*1 KING; King; Rozanne E. Alisha Jane Houston, Individually
Dacie S. as Skylar
Mother and Next Friend of
Dwayne Ostrander, Chay Cortez Os
trander, and Adlia William Cortez III; Brandy Drake,
Flood R. Individu
ally and as Mother Next Friend of
Logan Luhmann, Genner Susan
Maule, Maule, Stephanie and Jacob
Maule; Campbell, Michael Individual
ly and as Father and Next Friend of
George Campbell Sophia Camp
bell; Campbell, and Laura Individual
ly and as Mother and Next Friend of Rasso,
Christopher George Campbell, Sophia Campbell, Appellants, Iowa; Culver, STATE Chester J. Capacity
in His Official as the Gover Iowa;
nor of the State of The Iowa
Department Education; Judy
Jeffrey, Capacity in Her Official Department Director of the Iowa Education, Appellees.
No. 08-2006.
Supreme Court Iowa.
April 2012.
Rehearing May Denied *4 Gross, A.
Douglas E. Rebecca Brommel Brown, Winick, Haley R. Loon of Van Gross, Graves, Accordingly, Baskerville and Schoeneb- we affirm the district P.L.C., Moines, aum, appellants. Des court’s plaintiffs’ dismissal petition. Miller, General, Attorney Thomas J. I. Facts Procedural Back- Vaudt, Attorney Jeanie Kunkle Assistant ground. General, appellees.
Because this case was decided on a mo- MANSFIELD, Justice. dismiss, tion to our point relevant of ref- plaintiffs’ erence is the petition. The generation ago, A in Johnson plaintiffs’ first amended and substituted City Charles Community Schools Board petition, which the district court ultimate- Education, (Iowa dismissed, ly twenty-three pages long. 1985), we observed that the “state has a two-page It includes a summary, entitled clear to set minimum educational Lawsuit,” “Nature of the as well as thir- for all standards its children and a corre- pages teen of “Factual Allegations.” sponding responsibility to see to it that those standards are honored.” Yet we The sixteen named are stu- *5 also concluded that a “court is without parents dents or of students who attended either expertise the resources or the nec- currently public attend schools in the essary” to draft minimum educational Moines, Davenport, Des or West Harrison private standards religious schools. Community School explained Districts. As Id. at 80. by plaintiffs’ argument, counsel at oral plaintiffs’ position is that Iowa’s education-
This case concerns Iowa’s standards for system adequately al is not serving stu- public us, effect, schools. It asks dents in largest (e.g., Davenport either the require impose pub- the state to additional Moines) and Des or the smallest (e.g., standards, lic school urging that such ac- Harrison) West school districts. The case tion is both constitutionally statutorily is not brought as a class action. required. According summary to the initial con-
Adhering to lessons of the Johnson petition, quiet, tained ugly “[t]he case, we decline the invitation. We hold truth is that Iowa’s educational that plaintiffs’ specific challenges to the glorious past but a shadow of its and our educational policies prop- of this state are whistling by leaders are its graveyard.” erly plaintiffs’ rep- directed to the elected allege “dispar- Plaintiffs that there exists a resentatives, rather than the courts. We ity educational outcomes based [in Iowa] find the have not stated claims upon goes where one to school” and there IX, for relief under article division sec- has been a “failure[] similar I, I, tion article section or article opportunities educational for all of Iowa’s Constitution, section 9 of the Iowa or Iowa (2007). students.” section Code 256.37 any Plaintiffs have not named local
Our decision does not foreclose future They school officials as defendants. have challenges constitutional to actions taken sued, rather, Iowa, State of the Gover- state or local officials in the vital field Iowa, nor of Department the Iowa of Edu- only education. We decide cation, case, brought by Depart- and the Director of the plaintiffs, these go summary, plaintiffs should not forward ment. In their initial because the factual allegations, allege even if these statewide proved, do not set forth entities standards, a potential statutory constitutional or officials “have vio- failed establish standards, lation foregoing provisions. under the any failed to enforce failed to systems, Department Plaintiffs also cite Iowa pay educator effective adopt that, view, in their and maintain an ade- Education statistics to establish failed attending show how students the smallest delivery system.” quate education students) (less than 250 are school districts allegations, plain- factual ensuing In the disadvantaged. According Depart- to the statewide laws and allege tiffs that Iowa’s ment’s 2007 Annual Condition Edu- requirements rules are “broad educational report, cation teachers those districts and accreditation standards for schools have, on fewer average, experience, less not, They State of Iowa.” within the do degrees, and more as- teaching advanced view, “specific, contain detailed plaintiffs’ signments colleagues than their regarding the courses that information districts, largest Davenport school such as provide or offer to [them] schools must- Educ., Dep’t Moines. and Des they any nor do set forth details students The Annual Condition Education at that must be regarding the skills attained 75, 76 The Annual Con- [hereinafter level.” Re- grade students at each Education], http:// dition available at criticize Iowa for the peatedly, plaintiffs edueateiowa.gov/index.php?option=com_ They lack of “state-mandated standards.” docman&task=cat_view&gid=646& only maintain that Iowa is the state with- Unsurprisingly, according itemid=1563. any out statewide academic standards. in the petition, students smallest dis- not “providing Plaintiffs also fault Iowa for have fewer tricts also curriculum units specific testing of students at various edu- available to them.3 Id. at 112. *6 variety subject levels in a cational Additionally, students from Iowa’s states,” relying matters like other instead receive, smallest school on aver- districts (ITBS) on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills 2007, age, according lower scores. In ACT Develop- and the Test of Educational Department report, to the of Education (ITED). ment average composite 21.3 ACT score was part petition This of the refers to a for students at districts in the lowest en- (less students). category number of For ex rollment than 250 reports studies.1 contrast, By note that Id. at ample, according average to Ed 192. ACT Quality composite ucation 2008 re score was 22.5 for students at- Week’s Counts port, tending largest Iowa received a for educational districts in the enrollment “C” notes, however, performance.2 category. petition Id. The Tellabs, 2008, Rights, Highlights 1. See Inc. Makor Issues & a C. See Iowa—State Edu Ltd., 308, 322, 2499, 2509, (Editorial 551 U.S. 127 S.Ct. Quality cation Week’s Counts Pro (in ruling Ctr., Bethesda, Md.), 168 L.Ed.2d on a jects in Educ. Research dismiss, ordinarily motion to courts must con http://www.edweek. at available at incorporated sider documents into the com org/ew/toc/2008/01/10/index.html. reference); plaint by Hallett Constr. Co. v. Comm'n, Highway Iowa State 261 Iowa hand, report 3.On the other the 2007 indi- (1967) (highway spec that at the cates students smallest school dis- incorporated peti ifications that were in the benefit, average, tricts from much smaller part tion reference were deemed class size. The Annual Condition Edu- petition and could be considered in a default cation, example, at 122. For relevant proceeding). Because action was comparisons per are 11.9 versus 20.5 students brought by plain the materials cited kindergarten, per class for 11.8 21.4 versus tiffs date from 2008 or earlier. grade, class for first 13.1 versus 21.6 for sec- grade, middling ond and 13.7 versus 22.7 for third performance, 2. This awas accord- ing average grade. to this source. The national was Id. average composite regard that the national ACT With to the Davenport school district, Thus, plaintiffs do not 21.2. Id. all find fault with score was experience, teacher staffing, or class avail- categories of school districts in Iowa ability, allege but that average compos- its average.4 scored above the national ite ACT score in 2007 was 20.5. No alle- allege Plaintiffs further Iowa’s gations are made as to experience, teacher ranking in science and math is “consistent- staffing, availability, class or ACT scores ly declining”; that Iowa “has continued to in the Des Moines school district. Howev- rankings decline the national for math er, respect with to all three of the school reading proficiencies and other meas- districts, plaintiffs allege percent- that the achievement”; ures of student “Iowa ages of students proficient found in math the national average ranks well below reading according to ITBS and ITED taking gateway students courses such as generally scores ranged fifty have between Algebra, Algebra Geometry”; and seventy percent, a level that plaintiffs thirty-eighth appear “Iowa ranks in the nation for to believe is unsatisfactory. scores”; AP test [Advanced Placement] petition has two counts seeking “[m]any and that Iowa students are not I, relief. plaintiffs request Count prepared to post- enter the workforce or declaratory judgment. They allege that secondary education without additional education is a fundamental or alter- training they gradu- or remediation when natively that the current education laws (“or thereof’) high “irrational, ate from school.” lack are arbi- trary, capricious” “rationally and not allegations Some of the factual concern legitimate governmental related to a in- “the circumstances of the plaintiffs.” They allege terest.” also that “some stu- allegations actually These do discuss dents receiving are a more effective edu- plaintiffs individually, but rather their solely cation than other students based According school districts. to the petition, upon where They the student resides.” districts, Harrison, one of the West has allege the defendants have “failed to es- *7 (Thus, approximately 500 students. it tablish provide and access to an effective does not fall into the smallest category of (1) by “failing education” to establish ed- district, i.e., students, school than less (2) standards,” failing ucational to enforce referenced petition.) Among earlier (3) standards, and utilize “failing such to other things, plaintiffs allege that West implement professional a pay average composite Harrison had an ACT educators consistent with such stan- score of nearly 18.6 three and a (4) dards,” “failing provide equal to ac- half points average below the score cess,” (5) ACT “failing and develop to an effec- students; for all Iowa only that ten to organizational delivery system tive percent failing twelve of West Harrison’s teach- to address or abolish the dis- parities among different districts school[ ] ers have advanced degrees; West They allege Iowa.” violations of the anyone Harrison does not have on staff to process, equal due protection, and edu- high college assist school students with cation clauses of the Iowa Constitution planning or other career counseling; and and Iowa Code section 256.37. that classes at West Harrison do not ade- quately prepare college students for a level Count II seeks an order of mandamus. curriculum. alleges It similar on the part failures report 4. The 2007 further reveals that place Iowa's with Wisconsin for second in the nation. Id. at 185. average composite ACT score 22.3 was tied by Department or omissions defendants, on to assert acts goes but duty amount to a breach Education. these failures defen- directing order an requests grounds motion was resisted on all This effective education. provide dants to held; hearing was and on plaintiffs; relief prayer Finally, plaintiffs’ 21, 2008, the district court November the defendants seeks a declaration motion. granted the defendants’ an effective edu- have failed sixteen-page ruling, the thoughtful In a process, with the due in accordance cation had stat- plaintiffs district court found the clauses and education equal protection, equal protec- ed claims for relief under the It also section 256.37. and Iowa Code clause, but process tion clause and the due perma- mandamus or an order of requests presented constitutional claims all their directing the defendants injunction nent question, and their nonjusticiable political (1) pro- all means to undertake suitable failed statutory claim under section 256.37 (2) education; develop vide an effective does not afford a provision because that performance stan- educational content right of action. The court also private which all Iowa school districts dards for found the had not satisfied instructor offerings, course required detail seeking mandamus. The prerequisites for testing requirements, capabilities, and entirety in its court dismissed the action (3) improve or devel- among things; other reasons, declining to reach the for these (4) assessments; en- develop and op state grounds remaining defendants’ asserted programs; development professional force appeal. for dismissal. Plaintiffs (5) ladder to enhance implement a career quality teach- recruitment and retention II. of Review. Standard ers; (6) identify- enforce the standards ruling Our review of a district court on consequences for failure ing enforcing motion to dismiss is for correction of er standards; such implement to follow and King sway at law. v. Iowa rors Cathedral management and “develop educational (Iowa Dep’t Transp., N.W.2d arrangements mitigate all governance 2006). only “A motion to dismiss should impediments to procedural and structural allegations peti if the in the granted (8) “[cjlose education”; and an effective tion, true, not entitle the taken as could gaps among ] the achievement school! State, any relief.” Sanchez v. plaintiff districts Iowa.” 2005). (Iowa “A mo was filed original petition Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded tion to dismiss admits the 3; and substitut- April their first amended petition, in the but not the conclu facts 21, 2008, April 30. On June petition ed *8 Cathedral, 711 Kingsway sions.” N.W.2d to dismiss. filed a motion defendants at 8. motion, the defendants nine-page In their (1) claims all the constitutional argued: Analysis. III. nonjusticiable political question; a raised begin analy- A. Introduction. our We (2) process and due equal protection briefly, by discussing, sis of this case what (3) claim; there is claims failed to state thing, it is not. For one this is not under no cause of action section private al- funding school case. Plaintiffs do not (5) (4) lie; 256.37; did not mandamus lege funding system that Iowa has a sued; (6) Governor could not be among discriminates school districts Procedures Act was Iowa Administrative inadequately.5 obtaining of even one that funds schools the exclusive means of review preme broad constitu- forty-one other state su- courts have considered Approximately
9
challenges
sys
Constitution);
tional
to the state education
scheme did not violate Indiana
State,
769,
majority
Montoy
306,
tem. The vast
of these cases have
v.
278 Kan.
120 P.3d
(2005)
primarily
(reversing finding
been
concerned with the state’s
308
equal protec
of
i.e.,
funding
allegations
method of
upholding
tion violations but
district court
education —
funding
inequitable, inadequate,
finding
is either
statutory
that Kansas’s
scheme for
Justices,
Opinion
funding
public
or both. See
624
separate
schools violated a
107,
(Ala.1993) (funding
provision
Constitution);
So.2d
112 n. 5
“a
of the Kansas
Charlet
case”),
major
plaintiffs’
1199,
abrogated by
Legislature,
(La.Ct.
focus of
v.
713 So.2d
1207
James,
813,
(Ala.
parte
App.1998)
Ex
836
(granting summary
So.2d
819
judgment upon
2002) (ultimately finding challenge nonjustici
follpwed
finding the state
constitutionally
able);
Borough
proscribed
Matanuska-Susitna
Sch. Dist.
providing
mechanisms for
school
State,
391,
(Ak.1997) (chal
Comm'r,
v.
931 P.2d
funding);
394
Sch. Admin. Dist. No. I v.
laws;
Educ.,
lenge
public
854,
funding
Dep’t
(Me.
to Alaska's
1995)
school
659 A.2d
857
summary judgment
upheld);
for the
(rejecting challenge
state
to reductions in state ed
Elementary
Roosevelt
funding);
Sch. Dist. No. 66 v.
ucation
Hombeck v.
Cnty.
Somerset
233,
806,
Educ.,
597,
Bishop,
758,
179 Ariz.
877 P.2d
815-16
Bd.
295 Md.
458 A.2d
790
(1994)
(1983)
(finding
system funding
(holding
Arizona's
Maryland’s system
fi
public
nancing public
education unconstitutional under the
education was not unconstitu
Constitution);
tional);
Green,
389,
Arizona
Lake View Sch. Dist.
Milliken v.
390 Mich.
212
Huckabee,
31,
711,
(1973)
No. 25 v.
351 Ark.
91 S.W.3d
N.W.2d
720-21
(rejecting chal
472,
(2002) (finding
lenge
discrepancies
500
Arkansas’s method
funding
to
in school
re
funding
sulting
education violated the
Michigan's
Arkansas
from
financing
manner of
Constitution)
(mandate
education);
State,
public
recalled on other
school
Skeen v.
505
299,
(Minn.
grounds by
1993)
Lake View Sch. Dist. No. 25 v.
