of justiciability- The plurality’s rationale effectively concedes that this court will be required at some point in the proceedings to define what a “suitable” education actually means if the defendants are unable to do so “in the first instance.” This court, however, will nоt be able to declare, even “in the first instance,” that the present system does not provide the plaintiffs with “suitable educational opportunities” without first adding substantive content to this presently vague and open-ended concept. We thus are asking the trial court to do what the plurality refuses to do, which is to define the constitutional parameters. Furthermore, educational standards cannot necessarily be borrowed from other states with different public needs and perceptions as to what a minimum quality of education entails because policy judgments regarding educational goals and methods and how to resolve competing claims for limited state resources are typically based on unique local factors that may not be relevant in other jurisdictions. Accordingly, there are no easily discoverable judicial standards available to guide this court in
C
Nonjudicial Policy Determination
For many of the same reasons that I conclude that there is a textually demonstrable commitment of the issue to the legislature and a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards, I also conclude that the third Baker factor is implicated by the plaintiffs’ claims, namely, the impossibility of resolving them without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly intended for nonjudicial discretion. See Baker v. Carr, supra,
D
Lack of Respect for a Coordinate Branch of Government
The prudential considerations embodied in the final three Baker factors, which limit the challenges that a
In the present case, the named plaintiff, the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., commissioned a report published in 2005 estimating that $2.02 billion in additional funding, an annual increase of nearly 92 percent over actual school funding,
The situation in the present case is further complicated by the fact that none of the defendants has the power or authority to increase state funding for education.
E
Risk of Multifarious Pronouncements and Unquestioning Adherence to a Political Decision
In addition, judicial intervention would raise the possibility of “embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements” on educational matters as the courts and the legislature struggle to define and carry out their respective responsibilities. Baker v. Carr, supra,
Accordingly, because I conclude that the plaintiffs’ claims are nonjusticiable, I respectfully dissent.
The plaintiffs are the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc., and certain parents and grandparents of students enrolled in various public schools throughout the state. See footnote 3 of the plurality opinion and accompanying text.
I note that, although the trial court deemed the plaintiffs’ claims justiciable on the basis of this court’s reasoning in Horton v. Meskill,
Moreover, even if the trial court’s analysis had followed the Geisler test more closely, I agree with commentators who question its legitimacy on the ground that “it is no more than a checklist from which to select [various interpretive] tools” and that it provides no guidance as to the significance of selecting “any particular method in any particular case.” M. Besso, “Commenting on the Connecticut Constitution,” 27 Conn. L. Rev. 185, 207 (1994). See generally State v. Geisler, supra,
The defendants in this case are M. Jodi Rell, the governor of Connecticut, Denise Lynn Nappier, the state treasurer, Nancy S. Wyman, the state comptroller, Mark K. McQuillan, successor to Betty J. Sternberg, the former state commissioner of education, and various former and current members of the state board of education.
Resolution No. 109 of the constitutional convention, which originally received an unfavorable report from the resolution committee, contained the following statement of purpose: “Our system of free public education has traditional acceptance on a par with our Bill of Rights and it should have the same constitutional sanctity.” Convention Resolution No. 109 (July 27, 1965), reprinted in 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention Bulletins, Calendars, Resolutions, Files, Appendix (1965).
Bernstein also referred in passing to a “ ‘good education’ ” when he stated: “[I]n the decade of the [1950s] ... I served on a board of education and was surprised to find that Connecticut with its traditional good education had no reference to it in the [c]onstitution[.] [W]hen I use the word[s] ‘good education’ I am quoting, because if I may I would like to quote from the Connecticut [C]ode of 1650 which others I believe call the Ludlow Code. Quote ‘[a good] education of children is of singular . . . benefit to any [c]ommonwealth’ so we do have the tradition which goes back to our earliest days of free good public education and we have [had] good public schools so that this again is not anything revolutionary . . . .” Proceedings of the Connecticut Constitutional Convention (1965), Pt. 3, p. 1039. It is clear from the context in which these remarks were made, however, that, in using the word “good,” Bernstein did not intend to give any substantive meaning to the proposed provision but intended to recognize that a free public education is a deeply rooted tradition in this state that should be elevated to a constitutional right. See, e.g., Moore v. Ganim,
Some scholars have divided the education clauses of the state constitutions into four categories that are based on the level of obligation each state constitution imposes on the respective state legislature, with the first category imposing the slightest obligation and the fourth category imposing the greatest obligation. W. Thro, “The Third Wave: The Impact of the Montana, Kentucky, and Texas Decisions on the Future of Public School Finance Reform Litigation,” 19 J.L. & Educ. 219, 243-45 nn.130-39 (1990); see also E. Grubb, “Breaking the Language Barrier: The Right to Bilingual Education,” 9 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 52, 66-70 (1974); G. Ratner, “A New Legal Duty
Article third, § 18, was added to the state constitution in 1992 by article twenty-eight of the amendments.