N.W.2d
320
(holding
Huckabee,
617,
355 Ark.
Also, any plaintiffs’ not the entire focus of questioning are plaintiffs law, rule, alleged the defendants’ “fail- policy pro- or enacted or lawsuit specific This ure” to act on a statewide basis. More by any of defendants. mulgated inaction, government specifically, plaintiffs allege that the defen- challenging is a case Further, dants have failed to establish statewide action. de- government not standards, assessments, have alleged engaged educational fendants are recruitment, anyone. training, of Plain- teacher and reten- treatment disparate sure, programs. plaintiffs the defendants have a tion To be claim not claim tiffs do they “equal standard for different have been denied access” as a policy or different “failures,” of schools. result of these but is an types categories Dist., 359, (1982) (holding Orange-Cove Indep. v. New York’s W. Consol. Sch. 363-70 746, (Tex.2005) financing system (holding does not violate the school 176 S.W.3d 754 Constitution); Cnty. Hoke State or Federal public system state school finance was consti State, 605, State, Bd. Educ. v. 358 N.C. 599 tutional); 246, Brigham v. 166 Vt. 692 365, (2004) (finding 390-91 state's S.E.2d 384, (1997) (determining A.2d 397 the state's funding providing for school method of financing system public education violated constitution); the state Bis- districts violated Constitution); the Vermont Scott v. Common State, Sch. Dist. 1 v. 511 N.W.2d marck Pub. wealth, 379, 138, 247 Va. 443 S.E.2d 141-42 247, (N.D.1994) (failing to declare that 263 (1994) (holding Virginia’s Constitution was statutory impact method for the overall funding system); not violated the school distributing funding for education was uncon- State, Seattle Sch. No. 1 v. Wash.2d Dist. 90 constitution); Bd. stitutional under the state 476, 71, (1978) (finding 585 P.2d 105 state's Walter, 368, Ohio St.2d 390 Educ. v. 58 of N.E.2d financing system current school to be uncon 813, (1979) (finding 825-26 "the Gen- stitutional); Voight, Vincent v. 236 Wis.2d Assembly eral has not so abused its broad 588, 388, (2000) (holding 614 N.W.2d 415 enacting present system discretion system Wisconsin’s school finance consti was financing education as to render the statutes State, tutional); Campbell Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. unconstitutional”); question Okla. Educ. 43, (Wyo.2008)(upholding 181 P.3d 84 state’s Legislature, v. ex rel. Okla. 158 Ass’n State constitutional). financing system as 1058, (Okla.2007) (holding P.3d 1066 chal funding system presented lenges non- to state However, supreme fewa state courts have justiciable political questions); Equi Coal. for (at favorably considered least for motion to State, 300, Funding, v. table Sch. Inc. 311 Or. purposes) upon dismiss claims that focus 116, (1991) (holding 811 P.2d 121-22 education, quality opposed funding. funding public schools did not vio method of Funding, See Conn. Justice in Coal. Educ. for Constitution); Casey, Oregon’s late Danson v. Rell, 240, 206, Inc. v. Conn. 990 A.2d 295 360, 415, (1979) (find A.2d 367 484 Pa. 210-11, (2010) (holding plaintiffs’ al ing financing scheme did not vio- state’s legations they had not received suitable Constitution); Pennsylvania City late the opportunities cognizable educational stated Sundlun, 40, Pawtucket v. 662 A.2d 61-62 light claims Connecticut’s constitutional (R.I.1995) funding (upholding Rhode Island’s public elementary mandate for "free and sec Cnty. Campbell, system); v. 294 S.C. Richland schools”); ondary Rose v. Council Better 346, 470, (holding S.E.2d Educ., Inc., (Ky.1989) 790 S.W.2d funding system financing schools did (holding Kentucky Assembly that the General Constitution); not violate the South Carolina complied with man- had not its constitutional State, (S.D. Davis v. 804 N.W.2d system "provide date to an efficient of com- 2011) (finding system South Dakota's of fund schools”); Cnty. mon Abbeville Sch. Dist. v. ing education did not violate the education State, 335 S.C. 515 S.E.2d Constitution); clause of the South Dakota (1999) (holding had stated a Coddington, Dean v. S.D. claim under the South Carolina Constitution’s (1964) (upholding educational fund constitutional); requiring education clause that "the General ing statute as Tenn. Small McWherter, Assembly shall for the maintenance Systems Sch. 851 S.W.2d (Tenn. 1993) (finding support of a of free edu- statutory the state’s *10 unconstitutional); cation”). funding Neeley was scheme Estate, impact, 1393, 1397, 180 not allegation disparate dispa- 664, 191 Iowa N.W. (1920). treatment. There is no allegation rate The fundamental principle is defendants, for example, have one of parties fairness and the trial treated the West Harrison school district State, court. See DeVoss v. 648 N.W.2d other, any differently larger from school 56, (Iowa 2002). 62-63 That fairness is stated, Simply plaintiffs charge districts. long assured so as the grounds on which the defendants with not having affirma- we affirming are presented were to the tively policies adopted that would eliminate trial court so the trial court had oppor districts, existing discrepancies among tunity to rule on them and the opposing example, average as to student test scores. party opportunity had an to counter them if it felt it needed to Principal do so. Legal
B. The Issues Before Cf. Mut. Ins. Barclay Co. Charter Us. As we have many indicated times be Life Inc., (7th Cir.1996) Hosp., 81 F.3d fore, uphold “we will a district ruling court (noting that it quite “would not be cricket” ground upon on a other than the one which ground decide a case on a that had not provided the district court relied ground been raised at all urged appellee was that court.” Marti before Dist., Also, nete v. oral Cmty. argument Belmond-Klemme Sch. of the appeal). be (Iowa 2009) (citations 772 N.W.2d cause the district court already has indi omitted); see Fennelly also v. A-1 Mach. cated that it equal protection believes the Co., (Iowa & Tool 728 N.W.2d process and due claims would be sufficient 2006); Neiman, Emmert v. 245 Iowa they justiciable, were remand it to if (1954) (“We have rule again viability on the of those claims many held times that in reviewing ruling (assuming their justiciability) partic seems dismiss, sustaining a motion to strike or ularly unnecessary only and would prolong the same should be if any sustained the proceedings. grounds good, though advanced are even In State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d upon the one which the trial court based (Iowa 2005), we declined reach (citations omitted)). ruling, its is not.” several arguments constitutional that were Here the urged defendants dismissal of presented to upon by and not ruled constitutional claims the district court, district and that pre- were also not court on grounds they the alternative sented to us. That appropriate was an nonjusticiable they were and that failed to discretion, exercise our but it is a far state a claim. Both parties had a full cry present from the case. Here the par- (and brief) opportunity to brief did those only ties not briefed below whether the matters below. Although the defendants’ equal protection and due process claims appellate specifically does not urge brief should be dismissed for failure to state a that we affirm on the basis of failure to claim, the district court also decided these state a claim if we find one or more of the questions. A remand for the district court justiciable, claims the defendants made again to rule the plaintiffs whether have that request argument. at oral par- stated a claim therefore would serve no provided ties have their district court purpose. argument, At oral us, briefing to and neither sug- side has object not considering did to this court’s gested briefing further needed. claim, they whether stated a nor would event, any grounds because both duly were objection such an have made sense. court, raised before the trial we could af- firm on ground Appellants either even if it were appellees stand differ- argued to us. See positions Erickson v. Erickson’s ent appellant because the seeks *11 Briefing, Adams, judgment State v. 810 N.W.2d to overturn the rendered below. (Iowa 2012). Wapello Cuty. Supervi
See Ritz v. Bd. of sors, (Iowa 1999) appeal brought This has been to us. (stating recognized govern- "[w]e that have ... a The elected branches of our state currently engaged distinction between successful and unsuc ment are in an active policy. parties purposes pres debate about state educational cessful of error (citations omitted)). They ervation" Our rules are entitled to know whether this may policy appellee lawsuit affect their choices. It that an need not even file abnegation responsibili- R.App. would be an of our a brief in our court. See Iowa P. ty legal question 6.903(3) (indicating appellee may not to reach a about the that the sufficiency plaintiffs' pleadings filing brief). appellant, by of the waive fully developed contrast, was and decided must file a brief and is limited to district court. the issues raised in that brief. See id. r. Additionally, political question 6.903(2); Dilley City Moines, of Des grounds (Iowa 1976) (citing cases). and the failure to state a claim N.W.2d grounds case, course, may only are interrelated. In either Of we choose to consider plaintiffs' grounds appel- we assume the truth of the factu for affirmance raised in the allegations whether, brief, required al and determine un lee's but we are not to do facts, der those could be enti- so, long ground so as the was raised below. judicial tied to relief.6 years, In recent we have even on occasion (cid:127)grounds affirmed on not raised below. C. The Education Clause. We example, yes, plaintiffs' For in State v. Re 744 first consider claims under arti (Iowa 2008), IX, N.W.2d we af cle division section 3 of the Iowa statutory ground entirety, firmed on a that was not Constitution.7 In its this section appellate reads as follows: raised either below or in the briefs, supplemental Perpetual support until we invited brief fund. Sec. 3. The ing. Adams, granted Assembly encourage, by In State v. we fur General shall supplemental means, promotion ther review and invited all suitable briefing intellectual, scientific, moral, agri- on an issue that had not been party improvement. proceeds raised either either below or on cultural been, appeal, all lands that have or hereafter and then rendered a decision on may be, granted by Supplemental the United States to issue. See Order for originally argued placement 6. This case was in March courses and instead we want to joined program. before three current members have a broad based athletic reargued Supposing standard, this court. It was then in June there were a uniform argument, pose 2011. Even at the first oral some number one wouldn't that a risk of a questioning legislature related to the merits of lower standard as the considers plaintiffs' claims, including following they what's uniform across the board that questions recording: bring up taken fromthe want the rural districts maybe the urban districts down? I take it this is a bit of an attack on local control, wrong? Secondly, supposing correctme ifI'm that standard were es- you saying tablished could a wealthier district then elect Aren't in essence that a local school board then would not have the au- apply a richer environment? thority say: (Emphasis added.) well we want to set our tax level; rates at a certain we are concerned development argue, below, about economic in this rural 7. Plaintiffs do not either here or setting, get up they we don't want to the taxes have claims under division I of high; promote article IX of the Iowa Constitution. we choose not to advanced *12 State, schools, Iowa, support entitled, for the State of “Education and may Lands,” which have been or shall hereafter School was enacted two divi- sold, of, disposed and the five IX, sions. The first division of article cap- hundred thousand acres of land granted “Education,” tioned established a state States, to the new under an act of Con- board of education and conferred on that gress, distributing proceeds powers board and duties relating to edu- among lands the several States of cation policy. particular, section 1 of Union, approved year of our provided, division “The educational Lord one thousand eight hundred and State, interest of the including Common forty-one, all estates of deceased institutions, Schools and other educational persons may who have died without shall be under management of a Board heir, Const, leaving a will or and also such IX, of Education-” Iowa art. div. percent may as has been or hereafter be 1, § 1. Section 8 authorized the board of granted Congress, on the sale of legislate education “to and make all need- State, be, lands in this shall and remain regulations ful rules and in relation to fund, which, perpetual the interest of Schools,” Common it although permit- also together with all rents of the unsold ted general ], assembly to “alter[ lands, and such other means as the Gen- or repeal[ acts, amend[ ] ]” board’s Assembly may provide, eral shall be in- regulations rules and after they had been violably appropriated to the support of IX, adopted. 1, § Id. art. div. 8. throughout common schools the state. IX, The second division of article cap- Const, (1857 IX, 2, § Iowa art. origi- div. Lands,” tioned “School Funds and School version) added). nal (emphasis pres- provisions sets forth relating to the fund- ent controversy concerns the italicized first education, ing of especially through the above, parties sentence which both refer to sale of state-owned lands. Whereas the as “the education clause.”8 first division entrusted the “educational in- Plaintiffs contend the education clause education, terest” to the board the sec- imposes judicially obligations enforceable ond division made clear funding would legislature promote Iowa’s Hence, be the legislature’s domain. by “all suitable means.” Defendants coun- states, first section of the second division ter that plaintiffs’ claims under the clause “[t]he educational and school funds and present nonjusticiable political question. lands, shall be under the control and man- stated, Otherwise defendants maintain that agement of the Assembly General of this the education clause grant reflects a IX, 2, § state.” Id. art. div.
funding authority legislature, to the not a division, The third section of the second upon legislative policy limit in the field of found, wherein the education clause is education. “Perpetual support entitled fund.” Id. art IX, 2, § div. 3. The provisions,
Constitutional clause itself then fol- like stat utes, lows. The remaining language need to be read in of this sec- context. See Iowa tion, clause, after the education Light speaks Elec. & Power Co. v. Inc. Town of Junction, 441, 463, fund, perpetual Grand terms of “a interest of (Parsons, J., which, N.W. specially together with all rents of the unsold (“A lands, concurring) Constitution should be and such other means Gener- statute.”). whole, just construed as a Assembly may like a al provide, shall be inviol- Article IX of the 1857 ably appropriated Constitution of the support to the of Com- 8. We previously have not used that any term case. later, Clayton County High A throughout year the State.” Id.
mon schools
believe,
County,
Iowa 175
this,
supports
Clayton
a construc- School
we
All
*13
(1859), reinforcing the lesson of the Du-
funding
clause as a
the education
tion of
case,
general assembly
we held the
general
buque
allocated to the
which
provision,
authority
authority
provide money
to
lacked constitutional
to establish
assembly the
education,
high
specifically rejected
schools. We
the
thereby
“encourage
to
for
“may rightful-
such schools
improvement] by
argument
all suit-
that
forms of
[various
ly
provided
by
for
the General Assem-
Id.
able means.”
bly,
duty
is committed the
of
to whom
dichotomy between
We discussed
means,
by all
the
encouraging,
suitable
(covered by
first divi-
policy
the
education
intellectual, scientific,
of
moral
promotion
IX)
funding
education
of article
sion
improvement.” Clayton
agricultural
division)
(the
at some
subject of the second
at 176.
we
Cnty., 9 Iowa
Instead
conclud-
Township
City
the
length in District
of
of
“a component
ed that these schools were
Dubuque, 7
City
Clarke
Dubuque
of
system
of the educational
part
(1858),
year
adop-
after the
just
decided
which,
State;
the
establishment of
original
There we found
tion of 1857 constitution.
subsequent management and
as well as its
enact-
wide-ranging
unconstitutional a
law
control,
by
has been committed
the consti-
assembly
provide
to
for
by
general
ed
the
Board of
Id. at
tution
the
Education.”
of the state of
public
“the
instruction
short,
177. In
at a time when the 1857
ground
“[p]ower
legis
on the
Iowa”
quite
people’s
was
fresh in
constitution
education,
subject of
is con
upon
late
the
minds,
the conclusion that no
we reached
upon
education]”
ferred
the board [of
Constitution,
aspect
including
of the Iowa
only
can
act in the realm of
legislature
the
clause,
legis-
the education
authorized the
alter, amend,
policy
repeal
or
(as
provide
public
lature to
for
schools
Twp.,
acts. Dist.
prior
the board’s
them).
merely funding
Since
opposed
271-72,
empha
We
Clarke at
285-86.9
of our court
contemporary
the
view
was
of
provide
sized that laws “which
did not even
the education clause
education,
by
sometimes known
the name
legislature
allow the
to establish
originate
of
laws’ ... are to
with
‘school
schools, it
difficult for us to conceive
seems
board[,]”
levying
laws “for the
the
whereas
the clause could have been seen as a
making appropriations
of taxes —those
of enforceable minimum standards
source
for the control and
money
those
—and
schools.
such
the educational and school
management of
passed by
interpretation
to be
the
This
of the education
funds and lands —are
grant
funding authority
as a
general assembly.” Id. at 286.
clause
youth
Among
provisions
required "the instruction of
between
9.
which this court de-
ages
twenty-one years.”
provision
of five and
Id. at
clared unconstitutional was a
language prohib-
segregated
We
that this
on
basis of race. See
reasoned
schools
Later,
30(4).
persons
§
the exclusion of
of color from the
1858 Iowa Acts ch.
ited
Directors,
opinion
Id. at 276. Our
Clark v.
the general assembly to eliminate the
future,
be left “to be determined in the
any
board of education at
time after 1863 the public exigencies may require.”
Id.
and thereafter
for “the educational A.H. Marvin of Monticello observed:
any
interest of the State in
other manner
not,
my
We should
opinion, be
that to them shall seem best and proper.”
by
bound
a
provision
constitutional
to
out,
Id. As it
legislature
turned
abol-
make
all,
our common schools free to
ished the
board
education at the earliest
but should let the several districts regu-
possible opportunity in 1864. See 1864
late this matter for themselves.
If we
52, §
Iowa Acts ch.
l.10
that,
do
I will
you
poor
warrant
that
context,
Placed in
section 15 reaffirms
children will never be turned out of our
dividing
line between the first division
common schools.
IX,
of article
which addressed education
Id. at 969. Harvey Skiff of Newton com-
division,
policy, and the second
which iden-
mented, “If
incorporate
we should
the pro-
funding
tified
sources. Section 15 made
gentleman
vision of the
from Scott [Mr.
clear that
the board of education would
constitution,
into our
it
Ells]
would become
control
policy (subject
possi-
education
to a
law,
established as organic
which could not
override)
legislative
ble
until at least
repealed.”
Id. Although another dele-
but
legislature
thereafter
could take
(Rufus
Pleasant)
gate
spoke
Clarke of Mt.
over that responsibility
any
“in
other man-
amendment,
in favor of the
quickly
it was
ner that to them shall seem best
prop-
twenty-five
defeated
a vote of
Const,
eight.
to
IX,
1, §
er.”
art.
div.
Id. at 970-72.
episode
One
from the 1857 constitutional
This exchange
delegates
indicates the
to
convention
suggests
debates also
that our
the 1857 convention
did
believe that
founders did not intend for section 3 of the
section
ultimately approved,
as it was
second
general
division to constrain the
right
to
public
contained
a free
edu-
assembly’s authority with respect to edu-
cation. And if section 3 did not assure a
3, 1857,
policy.
cation
March
George
On
right
education,
public
to a free
it seems
Davenport proposed
Ells of
amending that
argue
untenable to
that section 3 contained
section to
a guarantee
include
of a free
judicially
public
pub-
education.
enforceable
to a free
Specifically, he sought
to add a clause at the end
lic
so
education with certain minimum
section
stan-
read,
it would
inviolably
“shall be
approp-
dards
quality.
Iowa’s constitutional
upon
10. We are not called
ity
to decide in
policy
to address education
or whether
case whether the
authority
subject
any
abolition of the board of
to
limits
gave
legislature
education
plenary
previously
applied
author-
to the board of education.
means,
promotion
make a
all
opportunity
suitable
had
delegates
scientific, moral,
intellectual,
part
of free
guarantee
agricul-
law,”
improvement”
id. at
and declined to
designed
give
tural
“organic
—as
legislature
authority”
do so.11
“broad
aug-
permanent
ment
the income from
Kleen
lends
v. Porter
Our decision
being subject
school fund without
to the
to the view that the edu-
support
further
in section
requirement
enumeration
7. Id.
legislative
does not constrain
cation clause
Thus,
at 907.
Kleen
field of education. 237 Iowa
policies in the
grant
saw the education clause as
(1946).
was a
five and in such manner bility of “political questions” primarily is by the may provided General Assem- separation powers rooted doc bly.”).12 disagreed. We held that the We trine, leave requires “which we intact the requirement applied only enumeration respective regions of indepen roles and “permanent from the appropriations school dence of the coordinate branches gov 2, by IX, article fund” established division (ci ernment.” at Dwyer, 542 N.W.2d Kleen, funding not other sources. omitted). tations 1165-66, at at 907. Iowa N.W.2d We The political question construed the first sentence of section 3— doctrine excludes Assembly encourage, judicial “The General shall from review those controversies convention, amendment, pro- 11. Earlier in the Marvin had Unlike the earlier Marvin posed provid- an amendment that would have later was directed to Ells amendment section ed, legislature "And the shall for rais- 3 of the is no second division. There indica- ing so that funds sufficient schools shall be tion in the debates that the Ells amendment kept in each district at months in least six rejected was for racial reasons. Id. at 968- year, each which schools free of shall be Debates, charge open equally all.” rejected, also 825. That amendment was fol- repealed 12. This section was constitutional lowing a debate that had unfortunate racial amendment in 1984. Id. at 825-30. overtones. policy which revolve around choices and an examination of the nature of the under- constitutionally value determinations lying claim. Id. at 495-96. committed for resolution to the halls of A number of might these factors support Assembly] General or the confines [the plaintiffs’ the conclusion that claim under Judiciary of the Executive Branch. The the education clause presents political particularly ill suited to make such with, question. begin To the text and decisions, as fundamentally courts are history of the clause indicate a commit underequipped poli- to formulate [state] authority ment of general to the assembly, cies or standards for matters develop rather than a upon constraint it. The legal in nature. says clause the “General Assembly shall Japan Whaling Ass’n v. Am. Cetacean encourage....” Unlike most of the clauses 221, 230, Soc’y, U.S. S.Ct. rights, our bill of it is not worded in the (1986) (citations 92 L.Ed.2d negative prohibition as a (e.g., “the Gener omitted). quotations and internal None ”). See, Assembly al shall not ... e.g., theless, the judiciary’s pow exercise of the Const, I, 3-4, 6-9, 11-19, §§ art. interpret er to the constitution and to re Moreover, above, 23-24. as noted the edu constitutionality view the of the laws and cation clause must be in conjunction read the legislature acts of does not offend with the broad policy-making authority principles. these Luse v. Wray, IX, conferred article division séction (Iowa 1977); N.W.2d see also general which states that the assembly *16 Madison, (1 Cranch) Marbury v. 5 U.S. power shall have after “provide 1863 to for (1803). 137, 177-78, 2 L.Ed. 73 the educational interest of the in any state A political question may be found other manner that to them shall seem best following
when one or more of the
consid
proper.”
Kinzer v.
Indep.
Dirs. of
present:
erations is
Dist.,
441, 444,
Sch.
129 Iowa
105 N.W.
(1)
textually
a
demonstrable constitu-
(1906)
686, 687
(citing this constitutional
tional commitment of the issue to a coor-
provision
stating
that “the Legislature
(2)
political
dinate
department;
a lack of
expressly
provide
authorized to
for the
judicially
manageable
discoverable and
state,
educational interests of the
in such
(3)
issue;
resolving
standards for
manner as shall seem
proper”);
best and
the impossibility
deciding
without an
Bunger
High
see also
v. Iowa
Sch. Athletic
policy
initial
determination of a kind
Ass’n,
(Iowa
1972)
197
563
N.W.2d
(4)
discretion;
clearly
nonjudicial
(same).
impossibility of a
in-
undertaking
court’s
Second,
open question
it is an
whether
dependent resolution without expressing
“judicially
a lack
education clause contains
respect
due coordinate
(5)
government;
manageable
branches of
discoverable and
standards.”
an unusual
for unquestioning
Dwyer,
need
adherence to a
trol in
Daniels,
In Bonner ex rel. Bonner v.
determination of a
policy
an initial
kind
(Ind.2009),
group
N.E.2d
Dwyer,
discretion.
clearly
nonjudicial
sought
Indiana
school students
port of and maintenance Const, students.”); VIII, schools_”); provided § all N.D. 1 shall be for Md. art. Const, 8, ("[T]he ("The legislative assembly § 1 Assembly, at its First Session art. General Constitution, provision for the establishment shall shall make adoption after of this system public a and maintenance of a of by throughout the State thor- Law establish open which shall be to all children of ough System of Free Public schools and efficient taxation, Schools; the state of North Dakota and free from sec- provide and shall Const, VI, control."); maintenance.”); otherwise, § art. 3 Mich. tarian Ohio their for Const, ("Provision VIII, ("The made law for the or- legislature § shall shall be art. 2
21
end,
require
public
the state’s
education
In the
though, we need not decide
today
plaintiffs’
whether
claims under the
“efficient,”
system
“adequate,”
“quali-
education
present
nonjusticiable
clause
ty,” “thorough,”
or “uniform.”16 Our
political question.17 It
is sufficient
not make these
founders did
choices.
present purposes to hold that Iowa’s edu-
ganization,
general
and control of the
system
administration
vide for a
and uniform
of
Const,
schools.”);
public
system
supported by
XII,
of
public
school
the state
§
W.Va.
art.
1
Const,
VIII,
funds....");
public
§
("The
Or.
art.
3
Legislature
provide, by general
shall
("The Legislative Assembly
provide by
shall
law,
thorough
system
for a
and efficient
uniform,
Const,
law
the establishment of
and
schools.”);
7,
("The
Wyo.
§
free
art.
1
schools.");
general system of Common
Pa.
legislature
provide
shall
for the establishment
Const,
Ill,
("The
§
Assembly
art.
General
complete
and maintenance of a
and uniform
provide
sup-
shall
for the maintenance and
instruction,
system public
embracing free
port
thorough
system
of a
and efficient
elementary
every
schools of
needed kind and
public education to serve the needs of the
grade_”).
Const,
XI,
Commonwealth.");
§
S.C.
art.
("The
Assembly
provide
General
shall
for the
Const,
Const,
1;
XI, §
16. See Ariz.
art.
Ark.
support
system
maintenance and
of a
of free
Const,
14,
1;
IX, 2;
§
§
art.
Colo.
art.
Del.
public
open
schools
to all children in the
Const,
Const,
X,
1;
IX, 1(a);
§
§
art.
Fla.
art.
Const,
VIII,
State....”);
("[I]t
§
S.D.
art.
Const,
Const,
VIII,
1;§
Ga.
art.
Idaho
árt.
duty
Legislature
shall be
of the
to estab-
Const,
IX,
1;
X,
1;
§
Ky.
§
Ill.
art.
Const.
general
sys-
lish and maintain a
and uniform
Const,
183;
1;
VIII,
§
Const,
§
Md.
art.
Minn.
public
tem of
schools wherein tuition shall be
Const,
XIII,
1;
X,
§
art.
Mont.
art.
all;
charge,
equally open
without
and
and
Const,
Const,
11, 2;
1(3);
§
§
Nev.
art.
N.J.
adopt
all suitable means to secure to the
Const,
1;¶
VIII,
XII,
1;
§
art.
§
N.M.
art.
advantages
people
opportunities
and
Const,
Const,
IX,
2(1);
§
N.C.
art.
Or.
Const,
art.
XI,
education.”);
("The
§
Tenn.
art.
Const,
3;
VIII,
14;
Ill,
§
§
Pa.
art.
Tex.
Assembly
provide
General
shall
for the main-
Const,
Const,
VII,
1;
VIII,
1;
§
§
art.
Va.
art.
tenance, support
eligibility
standards of a
Const,
Const,
2;
Const,
§
Wash.
art.
W.Va.
art.
schools.”);
system
public
of free
Tex.
Const,
1;
XII,
Wyo.
§
§
VII,
art.
1.
("A general
§
art.
diffusion of knowl-
edge being
preservation
essential to the
of the
rights
people,
liberties
of the
it shall be
Although
interpreted
meaning
we
duty
Legislature
of the State to
Kleen,
the education clause in
that does not
provision
establish and make suitable
for the
possibility
foreclose the
that the claims now
sys-
support
maintenance of an efficient
question.
political
before us raise a
Kleen
Const,
schools.”);
public
tem of
free
Utah
art.
legislative
question
spending
involved a
au-
X,
("The Legislature
§
provide
shall
for the
thority.
22 even equal protection, not afford a basis for when does
cation clause legisla- to an area where the pertains claim allegations this case. relief under tive branch has been vested with consider- Equal Protection D. The See, Luse, authority. e.g., 254 N.W.2d able plaintiffs’ turn to claim We now Clause. (holding equal protection that an at 328 equal have violated that the defendants challenge general assembly to a election Iowa clause of the Constitut protection justiciable notwithstanding contest was I, provides: Article section 6 ion.18 III, authority conferred article section 7 have a of a nature shall general All laws matters). to each house to determine such the General Assem- operation; uniform Equal protection jurisprudence has a set citizen, grant any not bly shall applied that we have in the standards citizens, or immuni- privileges class of (dis- 542 at 495 past. Dwyer, N.W.2d Cf. ties, which, upon the same terms shall cussing nonjusticiable the elements of a belong to all citizens. equally not question treating a “lack of political Const, I, § Iowa art. judicially manageable discoverable element).19 as one such We standards” outset, agree At the we do not plaintiffs’ therefore turn to the merits of court’s conclusion that with the district equal protection claim. presents claim plaintiffs’ equal protection question. Typical nonjusticiable political with Exira begin We our discussion State, brought by Community individuals School District v. 512 ly, we decide claims (Iowa 1994), we 787 a case where of their constitutional N.W.2d allege who denial I, general uniformity i.e., laws "of a nature” regularly referred to article 18. We have — legisla- "equal protection having operation” and the 6 clause” of "a uniform section See, Rojas e.g., granting privileges v. Pine a citizen or the Iowa Constitution. ture not Farms, L.L.C., 223, 779 N.W.2d 229 Ridge "upon of citizens that the same terms class 2010); (Iowa Apartments Eagle Vill. v. War equally belong all citizens.” [do] Plummer, 714, (Iowa 2009); 775 N.W.2d 723 respect, Equal Protection it resembles the Brien, 862, (Iowa v. 763 N.W.2d 872 Varnum to the Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Wade, 618, 2009); N.W.2d 621 token, State v. 757 Mitchell, By it dif- U.S. Constitution. the same (Iowa 2008); 757 N.W.2d State v. dramatically Privileges Im- fers from the 431, (Iowa 2008); Partners 435 Timberland munities Clause of the Fourteenth Amend- Revenue, XXI, Dep’t 757 LLP v. Iowa ment to the U.S. Constitution which its (Iowa 2008); 172, v. N.W.2d 173-74 Houck protects privileges and immuni- terms certain Exam’rs, Pharmacy 752 N.W.2d Iowa Bd. of States” from ties of "citizens of United 14, (Iowa 2008); Hennings, Const, In re Det. 21 being abridged by . the states. U.S. 333, (Iowa 2008); Ames 744 N.W.2d 338-39 XIV, § 1. The Fourteenth Amendment amend. Ames, City Prop. v. 736 Rental Ass’n Privileges and Immunities Clause shields cer- S.A.J.B., 255, (Iowa 2007); 261 In re N.W.2d rights citizenship tain of national from state 645, (Iowa 2004). On a few 679 N.W.2d 648 Roe, 489, interference. v. 526 U.S. Saenz occasions, 2001, than we none more recent 501-504, 1518, 1525-27, 119 S.Ct. 143 "privileges and have referred to it as the (1999). L.Ed.2d immunities clause.” See Perkins v. Bd. of (Iowa 2001); Supervisors, 636 N.W.2d holding that a claim under the 19. We are not Bd., UtiliCorp v. Utils. United Inc. present equal protection clause can never 1997); (Iowa City N.W.2d Bennett v. See, e.g., nonjusticiable political question. Vi (Iowa 1989); Redfield, N.W.2d Jubelirer, 267, 281-306, 541 U.S. eth Kostichek, (Iowa Koch v. 1769, 1778-92, L.Ed.2d 560- S.Ct. 1987). (2004) (stating the view of four Justices gerrymandering partisan claims under underly- While not affect the labels should Equal oth recognize the Federal Protection Clause and ing analysis, important to it is I, provisions Equal er U.S. constitutional constitute Federal article section like the Clause, nonjusticiable political question). equality and deals with Protection *21 $70,000 in equal pro- confronted both an tax previously necessary loss revenues a chal- process tection and substantive due educate the students in remaining the (and relating to education reached lenge Exira school district. a This resulted in case, of the challenge). the merits in disparity substantial funds available Community Exira School District and the for education between Exira and Audu- sued parent-taxpayers Exira students disparity bon. This has disturbed the open a provision to invalidate of the state’s equality previously existing. educational required statute20 that the enrollment Id. at 793-94. district of tuition pay school residence to the Significantly, Exira did district into which the student had the allege the statute in question in- Exira, at 789- open enrolled. 512 N.W.2d fringed upon right. a fundamental at Id. living ten percent 90. About of students Thus, equal 793. both protection open the Exira district had enrolled into process purposes, substantive due we ap- another, (Audubon). larger school district plied the rational basis test. Id. Quoting financing Id. at Because the mecha- case, an earlier we held that when a stat- funds, required Exira to nism transfer “ definite, relationship ute bears ‘a rational had resulted in a substantial shortfall ” legitimate purpose,’ to a it spending remaining available for the Exira must be al- the (quoting students “financial trouble for dis- lowed to Id. stand. Kent v. Polk trict.” Id. at 798-94. we found Although Cnty. Supervisors, Bd. standing, district (Iowa 1986)). the Exira itself lacked id. 225 This is true even if the equal we reached the of the merits pur- reasonableness nexus to the “ ” process protection and substantive due ported only ‘fairly end is debatable.’ Id. challenges brought by parent-taxpay- Further, challenging party ne- must students under ers and both the U.S. gate every upon reasonable basis which the Iowa Constitutions. We summarized may statute sustained. Id. complaints their as follows: test, Applying the rational basis we believe the They financing mechanism financing “easily found that the mechanism 282.18(8) section is unreasonable be- passes constitutional muster” open because it requires locally cause transfer a greater enrollment results access to ed- generated tax revenues a show- without opportunities legisla- ucational of need. ing appellants What the want method of financing open ture’s chosen financing require is a scheme that would per pupil equity.” enrollment “maintains showing district receiving Regarding parent-taxpay- Id. at 795. the tax than the “needs” dollars more i.e., argument, ers’ “relative need” that the sending appel- district. Otherwise —the money Exira needed the it was district argue significant lants loss of stu- —a transferring Audubon in order to sur- could ultimately destroy sending dents commented, vive, analysis, we “In the final district. appellants’ argument relative need really alleged all a school district’s about complaint down to Appellants’ boils right to process due exist.” Id. We then enrollment, open
this. Before
the state
argument
responded to this
as follows:
financing
achieved
for-
through
had
so,
legislature
If it
to do
chooses
every
educational equality
mula
stu-
impedi-
constitutional
year
in Iowa.
can—without
During
dent
the first
enrollment,
open
experienced
Exira
ment —terminate a school district’s exis-
282.18(7).
provision
20. The
is now found at Iowa Code
section
*22
for
or her education wherever
that
legislature
the
enact-
his
when
tence. And
legislation,
short,
it knew
enrollment
Id.
we
open
ed
student
is educated.”
In
might
its ultimate effect
that
full well
“does indeed
concluded that
the statute
some smaller
demise of
mean the
basis,”
“disposes
which
of’
have a rational
knowledge,
the
Despite
schools.
the
and the substan-
equal protection
both
policy
right
amade
legislature
process challenges.
decision—
tive
Id.
due
go
open
with
enrollment.
wrong
—to
lessons can be drawn
believe several
We
judge
us to
the wisdom
It is not
First,
that
recognized
Exira.
we
from
legislative
That was a
policy.
such a
process right
a due
to an
students have
call.
education, although we
not
adequate
did
legislative
call
yielding
right.
as a
Id.
characterize it
fundamental
we are not insen-
government,
branch of
(The
allege
not
that a
at 796.
did
strongly-held
and
feelings
sitive to
in their
right
fundamental
was
issue
schools, such
of smaller
patrons
views of
case,
that
accepted
id. at
and we
recognize
We
that
Exira school.
as the
decision.)
position
purposes
of our
way
families sense a
individuals
Second,
process
we held there is no due
vehemently
in the balance
life is
right
particular
to be educated in a
school
assumption that centrali-
any
challenge
Third, we found a
district.
Id. at 796.
improves
quality of
zation of schools
roughly
funding mechanism that assured
proper
forum for this
education.
per-pupil funding
re-
the same amount
courts,
not in the
but
however
debate is
did not treat stu-
gardless of
district
govern-
of state
in the other branches
differently
equal protec-
or violate
dents
duty
interpret
ment. Our clear
us,
the view
Finally,
expressed
and not
tion.
Id.
we
law
apply
given
among schemes for
or choose
over whether “centralization
develop
that debates
public education.
of edu-
improves
quality
of schools
legislature
in the
and not
belonged
cation”
at 795-96.
Id.
Id. at 795-96.
the courts.
opinion,
our
we turned
At the end of
equal
process
to the due
specifically
matter,
an initial
we note
As
the Exira
claims of
students.
protection
claim,
protection
whether
any equal
process
due
rejected their substantive
We
elsewhere, re
the education context or
claim,
authority
of no
“We know
observing,
allegation
disparate
treat
quires an
desire to be educated
says
a student’s
ment,
In
merely disparate impact.
not
[i.e.,
rises
Exira]
district
in a certain school
deed,
counsel conceded as much
plaintiffs’
by due
right protected
of a
to the level
allege
equal
To
a viable
argument.
at oral
that a
Id. at 796. We added
process.”
claim, plaintiffs
allege
must
protection
to an
process right
“a due
student has
treating similarly
are
situ
the defendants
education,”
noted,
but
“That
adequate
Thus, in
differently.
State
persons
ated
our
[in
we have demonstrated
—as
Wade,
rejected
argument
that a
we
analysis]
fur-
basis
previous rational
—is
felony
sentence for both
and misde
special
diminished,
thered,
funding
equal pro
meanor sex offenders violated
282.18(8).” Id. We
mechanism in section
2008).
(Iowa
tection.
equal protec-
also overruled
students’
though
“Even
Wade has
explained,
We
stating:
do we think
challenge,
tion
“Nor
similarly
classes that are
identified two
differently for
such students are treated
situated,
protection argu
equal
Wade’s
say this
equal protection purposes. We
... offenders who com
282.18(8)
ment fails because
every
assures
because section
sex crimes
amount of funds mit serious misdemeanor
roughly
student
the same
*23
felony
Harrison,
offenders who commit
sex crimes West
Davenport,
and Des
Id.;
differently.”
Moines,
are not treated
see also
they
or that
have imposed differ-
Ames,
Prop.
City
Ames Rental
Ass’n v.
ent
requirements
rules or
respect
with
(Iowa
255,
2007)
736 N.W.2d
259
(plaintiffs
rather,
those districts.
theory,
Plaintiffs’
by alleging
met
threshold
that tenants
is that the defendants have not taken suffi-
who were related and tenants who were
cient affirmative steps to eliminate per-
treatment);
unrelated received differential
outcomes,
ceived differences in
e.g., gaps
State,
769,
Montoy v.
278 Kan.
120 P.3d in average
achievement,
student
teacher
306, 308
(holding
“disparate
that
level,
experience
and the like. One can
impact”
financing
of Kansas’s
school
describe that theory in various ways, but it
scheme on minorities and other classes
is not an allegation of disparate treatment
could not establish an equal protection vio- by
See,
these defendants.
e.g., City of
lation).
Bd.,
Coralville v. Iowa Utils.
750 N.W.2d
(Iowa
523,
2008)
530-31
(rejecting
equal
A
way
saying
related
the same
protection challenge
utility
to a
law that
thing
point
equal
is to
out that
protection
applied equally to all communities but with
require
claims
“state action.” Disparate
different results in different locales on the
treatment
someone other than the state
ground that
it was
substance a
“in
mis-
(which
state,
inaction,
because of its
placed argument
uniformity
for
of conse-
prevent)
failed to
generally does not
quences rather than uniformity of opera-
amount
to an equal protection violation.
tion”).22
reason,
For this
plaintiffs’ equal
Blair,
See Principal Cas. Ins. Co. v.
protection claim was properly dismissed.
67,
(Iowa 1993)
N.W.2d
(holding that
presence
of an allegedly discriminatory
Even if we could discern some
family insurance clause in a private insur
allegation
disparate
treatment
in plain
policy
ance
did not violate either the Fed
allegations,
tiffs’
we would still not be per
Equal
eral or the State
Protection Clause
they
suaded that
have stated a claim. Un
because this was “not an action of the
suspect
less a
class or a fundamental right
state”).21
issue,
is at
equal protection claims are
above,
But as we
reviewed
petition
have noted
under
the rational basis test.
Sanchez,
contains no allegations
disparate
treat-
stitutional determining guidance Sell. Indep. Supreme San Antonio Court’s right. damental 1, 85, 98 S.Ct. are deemed fundamental. Rodriguez, rights U.S. which Dist. (1973); 664; see L.Ed.2d 701 N.W.2d at In re Det. Seering, 202, 223, Doe, (Iowa 2003). U.S. Plyler v. Cuhbage, also 72 L.Ed.2d of con right” purposes S.Ct. “Fundamental *24 (“Nor a fundamental is education synonym a stitutional review is not justify by compel- need not interests, a State right; Many important “important.” in man- every variation the necessity ling right the to choose one’s residence such as provided to its education ner in which vehicle, a do not right or the to drive population.”). rights. See Seer qualify fundamental Sanchez, 664; ing, 701 N.W.2d at analysis control the under
This does not True, Exira, N.W.2d at 817. in we the Iowa Constitution. Rodriguez and relied on its from
quoted
Priest,
In
v.