General Statutes § 10-4 (a) provides that the state board of education “shall have general supervision and control of the educational interests of the state, which interests shall include preschool, elementary and secondary education, special education, vocational education and adult education; shall provide leadership and otherwise promote the improvement of education in the state, including research, planning and evaluation and services relating to the provision and use of educational technology, including telecommunications, by school districts; shall prepare such courses of study and publish such curriculum guides including recommendations for textbooks, materials, instructional technological resources and other teaching aids as it determines are necessary to assist school districts to carry out the duties prescribed by law; shall conduct workshops and related activities, including programs of intergroup relations training, to assist teachers in making effective use of such curriculum materials and in improving their proficiency in meeting the diverse needs and interests of pupils; shall keep informed as to the condition, progress and needs of the schools in the state; and shall develop or cause to be developed evaluation and assessment programs designed to measure objectively the adequacy and. efficacy of the educational programs offered by public schools and shall selectively conduct such assessment programs annually and report, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education, on an annual basis.” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 10-4a adds that it shall be an educational interest of the state to ensure that “(1) each child shall have . . . equal opportunity to receive a suitable program of educational experiences; [and] (2) each school district shall finance at a reasonable level ... an educational program designed to achieve this end . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In furtherance of these goals, General Statutes § 10-4 (b) requires that the state board of education “shall submit to the Governor and to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to education an account of the condition of the public schools and of the amount and
Article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution provides: “All men when they fоrm a social compact, are equal in rights; and no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community.”
Article first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution provides: “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segrega
Article first, § 20, has been amended by articles five and twenty-one of the amendments, which added sex and disability, respectively, to the list of protected classes.
In Sheff, the plaintiffs claimed, inter alia, that the Hartford public school district, in comparison to surrounding suburban school districts, had failed to provide equal educational opportunities for Hartford schoolchildren. Sheff v. O’Neill, supra,
In Sheff, we explicitly acknowledged that the constitutional underpinnings of Horton I and Horton III were the same when we stated: “The defendants do not challenge the continued validity of Horton I and Horton III.. . but argue that their claim of nonjusticiability differs. That argument is unavailing. The plaintiff schoolchildren in the present case invoke the same constitutional provisions to challenge the constitutionality of state
Significantly, one of the cases involved a claim brought solely under the equal protection provision of that state’s constitution; see Washakie County School District Number One v. Herschler,
The plaintiffs’ complaint requests, inter alia, that “[t]he [trial] [c]ourt order [the] defendants to create and maintain a public education system that will provide suitable and substantially equal educational opportunities to [the] plaintiffs.”
Although two of the plaintiffs’ three stricken claims are also brought under the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, the disputed issue in all three claims is the alleged right of the plaintiffs to a suitable education.
The court in Baker nonetheless did not presume that all equal protection claims would be justiciable, noting that “it must be clear that the [f] ourteenth [ajmendment claim is not so enmeshed with those political question ele
We articulated the test in Horton III as follows: “First, the plaintiffs must make aprima facie showing that disparities in educational expenditures are more than de minimis in that the disparities continue to jeopardize the plaintiffs’ fundamental right to education. If they make that showing, the burden then shifts to the state to justify these disparities as incident to the advancement of a legitimate state policy. If the state’s justification is acceptable, the state must further demonstrate that the continuing disparities are nevertheless not so great as to be unconstitutional.” Horton v. Meskill, supra,
The New Jersey constitution provides in relevant part: “The Legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of free public schools for the instruction of all the children in the State between the ages of five and eighteen years.” (Emphasis added.) N.J. Const, art. VIH, § IV, para. 1.
The court did not rule that the system violated the equal protection clause of either the state or the federal constitution because the United States Supreme Court had rejected an equal protection challenge to the Texas public school funding scheme in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, supra,
Many have observed that student achievement is not merely a function of what takes place at school, but is also influenced by economic, social,
Although there is no constitutional provision that vests the legislature with the power to make appropriations, we have stated that “[s]uch legislative power is readily inferrable from article fourth, § 22, [of the Connecticut constitution] concerning the duties of the state treasurer, who shall receive all monies belonging to the state, and disburse the same only as he may be directed by law.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Eielson v. Parker,
According to the General Assembly’s office of fiscal analysis, the annual appropriation for education other than higher education (i.e., public colleges and universities) for fiscal year 2004, which would cover the 2003-2004 school year, was approximately $2.2 billion, or approximately 16 percent of the gross annual budget of $13.8 billion. Office of Fiscal Analysis, Connecticut General Assembly, Connecticut State Budget 2003-2005, p. 13. This means that the $2.02 billion increase in funding for a purportedly adequate education proposed in the report commissioned by the named plaintiff would constitute a staggering 91.8 percent increase in school funding for that year, thus increasing the appropriation for education from approximately 16 percent to nearly 26.7 percent of the total state budget for the 2004 fiscal year.
The plurality asserts that consideration of this report is premature because its content, which the plurality describes as consisting of “adjudicative, rather than legislative, facts,” cannot be “subject to judicial notice without an opportunity for a hearing . . . .” Footnote 20 of the plurality opinion. The plurality misses the point; the report is relevant not because
To the extent that the plaintiffs’ intent is merely to seek a redistribution of funds already appropriated by the legislature to the state department of education and the towns, it is unclear whether this can be accomplished without knowing which statutes have been violated and without naming the towns as defendants. Although the plaintiffs’ failure to join the legislature and the towns as parties does not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court or this court; see Hilton v. New Haven,