5 Cal.3d
608-
Serrano
Exira,
classification
Ass’n,
Prop.
and the
Ames Rental
required,
the classification
is
see
ship between
certainly
weak the classifica-
there are
it is so
736 N.W.2d at
behind
purpose
arbitrary
capri-
or
basis test can
be viewed
occasions where
rational
tion must
is not re-
government
taking
pleadings
Id. The
on the
without
applied
cious.”
produce evidence to
case,
quired
expected
In this
unless the well-
evidence.
contrary,
To the
true)
action. Id.
justify
(if
its
would show
pleaded facts
every reasonable ba-
negate
“must
plaintiff
rationally
system is not
Iowa’s educational
may be
which the classification
upon
sis
there is
legitimate
goal,
to a
state
related
Bierkamp
Rogers,
sustained.”
proceed
case to
further.
no reason for the
(Iowa 1980);
see also
N.W.2d
con
plaintiffs’ legal
Disregarding
Willard,
207, 756 N.W.2d
State v.
(for
Iowa’s edu
example,
clusions
Ass’n,
(Iowa 2008);
Prop.
Rental
Ames
“irrational, arbitrary and
cation
at 259.
the defendants have
capricious” or that
circumstances,
Depending on
an “effective educ
failed to
challenge can be resolved
a rational basis
ation”),23
following
we are left with
Sanchez,
See, e.g.,
on a motion to dismiss.
fewer
stan
allegations:
Iowa has
state
(affirming the dis
In
Association of
(RACI),
married,
675 N.W.2d
Fitzgerald
rationally
gov-
would
advance the
(2004),
taxing gross
that a statute
we held
objective
protecting
ernment
children
from racetracks at a
receipts
gambling
offenders”);
Prop.
from sex
Ames Rental
imposed
the rate
nearly twice
rate
Ass’n,
(upholding
ing goals: (Iowa 1995) Ash, (citing v. Cort U.S.
1. All children in Iowa must start 66, 78, 2080, 2088, 45 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1975)). ready to learn. school generally All four factors weigh private right must in favor of a high graduation 2. school rate Iowa’s for us find action such exists. ninety percent. must increase to at least Eveleth, Stotts graduating from Iowa’s 3. Students (Iowa 2004). must demonstrate challenging subject mat- competency agree Here we section 256.37 was enact- ter, benefit, plaintiffs’ many have learned to use their ed for the and must well, of them they may prepared minds so are Iowa school students. second, third, But we conclude the citizenship, learning, further responsible global support in a fourth factors listed above do not productive employment action, a private right of and therefore economy. plaintiffs’ hold under section 256.37 claim 4. students must be first in the was properly dismissed. world science mathematics achievement. Regarding second fac- Marcus/Cort tor, Every adult Iowan must be liter- of section language 256.37 does possess knowledge ate and and skills to create a reme- legislative indicate intent Rather, dy. merely forth necessary compete global in a econo- section sets *32 part with six was of policy legislation a statement of enacted that general strive system Department “education must allowed the of “goals” the Education § (emphasis Iowa Code 256.37 waive with the edu- compliance to reach.” minimum added). legislature specifically The used cation standards for un- accredited schools “goals” the instead of more concrete der certain terms circumstances. See 1992 “require- § 1. such as “standards” or Acts ch. language Also, the as- legislature ments.” used addition, the fourth factor is not sat- phrase reach” pirational “must strive to Department isfied because the Edu- of a more such demanding phrase instead of jurisdiction cation has under Iowa Code Id. as “must reach.” policymaking section 256.1 to act in a ca- Furthermore, goals wording pacity provide of the statewide of supervision legislative reflects a to education in the State of purpose themselves Iowa. Iowa Code 256.1(1) (“The § only policy pronouncement. department a make of education statute, sweep- is to act in Throughout policymaking broad and established a “every” ing language advisory capacity such as “all” and is and to exercise general goals utopian supervision are thus over the state edu- used. Id. of states, ”). A example, private the final cation .... goal nature. For cause of action in Iowa free of under 256.37 “Every school must be section would intrude into legis- agen- violence....” area in a state drugs and Id. Did the which administrative Education, bring cy, already to allow a student to of Department lature intend jurisdiction. is suit whenever his or her school not has exclusive drugs of We entirely “free and violence”? third, second, Because neither the nor think not. private fourth of a right elements of action here, within placement present section 37 we affirm the district sup- that Chapter ruling the Iowa Code also court’s section 256.37 does not remedy. a ports proposition simply private it is policy statement. Section 256.37 is located disposition plaintiffs’ Given our sub- I, subchapter within entitled “General Pro- claims, stantive we need not reach defen- subchapter generally visions.” This de- arguments dants’ additional that manda- policy in estab- scribes education Iowa and appropriate remedy mus is not an Department lishes of Education. the Governor of Iowa is not a de- proper Many sections “Gen- other within the same fendant. subchapter begin eral Provisions” also IY. Conclusion. language, policy....” with the “It is the See, 256.18, §§ e.g., id. .38. plaintiffs’ We affirm dismissal of also un- petition.
The third factor is first amended substituted Marcus/Cort allowing private importance met because cause We do not minimize the here section a re- plaintiffs. of action would be inconsistent with issues raised But general purpose delineating spect precedent 256.37’s and for our constitu- stay Per- dis- goals system. requires for Iowa’s educational tion we out of this decisions, private from mitting pute. past of action under This court its Exira, historically likely would a multi- Kleen has section 256.37 unleash to Johnson plicity policy of future lawsuits that trans- deferred to the decisions made would branches aspirational goals political government form into a series specific Notably, mandates. section 256.37 area.26 requires history
26. We not think a resolution this case to review the of education do us *33 my explain position who Iowa and to further parents and students sixteen clearly believe that this suit the issues this case. brought ' if we would benefit had schools Iowa’s outset, compelled At the I feel to ac- stan- testing, more statewide more student is a tradition knowledge that education dards, uniformity, and a statewide more ever. A today strongly that exists as as system for teach- pay performance-based is need- system public clearly education being de- currently are ers. These issues state to learn youth ed to allow the of this our state. The debate throughout bated analysis, aspects judgment, the essential legislators, gover- the include participants communication, creativity. It need- is officials, nor, branch school executive to meet empower generation ed to each teachers, students, boards, parents, economic, social, scientific, political, the pro- believe the democratic taxpayers. We other chal- governmental, personal, those for resolution of cess is best suited evolving global of an world. Edu- lenges accommodate the and can best debates cation is the core of who we are and who many the concerns of interested competing dissenting opinion become. The we will parties. history the rich Appel captured Justice has beginning at the this As we said provided of this tradition in Iowa and has other not close the door to opinion, we do insight into its constitutional stature. violations in alleging actions constitutional Yet, response specific to the claim of a uphold only the of education. We field right constitutional under the education dismissal of this case. case, raised in this I am restrained clause AFFIRMED. deciding anything time from more this than that section 8 of the second division CADY, C.J., and WATERMAN and article IX of the Iowa does Constitution CADY, ZAGER, JJ., join opinion. this right public to a edu- not alone create a J., C.J., WATERMAN, separate file say cation. This conclusion is not to no WIGGINS, J., files a concurring opinions. right the Iowa such exists under Constitu- in which HECHT and dissenting opinion tion, but I am content to wait for a differ- J., APPEL, JJ., APPEL, files a join. petition ent in which the both frames case dissenting opinion in which separate underpinnings the full constitutional and is HECHT, J., joins. allow accompanied by pleadings would CADY, (concurring spe- Justice Chief underlying facts of the case to become cially). helpful shaping parameters aid in any right recognized such to exist. Of majority. opinion I concur in the course, case, by as out pointed' this explain my unwilling- I write separately Wiggins, Justice the more fundamental ob- fully explore time to more ness at this extremely whether this presented constitutional claim of a stacle is past governors ground importance. po- generally what Iowa have Another risk is that subject. judges, We are not histo- might justify said on litical trends then be used to history, judges, some such as our rians. For particular outcome in a case. It not sur- is highly precedent, own relevant. But there prising governors to us that Iowa's have be- political history are risks when we draw on responsibility lieved education to be a critical judicial decisionmaking. source material for government. demonstrating But that edu- may unwittingly risk is that we diminish One political been a vital concern of the cation has importance of more relevant historical government branches of does not answer the events, the ratification debates on the such as present question particular whether case Constitution, by submerging them in ought proceed through judicial branch. political history only other that has back- even be important support issue should addressed sufficient a violation of a funda- chose, parties us when the at least adequate mental to an education. it as an issue for initially, not to raise Normally, cases are not resolved on the presented it was appellate review after Barbour, pleadings. U.S. Bank decided a district court. *34 (Iowa 2009). Moreover, N.W.2d The restraint ex- judicial doctrine of do not set a high litigants we bar to Wiggins is a view I pressed by Justice to meet requirement plead clear the for a Yet, normally would follow. our rules of ing to state a claim for relief. Id. at 354 judicial full of restraint are nuance and (noting requirement the “fair notice” is ultimately rest on the exceptions par- and if a petition met informs the defendant of ticular of each circumstances case. As giving the incident rise to the claim and opinion, majority prin- observed the the nature). Instead, general the claim’s we ciples judicial restraint also embrace follow the libéral rule of notice pleading. judicial economy, particularly a doctrine rule, however, This not does mean all If the applicable allegations to this case. claims clear the bar. O'Brien v. See Di of a case would not be sufficient to estab- Grazia, (1st 544 F.2d n. Cir. claim, true, assuming they lish a were all 1976) that, (noting plaintiff in when civil judicial economy by would be served rights action facts provides support to for the sending parties go the case back claim, court duty “conjure does not have through expense the time and of further up unpleaded might turn facts that a frivo proceedings only for the courts to later claim of lous unconstitutional official action plaintiff declare the never had a viable one”); into a substantial see also 5B claim in the place. first Miller, Charles Alan & Arthur R. Wright composed Judicial restraint doctrine § Federal Practice and Procedure at elements, many it strives for out- (3d ed.2004) (noting courts “will practical. comes that are both fair accept description pleader’s the of what case, practical this it is both fair us happened along any to him or her with to examine the to determine if pleadings reasonably that can conclusion drawn plaintiffs the ever win their lawsuit if could therefrom,” accept “conclusory but will not we experience declared the educational allegations legal concerning the effect of legislature mandated the this state set if plaintiff the events the out these has right. was a It is fair constitutional be- allegations reasonably do not follow from parties fully explored cause the this issue pleader’s description hap the what court, before the and it district was ulti- pened”). mately rehearing raised urged claim viability When the of a for relief is appeal. practical It is because the case is challenged, requires our rule con- pleading us, before and it is in the best interests of facts, set of any sideration conceivable all concerned for us to decide the merits of those relate to and only but facts that Thus, underlying claim now. under prove allegations could made in the particular background procedural of the case, petition. allegations petition, if I judi- conclude the doctrine of facts, show entitlement proven must cial restraint does not instruct us to re- not, Reviewing relief. do howev- frain from courts deciding question basic er, any allegations, consider whether or not the have conceivable failed to only any support state a claim conceivable Accordingly, for relief. it is facts allegations appropriate allegations to decide if are made. cannot be established. There are case, peti- of the cation allegations
In this true, could not establish tion, if that students simply allegations even no today being are denied write, communicate, in Iowa read, per- students or cannot education, minimally adequate basic or aspects the other essential of edu- form might standard land. that elusive wherever allegations are no that ca- cation. There single alle- have not made The plaintiffs understanding lack an pable students have been they establish that could gation science, economics, mathematics, govern- read, write, ability basic deprived ment, technology. computer-based or communicate, they alleged have not does contain some state- petition ability to deprived of their been they have edu- generally indicting ments mathematics, sci- understanding gain an *35 example, petition For system. cation economics, ence, government, computer- “[m]any Iowa students are not states that compo- vital or other technology, based post- the workforce or prepared to enter the alle- basic education. While nents of a secondary without additional education are detailed and petition in the gations training they gradu- or remediation when they simply do not show thoughtful, also high petition ate from school.” of an being deprived opportu- students are alleges the educational accreditation For ex- adequate education. nity for ensure that to be- standards of this state “do not disparities alleged exist ample, may across Iowa districts tween school will able to meet or exceed all students” be experi- slightly different show society, prepared the future demands of outcomes, those different ences and but citizenship, pre- and be responsible deprivation do not establish outcomes learning productive for further pared education. basic global economy. in the employment declares, inef- petition generally also Likewise, “[A]n col- Iowa’s recent decline of pro- persist test scores and other fective education will for school lege admissions lifetimes, a depriva- do not establish ficiency throughout scores their affect- children merely They show tion of basic education. ability to ing the rate and extent of their slip, to but the may begun the state have citizen, ability their to responsible be a is not so much that alleged level of decline further, ability learn and their to achieve person say slip could reasonable in a productive employment global econo- altogether de- means students have been my.” Similarly, education. prived of a basic actually To the extent such claims are assessment mechanisms absence of certain opposed as to allegations petition, of a Iowa, alleged by plaintiffs, does action, hortatory they calls to relate to the of basic edu- deprivation not establish the adequate of a basic or education. level in the nation- Even Iowa’s decline cation. adequate education Wherever a basic or subjects in various does not rankings al the framework of our might land within being deprived of basic mean students are constitution, assuming the existence of merely shows we are Again, education. it education, landing cer- right point to other states beginning slip perhaps to or tainly guarantee that “all stu- would not Finally, beginning improve. are dents” would be able to meet the broad Iowa has failed to allegations broad of the world in the future. Nor demands standards, standards, enforce establish would right guarantee would the students systems, and adopt pay effective teacher a remedial course to never need to take delivery system establish a are insufficient. postsecondary edu- enter the workforce Accepting allegations petition all the of the true, of basic edu- cation. deprivation to be course, my rejection pleadings
Of from any information that is “realistically in the case as a support basis to a constitu- conceivable.” Miller v. Cnty. Boone right necessarily tional leads to the ques- (Iowa Hosp., 1986). 394 N.W.2d allegations tion of what would need to be Thus, when considering constitutional chal pled properly support the constitutional lenges subject to a rational-basis analysis, minimally claim of a sufficient public edu- may courts consider the any existence of Assuming cation. Justice Appel has artic- conceivable rational basis. The analysis ulated the source of a constitutional claim does not require a factual basis drawn education, to a fighting issue from the record in the case. Racing Ass’n turns to the meaning minimally of a suffi- Fitzgerald, Cent. Iowa v. cient education. This is an issue that is (Iowa 2004). 7-8 & n. 4 Accordingly, this indeed difficult and one that I am admit- analysis means required courts are not tedly without a specific answer at needlessly wait for a trial before declaring time. minimally We landed on a sufficient that a particular different outcome in soci standard in the context of the constitution- ety does not violate the equal protection counsel, al and this standard has guarantee. Different gov outcomes from worked well enough applying the consti- *36 ernmental actions can be observed But, tutional right. public education is a throughout society, they violate the totally different kettle of point fish. The equal protection only clause govern when when a system state’s educational becomes ment does not minimally adequate justifica insufficient would have an be difficult to ascertain the context of a constitutional tion for the different treatment. See Var Nevertheless, analysis. the analysis would Brien, (Iowa num v. need to generally center on the perform- 2009). ance of the school and its collective end, In the allegations peti- ultimately outcomes and be judged in rela- tion, while alarming, simply support cannot
tionship performance to other models over the constitutional claim that urged. But, period now, a years. I am Consequently, the courts have no role in simply content allegations that the of the important resolution social issue petition in this ease fall short true, at this time. The petition, may if trial to obtain the supporting evidence action, a call to but it is a call under our would not help. constitutional legislature, structure for the Additionally, allegations of the peti- not the courts. The pleadings simply do tion, true, if even do not establish a viola- not convince me that school children today tion equal protection clause. Even Iowa, let alone the school children at the assuming the different educational out- lawsuit, center of this being deprived are alleged comes in the petition supported are deprived or have been of any level of edu- facts, certainly a rational basis could be cation our constitution would be able to articulated to justify the different out- mandate. comes. This rational basis is found in the
local control given to school districts.
Moreover, a rational
justify
basis to
differ- WATERMAN,
(concurring
J.
specially).
ent outcomes does not need to be derived
I
majority’s
concur
well-reasoned
by courts from the
record
a case.
Im-
decision on
separately
all issues.
I write
portantly,
way
similar to the
facts are as-
emphasize
the importance
judicial
support allegations
sumed to
petition
in a
to determine if a claim for
restraint when litigants
relief has been
ask courts to over-
stated, courts formulate a rational basis
their
step
bounds.
(1954),
686,
This case segregation or discrimi- challenging mem- racial three new because argument oral treatment disparate claim of Plaintiffs’ nation. No to this court. added bers were such as race is any illegal classification argument oral eloquent in his counsel Rather, seek these do made here. job.” “do its We court to urged our courts are reform. Our affirming the dis- broad educational today by exactly that make edu- well-intentioned, institutionally competent to legally not but of a missal Depart- policy judgments. cational plain- individual lawsuit. If these flawed is in the executive case ment of Education with this proceed were allowed tiffs branch. courts, somehow won the they in the seek, result would be they the end relief here Justice Sca- repeating It is worth through schools running public our
judges the use of warning against recent lia’s second-guess injunctions structural re- injunctions institutional structural decisions made policy the educational litigation: form That government. branches of the elected ... injunctions turn[ ] Structural do not sit as is not our role. We long-term into administrators judges Iowa, of the State of school board supreme institutions such complex social guise adjudi- in the unwilling we are schools, police departments. prisons, the Iowa Constitu- usurp powers cation Indeed, they judges play require to run the elected branches tion cedes to indistinguishable from essentially role separation-of-pow- our schools. ordinarily played by executive the role the relief these precludes ers doctrine officials.... the courts. plaintiffs seek from injunc- The drawbacks structural *37 a lawsuit would set To reinstate this great tions have been described ask plaintiffs These dangerous precedent. This case illustrates length elsewhere. It jurisprudentially. too much of our court pernicious aspects: one of their most state- impose particular to is not for courts engage to a they judges that force by judicial de- standards wide educational that factfinding-as-policymaking form coequal a branch cree. Our limited role as judicial role. outside the traditional adjudicate requires us to government judges traditionally en- factfinding the mean- doing construe cases and so in involves the determination gage constitution; ing of our the constitutional (except for a facts based past present or schools lies with power public to run our courts materials of which limited set of notice”) branches. exclusively and executive legislative “judicial may take step power must in if that Courts can and That is one a closed trial record. upon way infringes on judge’s is exercised in a factual why reason a district See, v. Des re- rights. e.g., plain-error Tinker entitled to findings individual are Dist., the trial Cmty. having Sch. 393 U.S. viewed Indep. Moines view: because 733, 740, to 503, 514, position 21 L.Ed.2d in a better first hand he is 89 S.Ct. (1969) re- judge than a pro- First Amendment evaluate the evidence (holding very limited school a cold record. symbolic speech required viewing tection for cases, tra- judges have also category wear black officials to allow students to War). to make ditionally upon been called protesting the Vietnam armbands which cus- judgments: predictive áre some involving rights individual Such cases interests of the tody will best serve the competence of well the institutional within child, particu- example, or whether is stated to decide. No such claim courts remedy the injunction this case another one-shot will in this case. Nor is lar Education, judge grievance. When 347 U.S. plaintiff’s Brown v. Board of (cita manages injunction, (Scalia, J., a structural howev- 1015-16 dissenting) er, omitted). inevitably required he be to tions will very empirical predictions make broad These apply admonitions with equal necessarily in large part upon pol- based force A degree here. law and some court icy predictions regu- sort of views—the experience room qualify do not judges to larly by legislators made and executive restructure Iowa schools or impose new officials, inappropriate but Third statewide educational standards. If we re- Branch. case, instate this one can easily imagine
more lawsuits will be filed other fami- important recognize It is lies with different ideas on how to run the dressing-up of schools. policy judgments as fac- Whatever evidence the King tual findings peculiar might is not an error offer at a trial this case presumably this would very case. It is an unavoidable concomi- make a record dif- tant of institutional-reform ferent from the litigation. evidentiary trial record to injunc- When a district court issues an be made other plaintiffs conflicting with tion, educational policy goals it must make a factual such as assessment vouchers anticipated of the consequences greater of the local control. All such trials injunction. And when would be a injunction un- waste of time and scarce re- dertakes to sources in the cognizable restructure a social institu- absence of a tion, assessing upon the factual claim which consequences judicial may relief injunction granted. is necessarily the sort predictive judgment our We are affirming the dismissal government govern- allocates to other case plain based meaning of our ment officials. constitution precedent. and our own Six injunctions But structural do not sim- years teen ago our court unanimously rec ply invite judges indulge policy pref- ognized that it is not our “develop role to They erences. invite judges indulge or choose among schemes for edu incompetent policy preferences. Three cation” and proper that the forum for such years of law school familiarity with “in *38 debates is the other branches of state pertinent Supreme precedents Court government.” Cmty. Exira Sch. Dist. v. give insight no whatsoever into the man- State, 787, (Iowa 1994). 512 N.W.2d 796 agement of social institutions. by many This view is echoed other voices —Plata, U.S. -, -, Brown v. 131 of supreme restraint on the courts of our 1910, 1953-55, 969, S.Ct. 179 L.Ed.2d sister states.27 Comm, See, e.g., Rights Edgar, simply Educ. proper resolving v. is not the forum for for 1, 166, 174 I11.2d 1178, 220 Ill.Dec. 672 N.E.2d complicated policy broad and' decisions or (1996) ("[Q]uestions relating 1189 interests.”); balancing competing political quality solely of education are for the State, Londonderry Sch. Dist. SAU 12No. v. legislative answer.”); branch to Hombeck v. 153, 988, (2006) (not- 154 N.H. 907 A.2d 996 Educ., 597, Cnty. Somerset Bd. 295 Md. 458 ing any "concern that this court or court not 758, (1983) ("The A.2d quantity qual- and legislature’s shaping take over the role in edu- ity opportunities of educational be made policy”); cational and fiscal Okla. Educ. Ass’n available public to the State’s school children Legislature, v. State ex rel. Okla. 158 P.3d a legisla- is determination committed to the 1058, (Okla.2007) (”[T]he important role Coal, ture or to the people-”); Neb. society of education in our does not allow us Heineman, Equity Adequacy Educ. & v. 531, to override the 164, constitutional restrictions (2007) ("[I]t Neb. 731 N.W.2d placed judicial authority.”); beyond is on our Marrero our ken to determine what is ade- Commonwealth, 14, quate funding public schools. This court ex rel. Tóbalas v. 559 Pa. divergence notion. The of views contrast, focusing on our instead
By surveyed by the dissent is anoth- on a the dissent embarks precedent, own left why policymaking should be of authorities. For er reason survey wide-ranging branches. How should an times to to the elected cites several the dissent example, jury in a contested case judge Decla- Iowa or 1948 Universal Nations’ the United among disparate from academic a document that select Rights, ration of Human agree standards? We all viewpoints time and health to leisure right includes a vitally But important. education is public education. The as well as a care interfering courts that does not warrant acknowledges this UN Declaration dissent are run. The how our schools States courts. binding United is not Alvarez-Machain, any cites no case from lengthy dissent U.S. See Sosa v. 2767, imposi- where court-ordered 692, 734-35, jurisdiction 124 S.Ct. (2004). im- only edu- tion of statewide educational standards 754-55 L.Ed.2d proved Declaration was student outcomes. citing the UN cation case well-rea- by vigorous accompanied argues The dissent we should not decide Pauley Kelly, v. 162 W.Va. soned dissent. petition states a whether the amended (Neely, 897-900 255 S.E.2d upon may granted which relief claim J., party litigation No to this dissenting). appellee who won dismissal because any point Declaration cited UN ground did not brief that alternative below rele- argued any it had proceedings That issue was appeal. for dismissal on Decla- I fail to see how 1948 UN vance. fully by both sides in the district briefed our court ascertain the intent helps ration by the court and court and decided district of the framers of the Constitution decided our court to appropriately ninety years earlier. Our court ratified majori set forth in the day for the reasons declara- previously has not relied UN ty opinion Cady’s special Justice Chief our interpret tions or international law to today position The dissenters’ concurrence. constitution, I would not start eighteen is at odds with their zeal mere now. parties ago months to decide an issue case failed to brief in district also discusses numerous his- another The dissent appeal Yet court or on the district and famous educators. figures torical proposition for the court never decided. See Feld Borkow quoted none of them is 2010) (Iowa ski, I 790 N.W.2d 81-82 running that courts should be schools. J., concurring specially); id. at imagine surprised (Wiggins, all of them would be (1989) ("Because (1999) ("[Tjhis issues court is 739 A.2d *39 equality peppered judicially in education are ... unable to define what consti- such emotionally political perceptions and 'adequate' education or what funds with tutes an views, carefully ‘adequate’ support program.”); laden we have restrained our are such Sundlun, City v. 662 A.2d consideration of the constitutional issues be- Pawtucket us....”); (R.I.1995) (”[T]he Indep. see San Antonio level of state educational fore also 1, 42, Rodriguez, funding largely Legislature, 411 U.S. is a matter for Sch. Dist. 1278, 1301, (1973) familiarity possesses 'expertise and S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d which ("In raising policy, of fiscal this problems implicated in the addition to matters with local persistent disposition public also involves the most and revenues associated case ” Hornbeck, (quoting questions policy, educational an- public difficult with education.’ 786)); spe- Cnty. in which this Court’s lack of at Abbeville Sch. Dist. v. other area 458 A.2d State, knowledge experience counsels S.E.2d cialized 335 S.C. (“We against premature interference with the in- do not intend the courts of this State to judgments super-school made at the state and local super-legislatures become formed Grover, levels.”). boards.”); Kukor v. Wis.2d J., (Appel, concurring part 82-85 and tions in light this lawsuit shine a on short- dissenting part). argue The dissenters comings, trends, disturbing downward appropriate it was to reach the issue omit vary outcomes that from district to dis- ted from the briefs in Feld because it was trict. notably But absent in the volumi- inextricably intertwined with the issue filings nous appeal any this is convincing appeal. briefed on The same is true argument judicial intervention will make this case—whether these plaintiffs allege Iowa schools better. Plaintiffs filed no upon judicial claims which relief may Brandéis brief providing empirical data granted nonjusticiable political or rather requested judicial their intervention questions simply two sides of the same improve would educational outcomes. The Feld, Notably, coin. Wiggins Justice plaintiffs in this case are no doubt opti- posed questions several that are better mistic and sincere in their beliefs that the asked in this case: educational they reforms seek to impose
Why question by judicial should we leave the unan- statewide fiat will raise ACT in many courts, swered when the district court will be scores districts. Our how- ever, confronted with it on remand? are not Why competent are to determine creating potential appeal we whether injunction a structural imposing a ... issue when we can answer the new set of ques- priorities and standards will me, accomplish tion now? It seems to worthy goals us not to those or instead composite address the issue creates extra lower expense average ACT scores in parties currently for the and the court. Accord- districts that doing must be many I ingly, things right. would address the issue head on give sports exception the contact governor, legislators, Voters elect our proper burial. and school plain- board members. If these give plaintiffs’ Id. at 82. So too should we run, tiffs do not like how Iowa schools are now, case “a proper burial” instead of re- box, they should turn to the ballot not the manding costly for a prove allega- trial to courts. that, true, provide
tions
if
grounds
no
WIGGINS,
(dissenting).
Justice
judicial relief.28
Many generations of Iowans have
I
plaintiffs’
been
would find the
constitutional
justifiably proud
quality
justiciable
of our
claims
and remand the case for
system.
allega-
proceedings
state’s
school
further
on the merits of those
case,
Wiggins'
majori-
28. Justice
dissent asserts our
the same rational-basis test in the same
ty
"appears
Racing
decision
to overrule”
despite
long-standing
the well-settled and
tra-
(RACI II),
Fitzgerald
Ass’n Central Iowa v.
judicial
legislative
dition of
deference to
eco-
2004).
(Iowa
A court the reasons Here, Zivotofsky ex de first view.” the district court preservation. review not Clinton, U.S. -, petition amended plaintiffs’ termined the Zivotofsky rel. 1421, 1430, -, 182 L.Ed.2d to meet our notice alleged facts sufficient 132 S.Ct. 423, - (2012). stand for the Hawkeye Our cases See Foodser pleading standard. Distribution, may affirm the district that we Inc. v. Iowa Educators proposition vice 2012) (Iowa in the appearing record any on basis Corp., court N.W.2d See, appellee. appeal by on urged pleading (declining adopt heightened Voss, standard). e.g., In re Estate then dis The district court (Iowa 1996); Equip. n. 1 Johnston nonjusticia- plaintiffs’ claims as missed Indem., 489 N.W.2d Corp. v. Indus. appeal, On political questions. ble (Iowa 1992); Chauffeurs, Team see also brief argued appellate their plaintiffs’ No. 238 v. Local Union Helpers, sters & nonjusticiable po claims that its were Comm’n, 394 N.W.2d Rights Iowa Civil did not litical questions. (Iowa 1986) (stating may we de 375, 378 the merits of their constitutional argue by the not reached appeal issues on cide met our argue petition that their claims or have been raised they where district court Indeed, standard. because pleading fully briefed and in the district court and not address the merits district court did appeal). on This parties argued in the claims and ruled the constitutional fairness, principle in the rule is rooted issue, it pleading favor on the plaintiffs’ applied it in our consistently have and we unnecessary and strate would have been cases. unwise to do so unless the defen gically How appeal. raised these issues on dants Seering, 701 in State v. example,
For ever, defendants, prevailing parties (Iowa 2005), ap- we held the N.W.2d 655 below, briefs only argued appellate in their appeal arguments waived certain pellee constitutional claims plaintiffs’ were raised though even the issues nonjusticiable political ques presented because the decided the district court in the Although Waterman concurs opinion appears to be a Justice Mansfield's 29. Justice merits plurality opinion by finding plaintiffs’ it reaches the opinion, because he does so plaintiffs' the education claims under nonjusticiable political questions claims to be clause, clause, privileges process due just the district court did. the Iowa Constitution. immunities clause of *41 argue did not the tions. defendants briefed the alternate or grounds additional upon which plaintiffs’ petition plead failed to meet our we relied. Therefore, under our rule
ing standard.
Justice
opinion
Mansfield’s
also relies on
preservation,
only
of error
issue
Estate,
Erickson v. Erickson’s
191 Iowa
by
parties
appeal,
briefed
on
and thus
1393,
(1920),
ical education, concerning clause, the due other issues im- process privileges due and and immunities privileges process, munities clause of the Iowa Constitution Iowa Constitution. We can of the clauses entirely example, are their own. For same. do the and should discussing plain- when the merits of the clause, tiffs’ claim under the education Jus- opinion may argue Justice Mansfield’s opinion provides tice its own Mansfield’s appeal raised these issues on parties the IX, analysis of article division section 3 they during discussed them oral because However, opinion’s the ratio- of the Iowa This section argument. Constitution. preserved these is- parties part, nale that the in relevant “The General provides, on fails appeal our consideration sues for Assembly encourage, by all suitable shall First, on resubmission for two reasons. means, intellectual, promotion the scien- precipitated the refer- Justice Mansfield tific, moral, improve- and agricultural by asking Const, ences to these unbriefed issues IX, 2, § ment.” Iowa art. div. questions on these issues not raised this version). (1857 original Mansfield’s can- appeal.31 opinion Justice opinion Justice Mansfield’s and the con- parties preserved not the these is- claim curring opinion Cady of Chief Justice fail by raising through questioning sues them IX, to consider article division section Second, by the court. our case law is 12, which states: unwavering proposition in the that we will Education Board of shall not decide or consider issues raised for the youths the education of all the of the during argument. first time oral See Dil State, through of Common Moines, ley City Des N.W.2d orga- Schools and such school shall be 1976) (Iowa (citing prop cases for this kept nized and each school district at 1959). dating osition back to year. Any least three months in each There is a sound reason for this latter failing, district two consecutive noted, proposition. Judge Posner Chief years, organize keep up a school quite would not be cricket of us to “[I]t may deprived as aforesaid of their on place ground” decision the [our] portion of the school fund. argument until the oral was not raised IX, 1, § Id. art. div. 12. appeal party may because the other have thinking opponent been lulled into its was Although legislature the abolished the fighting the case on another issue. Prin- board of education referred to in section cipal Barclay Mut. Ins. Co. v. Charter replaced superin- in 1864 and it with the Life (7th Inc., Cir.1996). Hosp., 81 F.3d education, predecessor tendent of education, present department opinion
Justice Mansfield’s and Chief repealed citizens of this state never Cady’s concurring opinion per- Justice are IX, examples fect principle. this Their substance of 1857 article division necessary Cady properly dispose inextricably those issues is Justice were inter- case). However, majority rejected political question twined with issues arguments appeal. majority spe- raised this special made in concur- Feld, thus, signal cial concurrences seem to a shift in our rences in the law of State this preservation error rules. required party argue to brief and an issue this court before we would consider it on appeal. special Even if the concurrences plain- Within first three minutes of the case, applicable Feld were argument, the merits began tiffs’ oral Justice Mansfield asking questions of the issues reached Justice Mansfield's equal protection about the opinion concurring opinion and the of Chief clause. *43 section 12. See 1864 Iowa Acts ch. 52 the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims in order fact, §§ court so, 1-15. In this used the sub- to dismiss the doing case. In these IX, 1, provisions opinions fully stantive of article division fail to explore parame- the integrate section 12 to Iowa schools four ters of the an guaran- education years legislature after the abolished the by teed the Iowa Constitution. These IX, opinions pick board of education. See Clark v. Bd. article division section (1868) Dirs., (quoting 24 Iowa 3 of the Iowa Constitution to evaluate the IX, by stating article division section 12 merits of the case though parties even the provision “that shall be made ‘for the edu- did not brief or raise this section ap- on cation of all youths peal. mistake, the the State To compound their these schools,’ through of common opinions fail to address the education IX, which constitutional declaration has been clause in found article division sec- providing effectuated enactments tion 12 of the Iowa Constitution on the the youth ages ‘instruction of between the grounds parties the did not raise it in the ”). Clark, twenty-one years’ words, of five and district court. In other to reach a recognized result, the court the Iowa constitution- desired these opinions pick and rights al of all children to obtain an edu- arguments choose which to make and provided cation and that which arguments the not to make under their the state must be provided equally me, to all own error preservation rule. To it is children. Id. at 272-77. The analyses inconsistent to decide the on appeal case opinion Justice Mansfield’s and the concur- on arguments issues and the parties did ring opinion Cady below, Justice Chief of this not raise deny plaintiffs but to the important issue without allowing par- day their develop court to all of their properly ties to brief it argue deprives arguments fully, including those argu- day of their in court.32 As plaintiffs they ments could have made under article IX, Supreme Justice Stevens of the Court not- division section 12 of the Iowa Con- ed, adversary process functions “[T]he stitution. effectively rely
most when we on the initia- These opinions also frame their own ar- lawyers, tive of rather than the activism of guments regarding equal protection and judges, questions to fashion the for re- process due input without the of the attor- T.L.O., Jersey view.” New 468 U.S. neys on appeal subsequently knock 1214, 1216, 3588, 3585, 104 S.Ct. arguments those down to reach a desired J., (Stevens, L.Ed.2d dis- result in this case. The way fairest added). senting) (emphasis resolve these issues is not for the court to opinion
Justice Mansfield’s pick and the con- and choose sponte sua which issues curring opinion of Justice Cady per- arguments Chief to decide and which- to fectly illustrate the ignore, reasons Justice but rather to remand the case to warning. opinions Stevens’ These parties address district court for the to frame all, opinion 32. Justice Mansfield's and the con- of the Iowa Constitution. State After curring opinion Cady ignore of Chief appeal Justice did not merits this case. If argument this opinions beyond constitutional because it was these had not reached me, arguments presented by parties appeal raised the district court. To it is on appeal inconsistent to decide the appeal case on and we had decided this favor arguments plaintiffs solely political ques- issues and that were not raised on the issue of below, tion, deny plaintiffs day logical but to their it is conclude. develop arguments fully, opportunity develop court to all of their would have had the including arguments they fully arguments those could have more their in the district IX, made under article division section court on remand. arguments Finally, brief all relevant to is between the fully appeal attor- neys they represent. issue. and the parties Our important law should not be judges doing clerks and reason we do not decide An additional *44 making the work or strategic of counsel the first during time oral raised issues appeal. decisions on which issues to See it would to be unfair argument is Wagner, United States v. 103 F.3d 552 strategy of It the State. second-guess (7th Cir.1996). are not We advocates and a conscious not to made decision may have strategy. should usurp party’s not a ground appeal. alternative on raise the The this has criticized court for City Harpers Ferry, 620 v. See Fencl reaching issues not deciding out and raised (Iowa 2000) (stating N.W.2d or appeal. briefed on This is another case may still affirm if there is an that “we for the critics to add to their list. We raised ground, in the alternative district cannot law that we have a rule of reach out appeal, sup on urged that can court or pressed decide an issue not briefed decision”). Maybe the port the court’s by the appeal on order to parties to focus the what appeal State wanted on Only achieve a result. desired time will was its best chance for affir- thought it if apply tell the court will in a rule urging By not alternative mance. principled fashion or if the court will it use ground may the State have appeal, on to favored the shifting achieve results on its mo that it would win conceded not majorities particular, of the court. In it for failure to cause tion dismiss state a to would be a unfortunate development most pleading our liberal notice of action under to see a approach preservation liberal to the State decided it possible It is rules. deny rights, “gotcha” and a individual a summary judgment win on wanted to cramped approach preservation order grounds. It also procedural instead to avoid consideration of issues that would it have had a decided would may have See, rights. tend to individual vindicate prevailing on a motion for better chance of e.g., Mulhern v. Health Catholic Initia after summary judgment developing better tives, (Iowa 2011) 799 N.W.2d 123 See, e.g., Fitzgerald Racing a v. record. J., (Wiggins, dissenting) (explaining the Iowa, 103, 110, 123 589 Cent. U.S. Ass’n of majority the case on an decided issue not 2156, 2161, L.Ed.2d S.Ct. tried in or argued the district court on (deciding a constitutional claim appeal). a the State after motion for sum favor of I do see how we can continue Brien, 763 mary judgment); Vamum v. assert criminal cases that error not (Iowa 2009) (deciding N.W.2d “waived,” preserved appeal or how develop statute was unconstitutional after we can to cite say authority the failure summary judgment in a ing the record when, criminal case leads to waiver in this Rental v. proceeding); Prop. Ames Ass’n case, briefing we have no whatsoever on (Iowa Ames, City of question issues political other than on the 2007) (deciding an ordinance was constitu issue. developing in a tional after the record Further, summary judgment proceeding); City because Justice Mansfield’s Selden, opinion concurring opinion Waterloo N.W.2d Chief (Iowa 1977) judg Justice merits of (finding summary Cady reach the the con- issues, affirmatively they appear stitutional ment record established overrule basis, therefore, Racing rational our decision in Association least one Cen- constitutional). (RACI), Fitzgerald statute was tral Iowa v. (Iowa 2004), without the benefits branch is different from the N.W.2d other branch- parties. appellate of an brief government. legislative es and ex- cases, said, in deciding those we a state ecutive branches set agenda their own equal protection challenge, constitutional they decide what issues want to address. legislature we first determine whether the judicial branch is different. We do similarly to treat had valid reason situat- not decide issues party unless a in a legal RACI, persons differently. ed 675 N.W.2d action has raised the issues in the district Next, at 7. we decide if this reason has a court, fully has ap- briefed the issues on basis in fact. Id. at 8. peal, and has asked us to reach the issues *45 way proper There is no we can ado short, appeal. on In we do not set our analysis existing under our law as to own agenda. whether the reason for the has a disparity onlyWe decide issues raised and briefed in plaintiffs’ basis fact without the evidence by parties. the To do nothing otherwise is arguments appears on the issue. It more than Justice opinion Mansfield’s members of the court want to overrule concurring opinion of Chief Justice It is their prerogative RACI. do so. Cady setting their own error preservation However, plaintiffs without briefing rules to reach issues urged appeal. not on issue, pro- members of the court are Here, the State did not brief the issues moting agenda. their own It would have by opinion reached Justice Mansfield’s plaintiffs weighed been nice if the had in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice on these issues. Moreover, Cady in appeal. this the State enough There will be time to sort did not ask us to reach those issues. The through complicated in issues this mere fact the legislative and executive ordinary case. We do a disservice to the dealing branches are with education issues
judicial process by deciding this case with give does not this court the license to in briefing out this court and without a weigh in on those issues. fuller in development the district court. important This judicial case calls for re- Supreme As noted the Missouri Court straint. Members of the court should not case, in the context of an education “It is espousing be their own views on issues not unwise for procedural courts to shortcut in According- raised or briefed this court. requirements necessary fairly fully ly, I would remand the case to the district address the substantive in issues cases of proceedings court for further on the con- great public significance, when those same claims. procedures would stitutional required be without in pause magnitude.” cases of lesser Comm, APPEL, JJ., join HECHT and this State, Equal, Educ. (Mo.1994). dissent. fact,
S.W.2d In I was any unable to dealing find case with a APPEL, (dissenting). Justice state’s education clause that reached this I respectfully dissent. important parties issue when the did not appeal. brief it on Wiggins’s opinion. I concur with Justice light virtually unprecedented In de- opinion Justice Mansfield’s also cites the opinion termination of Justice Mansfield’s political activity of the other branches uphold to reach out to the district court on government as a reason to address the grounds than other those decided appealed. issues that were not I would justification given by parties answer the district court and that chose Justice opinion by noting judicial Mansfield’s present appeal, proceed not to I to state only thirty-seven percent of students are why grounds these alternative my views on for dismissal proficient reading. alleged a basis It is do not inception of the lawsuit. very case at proficiency similar levels are achieved for eighth graders. view, education is fundamental my under the Iowa Constitu- interest allege also that the small- adequate of a basic or Deprivations tion. est school districts Iowa are disadvan- subject heightened be should they have teachers with less taged review, other material differ- judicial and that the teachers have experience subject education should ences in nearly teaching assignments double the meaningful under a rational judicial review larger with teachers in school compared pleading, believe the I further basis test. They also claim rural students districts. clear, very is sufficient to sur- though available have far fewer curriculum units stage dismiss at this a motion to vive that there is a They allege to students. under our well-established proceedings outcomes based disparity educational rules. I would therefore pleading liberal upon where one lives. *46 court and remand the reverse the district plaintiffs The assert that the lack of proceedings. further case for education violates the education adequate IX Iowa provisions of article Consti- of Plaintiffs’ Petition. I. Overview tution; immunities privileges the and in this case are from both plaintiffs The Constitution; the Iowa the due clause of alleging school districts rural and urban Constitution; process clause of the Iowa shortcomings provided by in the education statutory standards established in and They allege, among other the State. 256.37, declares Iowa Code section which provide State has failed to things, the policy provide that it the of the state “to “equal access to an effective them with prepares an education and that the State has failed “to education” to meet and exceed children this state adequate maintain an edu- establish and informational, technological, and com- delivery system.” cation society.” The munications demands of our plaintiffs’ petition alleg- in this case declaratory seek relief as well as requirements es the State’s educational mandamus, and the district court a writ of ensure and accreditation standards do not urged continuing jurisdiction was to retain “will be able to meet and that students purpose enforcing for the its orders and technological, exceed the informational and judgments. society so that communication demands citi- they prepared responsible can be for II. Historical Roles of National and zenship, learning productive further Educating in State Government economy.” They in employment global Children. “are not many claim that students prepared post- to enter the workforce or A. Introduction. order to secondary without additional necessary context for consideration training or remediation.” in the constitutional issues raised Justice (but opinion appel- Mansfield’s plaintiffs support adequacy their briefs), contrasting I roles late review the They allege, claim with various statistics. governments of the state and national instance, that under the National As- children. As provision of education to standards, Progress sessment of Academic below, although will be seen the national only thirty-three percent of Iowa fourth math, traditionally supported has government are grade proficient students through education of children land grants degree certain of instruction.” Gordon C. assistance, Lee, responsibility and financial Learning Liberty: The Jefferso- Education, nian providing education to Tradition in children has in Crusade Against Ignorance: duty govern- been the of state and local Thomas Jefferson ' (1961). “This,” Education 19 ments. Jefferson wrote, “is the business of the state to B. The Limited Role of the National effect, general and on a plan.” Id. Government in the Education of Chil- John Adams was the principal author of dren. The education of children had little the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. to do with the American Revolution. The adopted, As the Massachusetts Constitu- grievances against King George III in the tion of provided, “Wisdom and knowl- Declaration of Independence nothing had edge, virtue, as well as generally diffused to do with the education of children. The among the body of the people, being neces- education of children was not mentioned sary for the preservation rights of their the Articles of or in Confederation liberties,” legislature duty has a United States only Constitution. The “cherish” the interests of science and liter- mention of education the debates at the Const, II, ature. Mass. pt. ch. constitutional suggestion convention was a § 2. by Madison Pickney Congress Rush, Benjamin signer of the Declara- expressly authorized to establish a univer- tion of Independence and member of the sity, proposal rejected. that was James Continental Congress, addressed *47 Madison, Notes Debates in the Federal of Pennsylvania legislature with his essays, (Bicen- 477-78, Convention of “A Plan for the Establishment of Public ed., Co., Inc.1987); tennial W.W. Norton & Schools and Diffusion of in Knowledge Cremin, see Lawrence A. American Edu- Pennsylvania” “Thoughts upon cation: The Experience National 1783- Mode of Education Proper Republic.” in a 1876, at 127 [hereinafter Cremin]. Hess, Frederick M. The Same Thing Over The lack of discussion of education of and Over: How School Get Reformers children in revolutionary and constitutional (2010). Stuck Yesterday’s in Ideas contexts not does mean that the founders Rush called for a free school in every were unconcerned about education. The township and universal education at public contrary is true. very begin- From the expense, citizens, reasoning that all rich ning, the founders were advocates of ex- poor, selecting have a role in would panding children’s education. that, result, the nation’s leaders and as a everyone was entitled to-at least a minimal example, Jefferson, For Thomas while amount of education in reading, writing, serving Virginia legislature, was a and arithmetic. Id. at 44-45. fierce advocate of a Bill for the More General Jefferson, Adams, Diffusion of Knowledge, which and Rush had at least would have First, established a of things free three they common. were schools supported by tuition and scholar- advocates .of education of children. Sec- ships poor boys. Friedman, ond, Ian they C. saw education of children as (2004). Education In a letter to operation linked to the successful of demo- Reform George Washington, explained Jefferson it government. my cratic But for purposes, was axiomatic liberty could never be the most important point they is that safe but “in the people hands of the them- viewed the as the governmental states selves, and that too of the people with a structure to deliver education to citizens. Island, John Swett of Califor- Rhode years of our coun- formative
During the the role of the states supported recognized nia all government try, the federal re- providing youth. children of education to children providing education govern- and local state to assist Tyack, Turning sources Points in See David B. citizens. education to (1967). providing History ments Educational American provided government First, federal of universal prominent advocates These uses in the states for school land public cause sought to advance their education of Land Ordinance through in the halls through pontifications aside for land to be set required which lyceum and but in the local Congress, of the Continen- 28 Journals uses. school local mechanisms of state and through 1785). Second, (May Congress tal government. territories and organizations in its Duty Government of State C. states, Congress demanded admission In con- Education to Children. Provide In the Northwest progress. educational the limited role of the federal trast pub- Congress required Ordinance respon- the states had government, direct encouraged” “forever lic to be education The differ- sibility providing education. Ordi- territories. Northwest the covered in involvement between the federal ence nance, of the Continental Con- 32 Journals 1787). governments and the state government The federal (July gress 340 night day educational matters was itself, however, had no direct government Further, ed- children, very recently. contrast until but sim- role in the education traditionally has been one of the ucation important support financial ply provided govern- state important to states and local most functions of through grants land responsibility history bore the governments survey who ment. A brief of Iowa providing education. points. demonstrates these encouragement revolutionary leaders tended to While territory meaning when a took on added elite, the move- emphasize education of the *48 a state. Article applied to become Under com- through ment universal education for IV, 4 of the United States Consti- Section vir- republican emphasizing mon schools tution, to admit empowered was Congress century began early tues in the nineteenth “Republican Form only they states if had during the and was in full bloom 1830s Const, IV, § art. of Government.” U.S. expanded suffrage ad- the movement Union, admitted to the it As states were school vanced. The focus of the common working assumption became “a govern- local movement was on state and of a was an essential feature Bind- generally See Frederick M. ments. the will government upon based republican School, er, 1830- Age the Common of Tyack, Thomas people.” David Kaestle, (1974); Cremin; F. Pil- Carl Benavot, and the James & Aaron Law Schools Republic: lars Common of Education, 1785-1954,, Shaping Public of (1983). Society, American 1780-1860 and (1987). at 20 days, impor- Even in the territorial leaders Prominent antebellum education responsibility as a of tance of education Massachusetts, of such as Horace Mann recognized was government territorial Carolina, Wiley of North Caleb Calvin Henry Dodge of the Wis- Iowa. Governor Indiana, Ohio, Mills of Samuel Lewis of (which Territory included Iowa at consin Michigan, of Robert Breck- John D. Pierce time) between recognized the relation of inridge Kentucky, of Ninian Edwards government. In Illinois, education and democratic Henry Barnard of Connecticut address, Yet, inaugural his first Governor territorial government did pro- Dodge, urging assembly the territorial vide the ideal framework development for the establishment of local system of a of local education. Advocates youth, academies for the education of appealed of statehood parents to the of spoke obligatory terms: children, noting that lands reserved duty It rising genera- we owe to the government federal for education purposes tion to endeavor to devise to im- means could not be obtained without statehood. prove the condition of those that are to James, James Alton Constitution and Ad- us; succeed the permanence of our insti- (1900). mission Iowa into the Union 15 tutions, depend upon must the intelli- statehood, Once Iowa was admitted to gence of the great people. mass of the Iowa received a grant of five hundred Benjamin Shambaugh, Messages F. thousand acres land from the United Proclamations Governors States for school purposes. George Chan- (1903) Iowa 9 Shambaugh]. [hereinafter dler, Iowa and the Nation 17 (Chicago, A. 1895). Flanagan
Once Iowa became a territory of its own Wisconsin, Lucas, apart from Robert It is thus not surprising that education first Iowa territorial governor and a dele- was emphasized in the first Iowa Constitu- convention, gate of the 1844 constitutional tions. Article X of the constitutions of strong was a advocate of education. his 1844 and 1846 dealt with education. The message legislature first to the of the Ter- 1844 and 1846 constitutions provided that Iowa, ritory of Lucas addressed education general assembly “shall encourage, by and particularly system the need for a means, all suitable promotion of intel- Parish, free common schools. John C. lectual, scientific, moral, agricultural Iowa Biographical Series: Robert Lucas improvement” through “a of com- [hereinafter Lucas Parish]. Const, X, §§ mon schools.” Iowa art. 2-3 stated: “There is no subject to which I Const, (1846); X, (1844). §§ Iowa art. your wish to call attention emphati- more According to a contemporaneous account cally, subject than the establishing, at of the 1846 constitutional convention: the commencement of our political exis- ample provision Most is made for edu- tence, digested system a well of common cating the rising generation. This ais 78; Shambaugh schools.” 1 John Pur- feature which highly cannot be too Street, cell Department Public prized. speaks volumes for the char- —It Origins Instruction: Develop- Its population, acter of our argues well *49 ment, (1950) 397, 80 Annals of Iowa prosperity people for the of the and the [hereinafter Lucas called on the Street]. great enterprise success of the in which assembly territorial to up good “build they are about to embark. Let the mor- system as fast as the population and al [unintelligible and mental culture in wealth territory of the would warrant.” 1 original] and the free institutions of our Aurner, Ray Clarence History Edu- of country will be safe in their hands. (1914) cation in Iowa 368 [hereinafter Fragments the Debates the Iowa Con- of of The first territorial assembly Aurner]. re- stitutional Conventions 18Hof sponded to his call enacting legislation 1900) ed., (Benjamin at 339 F. Shambaugh calling for the establishment of common (internal omitted). marks quotation schools in school districts in the respective Harlan, 1 Edgar counties. R. A The inclusion of in provisions early Narrative History People Iowa 133 Iowa Constitutions related education to of of [hereinafter Harlan]. was not surplusage or cosmetic features. system of common school instruc- ating of statehood was advantages
One of the machinery develop to tion.” Parish at 286-87. Benton later of the establishment system. Beginning of report remarked in an 1861 to the board a coherent educational of Ohio as a state wagon can better dis- with the admission education “[a] all required that subse- Congress a neighborhood with one wheel than pense in their for education Harkness, quent states with the school house.” R.A. a condition of admis- state constitutions on Iowa Educational Work *50 state, opportunity acquiring the of those 1856). York, Hartford Press Benton education, indispensable elements of of president served as the Education Con- enlightened fit him for the which shall Iowa, in the vention of which met of civil and social duties to discharge “to capítol City, promote old stone at Iowa may which he be called. by every laudable means the diffusion of Hempstead at Governor further es- Id. 431. knowledge regard education and obligations emphasized the constitutional pecially establishing perpetu- to aid in and state, the Iowa noting necessary opportunities. of the that Constitu- Id. report general assembly that required tion provision schools, called for of common means, by all suitable encourage, pro- schools, high university. and the Id. at 33. intellectual, scientific, moral, motion of and It called for supervision to be provided by Id. agricultural improvement. superintendent a state instruc- tion, subject In Governor James to the Grimes em- advice of a state board phasized inaugural education in his ad- of education. Id. Perhaps at 35. because dress. Governor Grimes stated that “[t]o state, of Mann’s association with the accomplish high government, these aims of commentator two decades later declared requisite ample provision the first is may that “Iowa be called the Massachu- youth the education of the of this State.” setts of the West.... cause [TJhe nearest 2 Shambaugh at 7. He further declared the hearts of people her is ‘universal edu- ” that State should see to it that the “[t]he cation.’ Preface, Editorial 12 Iowa Nor- education, elements of like the elements of (1889). mal Monthly No. at 1 nature, above, around, universal are At the constitutional convention of beneath all.” Id. Governor Grimes noted emphasis placed considerable was on edu- agreed safety “[i]t education, cation. Discussing James Wil- perpetuity republican of our institutions son declared: depends upon the intelligence diffusion of We know that intelligence after all the among people.” the masses of the Id. of the people great is the bulwark to the general assembly author stability and permanency of our institu- ized governor appoint a commission tions, and looking upon light, it in that it persons improve of three to revise and duty, is our our imperative absolute and school laws of Iowa to report to the duty, provide the best method and the Street, general assembly. 30 Annals of best means for carrying into effect the Iowa at 402. The commission was headed common school of the state. Mann, by Horace the President of Antioch 2 The Debates the Constitutional Con- College in Ohio and one of the most noted (W. vention the State Iowa 750 Blair educators in the Id. Mann United States. Luse, Lord reporter, Davenport, Lane & “[ajbsolute strongly believed in 1857) Debates], Co. available [hereinafter every an education of being human http://www.statelibraryofiowa.org/ world, which, course, comes into the services/eollections/law-library/iaconst/. proves duty every gov the correlative Similarly, J.C. Hall asserted that “[t]he ernment to see that the means of that educational department of our State is a education are provided for all.” Serrano Priest, 601, very important one. It embraces one-half Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d (1971) (citation State, P.2d inhabitants and for omitted). quotation good internal marks or for productive evil it is of the most investigated commission important upon state of edu effects our population.” cation in other ultimately Further, states and issued Id. at George W. Ells report containing findings its and recom urged: mendations. 1 Aurner at 31. laying the foundation for an [I]n edu- system, cational we must discard all nar-
The report of the Mann Commission row every youth prejudices, only declared that views and and not was entitled to present education “in the for the wants of the elements of knowl- Further, edge.” Id. at *51 anyone generation, 32. desir- genera- but all future ous of progress further should be offered tions. I desire to see the common of assembly that eral abolished the board edu- State so constituted of this
schools superintendent of all the natural cation and established a of knowledge thorough a taught prac- in the most Acts ch. public will be instruction. See 1864 Iowa sciences be at- point § manner. Should 1. tical favorably contrast most they will tained Nothing suggests in the historical record that char- education superficial with the of the board of education that the abolition of graduates vast number of acterizes reflected a lessened constitutional commit- of these United colleges chartered under the Experience ment to education. States. that vest- 1857 constitution demonstrated Debates power over educational mat- ing legislative fram- emphasis the Iowa light of the board,
In of the power with the but the ters education, two divisions were placed ers assembly, proved purse general with the subject. the with that dealt adopted But the commitment to awkward at best. with the re- primarily dealt first division According to a lead- education remained. education, board of state sponsibilities ing Iowa historian: authority to oversee vested with which was as to widespread There was a belief so education the development public the that, narrow as were be almost universal Const, (1857 IX, art. div. state. State, so powers of the instruction version). re- The second division original every things differed from all else Id. public education. financing lated to entitled to a community child in the was IX, to the consti- respect 2. With art. div. public chance at the cost to obtain that “the General As- provision tutional thing called education. essentials of encourage, by all suitable sembly shall Parker, Iowa Pioneer Foun- George I F. intellectual, means, scien- promotion (1940). dations 455 tific, moral, agricultural improve- to be subsequently Governors continued IX, 2, § ment,” one scholar art. div. id. after the strong advocates for education provision no positive has “[a]s noted Cy- Governor board was abolished. state application popu- a wider clause has had Clay Carpenter inaugural in his first rus benefits,” It ob- lar Harlan at 185. is 11, 1872, January address on stated system, educational “[a]n served that connection with education “[n]ext ... was one upon based common schools freedom, political important the most ele- of the new common- of the cornerstones an intelli- good government ment of a taking that Iowa was a stand wealth” and Shambaugh at 8. While gent people.” distinctively “progres- that at the time was recognizing progress that had been at 185. sive.” Harlan made, he for the establishment of a called From 1857 to the state board School, college, teachers Normal constitutional performed education its important train teachers for their task. however, newly elect- duties. Id. at 8-9. Stone, recommended governor, ed William relationship between education abolition of the state board education. by Governor Burén repeated freedom was purpose of cre- Governor Stone stated January Sherman in his Robinson of education was to estab- ating the board de- inaugural address. Governor Sherman satisfactory system lish a permanent clared: Shambaugh Iowa. is the sur- The education masses urged at 7. Stone the discontinu- Governor State, every- reliance of the had est purpose ation of the board because Through free exist. their gen- Id. In where schools accomplished. been *52 powerful enlightening superintendent public influences instruction be strong progression integrity the of our nonpartisan converted into a electoral fabric, security the the enter- political post. Id. at 446. In a school code citizen, equality of the and the prise commission reviewed the laws of Iowa and solidly of the are happiness people as- produced report; a second school code Popular sured. education has become commission was convened in pro- 1941 and firmly entrenched in the confidence of report. duced another Id. at 447-48. The nation, and there is no feature of our latter code commissions called for general whole so near to the strengthening county administration of heart, regarded nor with such affection- schools, that the cost of transporting pu- anxiety public ate as the free schools of pils paid whole or in part by the country. state, quarter one of the public cost of Shambaugh at 241. school paid education should be from state Further, Governor Sherman observed funds to relieve property taxes and “equal- system” “our through educational all time ize educational opportunity,” and “[t]hat “will prove very sheet-anchor to our given greater teachers be security of ten- liberties, as the free-ballot is the corner- ure.” Id. at 448-49. stone to political our structure.” Id. at the philosophy While of the progressive movement emphasized different themes Governor up William Larrabee took edu- movement, than the common school cation in his inaugural first address on emphasis on education being critical to declared, January 1886. He “If it is democratic values was constant. As not- true, be, as I hold it to ignorance, Superintendent ed Iowa of Public In- related, poverty intimately and crime are McClenahan, struction P.E. “[e]ducation duty every it is the state to educate.” 6 state, a function of the and popular edu- Shambaugh at 14. He noted that “[a] social, only cation is the means of attaining war, republic can pesti- survive famine and political, and individual freedom.” P.E. lence, but it cannot intelligence survive the McClenahan, Report Department people.” of its Id. at 15. (June 30,1922). Public Instruction 9 . Era, In the Progressive many edu- emphasis on the quality need for emphasized cational reformers the need to education surfaced again post WWII education, eliminate politics develop from years. September President regime of experts, highly and offer dif- Eisenhower gover- sent a letter to all state ferentiated youth upon education to based calling nors for statewide conferences on ability their future role in society. It education, the status of respond- and Iowa was an era of the “Education Commis- ed with a statewide conference in Des sion.” Iowa had three of them. A school Moines December 1954. Letter from recommended, commission in 1907 among Dwight D. Eisenhower to Governors (Sep- things, other approval of curriculum 20, 1954) Program tember from the superintendent public instruction. (Dec. Iowa State Conference Education Street, 30 Annals of Iowa at 445. In 1954). 9-10, 1960s, In the Depart- Iowa’s the “Better Iowa Schools Commission” ment of Public Instruction called for an met and recommended increased power revolution,” “educational noting that edu- efficiency department public instruction, longer cation is no “a local purely concern” employment of a “rural school inspector” department responsibility.” Dep’t under the of but “a state instruction, Instruction, and that the office of Report Public 63d Biennial *53 added). Recogni- Governor Rob- and most celebrated functions. (emphasis served as chair of the Ray in 1981-1982 centrality
ert tion importance of the and of the States, of the an Commission Education government role of in providing state edu- states devel- help dedicated organization political cation has transcended our parties in policies practices public and op effective passed genera- and has been on from one Education of education. See Commission political tion of Iowa to another up leaders (Mar. 21, 2012), http://www.ecs. the States including present political to and our lead- org. ership. years, In recent there has been what has labeled a standards and accountabili- been Relationship III. of Education In Presi- ty movement education. Government, Democratic Per- Reagan’s Department of Education dent Liberty, Digni- sonal and Human entitled, report “A Nation at Risk: issued a ty. Reform,” Imperative for Educational centrality historical of education to higher
which called for standards and In our state cannot be underestimated. accountability generally. more in education fully order to understand the importance George President Bush convened education, however, of a review of the a meeting governors nation’s Charlottesville, three of important pro- functions education Virginia to address the First, shortcomings in education. Re- perceived perspective. vides additional edu- cently, a summit on education was held government. vital cation is to democratic attended national educational leaders Second, prerequisite education is a and Iowa educators and administrators. meaningful enjoyment of fundamental con- Branstad, inspira- who has found Governor rights, including enjoyment stitutional tion in Robert Lucas’s traditional commit- “life, Third, liberty, property.” it is education,33 proposed impor- ment to has part an development essential system, tant education changes to personality prerequi- autonomous that is a subject which be the discus- will dignity. site for human sion in the potential legislative action nation, At Tocque- the dawn our de coming years. recognized ville that “the instruction of the This brief and nonexhaustive overview people powerfully sup- contributes to the that, in contrast to the fed- demonstrates port process.” of democratic Alexis de played eral education government, has Tocqueville, Democracy in America 342 central government. role Iowa state (D. Co.1904). Appleton & Thomas Mann government While the federal from time to emphasized that can never time has shown an interest in education than less such indirectly been has involved foster- it, ing the fun- performed states have indispensable “as is for the civil func- damentally role primary pro- different juror; of a witness or a as is tions vider of education. necessary municipal for the voter in affairs; finally, requi- national as is perspective, provi-
From a historical site for the faithful and conscientious govern- sion of education Iowa state ment primary discharge has been seen as one of its of all those duties which de- ernor, inaugural In his address in Governor Robert Lucas.” 1987 S.J. 94. Gover- Branstad, reform, calling for educational nor Branstad further made reference to the
stated that "our commitment to education is state's "historic commitment to education." not new” and cited "our first territorial Gov- Id. at 95. upon portion tensky, volve the inheritor of a Theoretical Foundations the sovereignty great republic.” Right of this to Education Under the U.S. Con- *54 stitution: A Beginning to the End Educ., McDuffy See’y Exec. of of Office of Crisis, National Education 86 Nw. (1993) 415 Mass. 615 N.E.2d U.L.Rev. Bi- [hereinafter (quoting System The Massachusetts of tensky]. Common Tenth Annual Report Schools: the Massachusetts Board Education Certainly the parade of gover- Iowa’s (1849)). President Grant drove the nors cited earlier would wholeheartedly point speaking home when in Des Moines endorse concept that education is criti- 25, 1875, on September when he declared cally important to the functioning of demo- that “the free school is the promoter government. cratic Today, without an ed- that intelligence preserve which is to as ucated people, spectacle, culture, us celebrity Swisher, a free Armstrong escalating outburst, nation.” Jacob emotional and demand Biographical gratification Iowa for instant replace Series: will Leonard ration- (1927). tolerance, ality, Fletcher Parker 69 Grant further respect mutual in the voting noted that if another contest of national booths and in the public square. future, existence were to arrive in the it addition, education is now critical to would be “between patriotism and intelli meaningful enjoyment of life in Iowa and side, gence on the one superstition, the United prospects States. The of a ignorance ambition and on the other.” Id. person who is uneducated are now margin- at 69-70. al at best. Farming increasingly indus- The relationship of education to demo- trialized and requires knowledge of mar- kets, government fertilizers, cratic recognized by was John hybrids, arid planning Studebaker, techniques. W. a distinguished Iowan who Manufacturing jobs are no unskilled, longer served as Des Superinten- require sophisticated Moines School but knowledge, dent before being appointed training, and skills. United States Ditches are longer dug by no hand. If Commissioner of Education. a citizen is to Studebaker have a meaningful right enjoy “good government observed that the con- through stitutionally protected life, democratic interests in lib- processes preserved can be ... erty, and only by property, the citizen must definitely planned development of have adequate education. Justice public enlightenment.” means Cardozo John Studebaker, captured the idea in typically lyrical W. his Way: The American De- prose: mocracy in Work the Des Moines Fo- (1935).
rums 15-16 know, “We are only free if we and so proportion to our knowledge. There is The Supreme United States Court rec- choice, no freedom without and there is ognized linkage between education and knowledge no choice without none —or democracy in Independent San Antonio therefore, illusory. Implicit, is not School Rodriguez, District v. 411 U.S. very in the liberty notion of is the liber- 1278, 1298, 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d ty of the mind to beget.” absorb and to (1973), democracy when it noted that de- Bitensky, 86 Nw. at 550 (quoting U.L.Rev. pends upon “an informed electorate: a Cardozo, Benjamin N. The Paradoxes voter cannot cast intelligently his ballot 1982) Legal (photo reprint Science 104 reading unless his thought pro- skills and (1928)). have adequately cesses been developed.” A corollary of the right to vote is the right importance in empow- education to be educated so as to right ering exercise individuals to participate meaningful- in an effective manner. See Susan H. Bi- ly in life did not escape school officials in noted, instance, has the bold one commentator For towns.
Iowa small
on the status of a human
Power” was em-
“takes
“Knowledge is
statement
and enhances hu-
story
integral
of a school
it is
third
because
on the
blazoned
fruits of knowl-
1885. See Camilla
Persia,
dignity through
man
its
house
Country
Beedle,
wisdom,
and “a
understanding”
Peggy
edge,
Dieber
(2002).
Iowa 9
to function as
for individuals
Schoolsfor
prerequisite
society.”
beings
human
modern
fully
to the de-
is essential
Finally, education
Edu-
Right
Claude,
Richard Pierre
individual
an autonomous
velopment
*55
Education,
in
Rights
Human
cation and
dignity. The
of human
is the essence
Community:
Rights
Human
in the World
Rights,
Human
of
Declaration
Universal
(Richard Pierre
Actions Issues and
the
United
been ratified
which has
eds., 3d
& Burns H. Veston
Claude
right to education
States,
that the
declares
ed.2006).
severely un-
A lack of education
of
purpose
the
right and
is a human
to
of the individual
capacity
dermines the
for the “full
right
human
is
the
respect
meaningful
life choices with
make
personality.”
of the human
development
self-expression,
family,
and
marriage
Rights,
Human
of
Declaration
Universal
observance,
voice,
and
religious
217(111) A,
26,
2,
political
§ U.N.
art.
G.A. Res.
(Dec.
1948).34
A/RES/217(III)
10,
ambition.35
As
economic role and
Doc.
1987) (discussing French
Norton & Co.
provisions of W.W.
My
to the education
34.
citation
military
in
Rights
judiciary; pluralistic
command
of Human
Declaration
the Universal
Holland;
tribunals;
Eng-
today. The criticism
criticism
Roman
the union of
has drawn
Scotland;
might
appropriately
aimed at Elea-
the
more
be
Dutch seduction into
land and
Roosevelt,
Dutch, Swiss,
drafting
France;
the
who chaired
nor
of
views of
lessons
Declaration,
Helvetic, Germanic,
produced
Belgic
Lycian,
committee that
the
con-
and
Senate,
States
federacies;
the United
to the members of
dangers
corruption,
of
as illustrat-
recognize
Sweden, France,
that the Decla-
it. I
which ratified
Eng-
by leadership in
and
ed
land;
nonbinding
designed
elections;
was
ration
deed,
analogy
Polish and German
—in-
the term "Declara-
the decision to use
fashioning
law of nations in
relation-
to the
United States
was modeled
tion”
govern-
ship
ments;
the state and
between
federal
course, I
Independence. Of
Declaration of
Austria, France,
Persia,
experience in
participants in the
suggest that the
do not
Russia;
Switzerland, and
commerce involv-
relied on the
conventions
Iowa constitutional
Declaration,
France, England,
Spain;
ing
means
approved a hundred
which was
danger
against
foreign
in Rome and
defense
however,
suggest,
years
I
later.
do
tyran-
Europe
examples of instruments of
as
widely accepted
Declaration reinforces
government, as
ny; importance of an efficient
broadly regarded
view that education
experi-
German and Grecian
illustrated
integrally
right
that it is
human
basic
elections;
ences;
military cooperation
Polish
development of the individual.
related to the
Holland; Athenians and
between France and
seems,
been assailed.
point, it
has not
That
affairs;
foreign
Kingdom
France as
force;
governing by
separation
powers and
looking
legal questions from a broad
In
at
Sparta;
preexist-
in
Ephori at
structures
nonbinding but instructive les
perspective for
constitutions; England
ing
and Great
state
sons,
company.
good
The leaders of
I am in
(Alex-
Britain); see also The Federalist No. 18
founding
and the
the American Revolution
Madison) (stating
ander Hamilton & James
See, e.g.,
certainly
Bernard Bai-
did.
fathers
society
league
another
the "Achaean
... was
Origins
lyn,
Ideological
the American
The
supplies with
republics, which
us
of Grecian
ed.1992) (citing
(Enlarged
Revolution 23-44
(Alexander
instruction”), No. 19
valuable
publica
foreign
authorities
extensive use of
Madison) (referencing & James
Hamilton
Revolu
with the American
tions associated
tion);
Greece, Sweden, Germany,
governments of
Madison,
*56
189,
Thought,
Am.
78
Pol. Sci. Rev.
193-94
Europe
those countries of
[I]n
where edu-
(1984).
root,
deepest
cation
taken
has
the
and been
experi
References to international law and
generally
among
the most
diffused
the
by distinguished
ence have been made
Jus
masses,
people
that
correspondingly
the
are
Court,
Supreme'
tices of the United States
steady,
abiding
firm and
in their attach-
to,
including, but not limited
Justices Mar
ment to free and liberal
of all
institutions
shall,
Holmes, Frankfurter, Jackson,
Story,
striking
kinds. The Germans are a
illustra-
Rehnquist, Breyer, Ginsberg,
Kennedy.
and
tion of the truth of this assertion. With
See,
Simmons,
551,
e.g., Roper v.
543 U.S.
them,
rule,
ignorance
education is the
and
577-78,
1183, 1199-1200,
125 S.Ct.
161
exception;
while with the volatile
1,
(2005)
J.);
(Kennedy,
26-27
L.Ed.2d
Grut
Frenchman, the
306, 344,
reverse is true.
Bollinger,
ter v.
2325, 2347,
539 U.S.
123 S.Ct.
304,
surprising
1
(2003)
Debates at 602.
It is not
156 L.Ed.2d
342
J.,
our caselaw has on
(Ginsburg,
concurring);
occasion cited maxims or
v. United
Printz
States,
898, 976-77,
2365,
521 U.S.
117 S.Ct.
norms of
Langlas
international
law. See
v.
2405,
914,
(1997)
Co.,
(Brey-
713, 718,
138
970-71
L.Ed.2d
Ins.
245 Iowa
63
Life
er, J., dissenting);
Glucksberg,
Washington
885,
v.
(1954) (citing
N.W.2d
888
international
702,
16,
2258,
521 U.S.
718 n.
117 S.Ct.
2266
involving
law treatise in case
claim
insurance
16,
772,
(1997)
n.
138 L.Ed.2d
786 n. 16
Olson,
war);
arising out of Korean
Case v.
C.J.);
(Rehnquist,
Youngstown Sheet & Tube
869, 874,
717,
234 Iowa
720
579, 651-52,
Sawyer,
Co. v.
343 U.S.
72 S.Ct.
(1944) (citing
law
international
of war
case
863, 878,
1153,
(1952)
96 L.Ed.
involving application
preference
of soldiers'
(Jackson, J., concurring); Rochin v. Califor-
statute);
Baker,
clause
civil service
Hill v.
nia,
165,
4,
342 U.S.
170-71 & n.
72 S.Ct.
302,
(1871) (execution
32 Iowa
310
of deed
205,
183,
208-09 &
4
n.
96 L.Ed.
189 & n.
law);
contrary
held invalid as
to international
(1952) (Frankfurter, J.);
Hirsh,
Block v.
256
Springer,
Morrison v.
15 Iowa
135, 155, 158,
458, 459-60,
U.S.
41 S.Ct.
(citing
juris-
maxims of international
law in
865, 870,
(1921) (Holmes, J.);
L.Ed.
matter).
dictional
States,
(8 Cranch)
Brown v. United
12 U.S.
legal
exempli-
with the
Consistent
traditions
110, 128-36,
(1814) (Mar-
3 L.Ed.
fied
the framers of both the Iowa and
shall, C.J.); Brown,
(8 Cranch)
12 U.S.
Constitutions,
University
Federal
of Iowa
131-38,
J.,
(Story,
Wash.2d 505 P.2d international/.
cation, government support will be ated to Common schools our democratic Id. undermined, throughout of life will deterio- State.” quality recognition, and the realiza- beyond rate During surrounding the debates the ed- personality required of autonomous tion constitution, ucation articles in the 1857 virtually dignity will become for human rejected a proposal the convention impossible. charge schools should be “free of all.” 2 at 825. The equally open to Debates Overview of Iowa Constitutional IV. however, rejection, reason for this was not Provisions. on a view that education was not based fundamentally but instead to important, Educational Provisions A. Positive that schools in Iowa could be racial- ensure As indicated of the Iowa Constitution. Gillaspy, ly segregated. opponent Mr. above, says the United States Constitution provision, declared that “[i]f nothing about education. This is not sur- appro- people disposed of this state are universally since it was assumed prising priate money for the education of the education of children the founders blacks, separate let them do it in youth obligation was the of the state response, distinct schools....” Id. In Wil- government. and local duty liam Penn Clark declared that “our Article IX of the Iowa Constitution of goes providing every child the State with contains two dealing *57 with an education.” Id. at 826. Eventual- provides, divisions. The first division offered ly, a substitute amendment was that educational among things, other “[t]he “for the education of all the provided State, including interest of the Common state, youths through system of the a manage- ... Schools shall be under the Thus, common schools.” Id. at 935. while a of Education.” Iowa ment of Board rejection proposed provision the of the Const, IX, 1, § The was art. div. 1. board equally charge that schools be “free of and required “provide for the education of open preju- to all” demonstrates the racial State, a youths through all the by members of the dices held some consti- IX, system of Schools.” Id. art. Common convention, any way it does not in tutional 1, § div. 12. importance undercut the the Iowa framers Article IX of the 1857 Iowa Constitu- placed gen- on accessible education tion The also contains second division. erally. first sentence of section three of the sec- one, IX, Article division section fifteen parallels pro- ond division the substantive general assembly the with an es- provided by provid-
visions of the 1846 constitution cape vesting responsibility from for edu- ing Assembly General shall “[t]he of an independent cation the hands means, encourage, by pro- all suitable fifteen, board of education. Under section moral, intellectual, scientific, motion of general assembly was vested with the agricultural improvement.” Id. art. power reorganize after 1863 “to abolish or IX, 2, § div. 3. Education, provide Board of said in any sentence of three is the educational interest of the State second section seem complicated more than the first sentence. other manner that to them shall best Const, IX, art. div. provides, part, proper.” It in relevant that the fed- Iowa funds, general assembly § eral did funds from estates with no heirs, result, assembly just that the that. As a the constitutional general and funds IX, one, may provide, inviolably appropri- provisions “shall be of article division sec- one, Instruction, vesting power provide tion of Public and charging the education in the board of education have Superintendent with the general supervi no current effect. sion of “all the Common Schools of the State”); see also Indep. Hume v. Sch. question arises what we should Dist., 1233, 1241, Iowa 164 N.W. general assembly make of the action of the (1917) (citing but not abolishing relying the board of It on article education. IX, clear that inoperative 12); the action renders division section Burdick v. Bab provisions vesting power cock, the constitutional (Cole, J., 31 Iowa education, over education with the board of concurring) (stating constitution “[o]ur has including provision Board “[t]he legislature clothed the with power, Education shall for the education expressly has upon devolved it duty youths of all the ... through system ‘providing for the education of all the IX., Common Schools.” See id. art div. youths of the State through added). ” § 12 (emphasis While the board’s Const, common (quoting schools’ Iowa duty constitutional to maintain common 12)). IX, 1, § art. div. clearly schools was repealed, duty The ongoing obligation of the state is “provide the state to for the educational interest,” IX, also reflected in the language of article by which definition included Schools,” fifteen, sections one “Common was not affected. but also See demon- IX, 1,15. §§ id. art. IX, div. provisions strated of article two, three, division provides section which only That the effect of the legislative for a “perpetual fund” that is “inviolably abolition of the board of education was to appropriated support to the of Common responsibilities provision shift for the throughout schools the State.” required by article IX is dem- Const, IX, 2, § art. div. 3. It would make onstrated the case of Clark v. Board of no sense Directors, (1868). “perpetual to have a Clark, fund” that is Iowa 266 *58 “inviolably years appropriated support which was decided four to the of after the board, abolition of the throughout addressed the valid- Common schools the State” if ity of racial segregation public state, discretion, in Iowa the in its could abolish Clark, schools. 24 Iowa at In 269-70. (emphasis common schools. See id. add- concluding that segregation public ed). racial unlawful, schools was we cited and relied Thus, the Iowa requires Constitution a IX, upon article division section system of common schools to educate all
which provides that the board of education “ youths state, throughout the but in terms shall ‘for the of all the management of the of such common youths State, of the through system a of ” schools, general assembly it allows the to common schools.’ Id. at 274 (quoting “provide for the educational interest of the Const, 12). IX, 1, § Iowa art. Clearly, div. through State” a manner other than the the 1864 abolition of the board of education IX, board of education. See id. art. div. did not requirements affect the substantive § legislature 15. After the was free IX, contained in article merely but shifted manage to choose to common schools its authority by abolishing the board and cre- through a superintendent of instruc- ating Superintendent a of Public Instruc- tion, education, id.; department a commit- tion. See 1864 Iowa Acts ch. scholars, 1-2, “any §§ tee of or in other (declaring manner that “the Board of Education of the State of that to them shall hereby proper.” Iowa is seem best and abolished,” providing Superintendent for a See id. Privileges Immunities B. Clause provi- Iowa constitutional explicit the edu- “provid[ing] for the Iowa The Iowa Con- Constitution.
sions related State, youths of the all the has a and immunities privileges cation of stitution Schools” and I, of Common through is found in article provision clause. interest advancing “the educational provides: 6. This section section Schools,” stand State, including Common shall have general All laws of a nature complete to the lack contrast in stark General As- operation; a uniform States the United explicit provisions citizen, grant any not sembly shall to education and re- related Constitution citizens, or immuni- privileges class fundamentally different tradition- flect the ties, which, terms shall upon the same governments and federal of state al roles all equally belong not citizens. education of children to the when it comes The Federal Constitution youth. Const, I, privi- § The Iowa art. limited constitution with generally predates the leges and immunities clause only granted powers government federal Immunities and Privileges Federal contrast, In specifically authorized. of the Four- Equal Protection Clauses authority legislative plenary states have Amendment. teenth commitments in the con- positive and have There has been much written about Iowa, one stitutional frameworks. privileges state relationship between in the Iowa commitments Con- positive Equal the Federal immunities clauses and is to educational mission. stitution privileges suggested positive have Protection Clause.36 While Scholars constitutions dif- generally tradition of state clauses have rights and immunities negative rights from the markedly fers narrowly, construed there is the no- been analysis. federal constitutional tradition of privileges tion that and immunities clauses Hershkoff, Rights and Helen Positive See part, prevent narrow designed, were The Limits Feder- State Constitutions: ad- people getting special from classes Review, 112 Harv. L.Rev. Rationality al might what vantages government, from Hersh- [hereinafter crony today’s popular parlance be called negative the enforcement of While koff]. capitalism. in the United States Con- rights contained Governor To Iowa’s first Territorial affir- generally required stitution has not Lucas, however, privileges Robert DeShaney v. by government, mative action *59 clause of the Northwest Ordi- immunities Sens., Cnty. Soc. 489 Winnebago Dep’t of to right nance was linked to the of citizens 998, 1006, 189, 199, 109 103 U.S. S.Ct. inaugural In his first obtain an education. 249, (1989), quite opposite 261 the L.Ed.2d speech, juxtaposed privileges Lucas respect positive obligations is true with to immunities clause with his comments that, definition, governments by of state in the develop the need to upon action require the state to take affirmative saw territory. Shambaugh 1 at 78. Lucas responsibilities. constitutional to meet its Schuman, See, Special Privileges Right and Immuni- 36. David e.g., The Prohibition on "Equal Review “Equal Real Bite Protection” Privileges and Immunities”: A State's ties: Protection,” Temp. L.Rev. 69 Regulatory Legislation?, 13 Vt. L.Rev. “Equal Version Williams, (1996); Schuman]; (1988) Jeffrey Robert F. 221 M. 1247 Foreword: [hereinafter Shaman, Independent Importance State Con- Equality State The The Evolution Law, Rutgers Equality Fi- L.J. 1013 Doctrine in School stitutional Constitutional Shaman]; Beyond, 24 Conn. L.Rev. 675 Jonathan nance Cases and [hereinafter (1992). Thompson, Washington Constitution's as right among “privi- statutory to education grounds, the decision included leges” territory. of the Iowa citizens sweeping language with constitutional overtones. Id. at Coger v. In North century,
In the nineteenth
the United
Co.,
western
145,
Union Packet
37 Iowa
Supreme
inhospitable
States
Court was
(1873),
court,
relying upon arti
brought
claims
under the Privileges and
I,
cle
section 1 of
Constitution,
the Iowa
Immunities
and the related Equal
Clause
refused to endorse the separate
Protection
but equal
Clause
the Federal Constitu-
Cases,
In
Slaughter-House
tion.
83 doctrine and instead held
persons
(16 Wall.) 36,
(1872),
U.S.
L.Ed. 394
color were entitled to be admitted as a
gave the Federal
Im-
Privileges
Court
steamboat passenger
equal
terms to
Const,
munities
of the Fourteenth
Clause
Amend-
patrons.
I, §
white
See Iowa
art.
extraordinarily
ment an
narrow interpreta-
(1857) (“All
are,
nature,
men
by
free and
537,
Plessy
Ferguson,
tion.
v.
163 U.S.
In
equal”).
(1896),
16 S.Ct.
was
overturned in Brown v. Board
Supreme
United States
Court
in The
Education,
347 U.S.
74 S.Ct.
Slaughter-House Cases.
In more recent
(1954).
The dramatic
begins prior to state-
interpretations of the United States Su-
case,
reported
hood.
its first
In re
preme Court under
Equal
Federal
(Iowa 1839),
Ralph,
P.2d at
discrimi-
Coons,
that because the
E.
H.
III &
argument
state’s
John
William
Clune
wealth, no
on district
based
nation was
Op-
Stephen
Sugarman,
D.
Educational
brought.
claim could be
equal protection
A Workable
portunity:
Constitutional
further conclud-
The court
at 1251-52.
Id.
Structures, 57
Test
State Financial
was based on
a classification
that when
ed
(1969)).
L.Rev. 305
Cal.
or in-
wealth,
purposeful
allegation
no
financing
that
Having determined
Id.
required.
was
discrimination
tentional
against
discriminated
scheme California
that in Har-
The court noted
at 1258-55.
on the basis of wealth and
school districts
on its face but
tax was neutral
poll
per,
interests,
fundamental
the Serra-
affected
discriminatory in effect. Id. at
clearly
was
apply compelling
I court
proceeded
no
noted that while
court further
1254. The
its
interest standard to determine
state
Court had
Supreme
States
the United
I,
validity.
Cal.Rptr.
Serrano
issue,
the California
yet weighed
surprisingly,
Not
P.2d at 1259-63.
held that
previously
had
Supreme Court
court found the scheme invalid under the
violated the
segregation
de facto racial
Id. at
The court
demanding test.
1263.
(cit-
Id. at 1255
Fourteenth Amendment.
rejected the asserted state interest of local
Johnson,
Sch. Dist.
ing S.F. Unified
control,
control could be
noting that local
937, Cal.Rptr.
After a trial
testimony
which
precisely equal advantages.”
Id. at
documentary
presented,
evidence was
three
S.Ct. at
cation
interest is
discrediting
refuting
or
what amounts to fundamental
persuasively
trial
24,
Id. at
98 S.Ct. noteworthy
highlights
because it
the dif-
assertion.”37
the State’s
1292,
at 38.
L.Ed.2d
ference between Federal and State Con-
at
36
An-
the test of the San
stitutions. Under
Supreme
to the California
In contrast
tonio
that
is
majority,
it is clear
education
I,
the San Antonio
ma-
in Serrano
Court
a fundamental interest under the Fed-
that while education
jority also determined
nowhere is edu-
eral Constitution because
interest,
it did not
important
was an
in
explicitly or
mentioned
implicitly
cation
under
to a fundamental
interest
amount
course,
true
opposite,
the text. The
Brown,
Citing
Federal Constitution.
constitutions,
routinely con-
of state
which
“the
the San Antonio
majority recognized
provisions
constitutional
relat-
explicit
tain
society.”
in a free
vital role
education
invariably
that
include a
ing to education
1295,
30,
at
36 L.Ed.2d at
Id.
at
93 S.Ct.
provide education to its citizens.
duty to
Yet,
power
noted the
41.
the Court
San
desiring
A state court
to follow
Shapiro
Thompson,
v.
394
in
U.S.
dissent
Antonio
determining
formulation
(1969),
1322,
618,
ture of the factual records that are devel- Subsequent E. Education Cases Antonio oped, post-Sim supreme state
Based on State Constitutions.
plaintiffs
court cases which
challenging
1. Overview state court cases subse-
prevail
state educational
frameworks
are
I,
quent to San
Serrano
After
majority,40
Antonio.
while
denying
those
re-
38.See,
Justices,
107,
58,
535,
(1999);
e.g., Op.
624 So.2d
S.C.
S.E.2d
515
538
Tenn.
(Ala.1993);
McWherter,
Elementary
Sys.
112
Roosevelt
Sch.
Small Sch.
v.
851 S.W.2d
139,
233,
(Tenn.1993);
Bishop,
Edgewood Indep.
Dist.
140
No. 66 v.
179 Ariz.
877 P.2d
Sch.
806,
391,
(1994);
(Tex.
Kirby,
Dist. v.
777
811-12
DuPree v. Alma Sch. Dist.
S.W.2d
392
30,
1989);
State,
246,
340,
90,
Brigham
No.
279 Ark.
91
v.
166 Vt.
692
651 S.W.2d
384,
(1997);
(1983);
Educ.,
Lujan
A.2d
385
Scott v.
v.
Common
Colo. State Bd.
649
wealth,
379,
138,
1005,
(Colo. 1982);
247 Va.
443 S.E.2d
140
P.2d
1010-11
v.
Horton
(1994);
861;
Meskill,
615,
359,
Pauley, 255 S.E.2d at
Kukor v.
172 Conn.
376 A.2d
361
Grover,
469,
568,
Thomas,
(1977);
632,
148 Wis.2d
570
McDaniel v.
248 Ga.
(1989).
156,
(1981); Thompson
285 S.E.2d
157
v.
793,
635,
Engelking, 96 Idaho
537 P.2d
636
Hunt,
Equity,
39. Ala. Coal.
Inc. v.
CV-90-
for
(1975);
Rights Edgar,
Educ.
v.
174
Comm. for
883-R, CV-91-0117,
(Ala.Cir.
WL
1993
204083
1,
166,
1178,
Ill.2d
220 Ill.Dec.
672 N.E.2d
1, 1993).
April
Ct.
(1996);
1182
Sch. Dist. No. 229 v.
Unified
State,
232,
1170,
256 Kan.
885 P.2d
1173
816; DuPree,
Bishop,
40. See
lief constitute
by trial
upon
developed
extensive records
jurisdictions where state
terestingly,
courts.44 In some cases where the trial
from San
have
departed
courts
supreme
courts dismissed education claims without
Texas, where the state
Antonio
include
record,
developing
evidentiary
an
reversal
invalidated the same school
court
supreme
See, e.g., Idaho
Sch. for
has occurred.
arrangements
United
financing
Evans,
Opportunity
Educ.
v.
Equal
approved in San
Supreme Court
States
(Idaho 1993).
P.2d
734-35
Sch.
Edgewood Indep.
Dist.
Antonio. See
judicial review: Politi-
(Tex.1989).
2. Obstacles to
Kirby, 111 S.W.2d
v.
justiciability
question
cal
doctrines.
minority
plaintiffs,
of cases lost
In the
Antonio state court cases
post-Sau
may
providing
be characterized as
some
a number of obstacles to
have considered
results,
such as where
courts
mixed
review. The main
are
judicial
obstacles
possi-
or at least reserved the
recognized
question
doctrine and the re-
political
claim but found the
bility of a successful
justiciability.
lated doctrine of
Many
them.42
support
insufficient to
facts
triggered strong dis-
of the cases also
respect
political question
With
to the
doctrine,
receptive to edu
state courts
sents.43
Skeen,
(1978);
process);
Pauley,
political
75
government.”);
found that
in the American
of
generally
system
claims have
cation
Thomas,
632,
McDaniel v.
248 Ga.
duty
brought
have a
cases
285
courts
decide
(1981)
156,
(noting
S.E.2d
157
court was
duty
of
parties.
them
before
not called to
which policy
decide
was
law is
to declare what the
has some
courts
“better,”
existing
but only if
method of fi
been
in forceful terms.
expressed
times
nancing public education met state consti
Kentucky Supreme
example,
For
requirements);
tutional
Columbia Falls
in Rose declared that
avoid
“[t]o
Court
State,
Elementary Sch.
No. 6 v.
Dist.
326
deciding
‘legislative
the case because
304,
257,
(2005) (“As
Mont.
P.3d
denigration
...
discretion’
would be
guardian
protector
the final
of the
duty.
own constitutional
To allow the
our
education,
is
upon
it
incumbent
to decide
Assembly
General
...
whether
court
to assure that the
enact
literally
actions are constitutional
is
its
enforces,
Legislature
protects
ed
Council
Better
unthinkable.” Rose v.
State,
right.”);
and fulfills the
Leandro v.
Educ., Inc.,
(Ky.1989).
790 S.W.2d
(1997)
346 N.C.
488 S.E.2d
State,
Similarly, in
the Ohio
DeRolph v.
(“When government
action is challenged
Supreme Court declared:
unconstitutional,
courts
have a
dodge
responsibility by
We will not
our
duty to determine whether that action ex
asserting that this case involves a non-
limits.”). A minority
ceeds constitutional
To do
justiciable political question.
so is
courts, however,
state
view
unthinkable. We refuse
undermine
equal protection
clause and
clause chal
judicial
pass
our role as
arbiters and to
lenges as raising political questions.45
our
responsibilities
lap
onto
of the
Analysis
education clauses in
General Assembly.
above,
As indicated
state constitutions.
Ohio
N.E.2d
St.3d
737 nearly all of the state constitutions contain
(1997); see also
Coal.
Conn.
Justice
provisions
related to education. The
Rell,
Funding,
Educ.
Inc.
Conn.
clauses come in
of shapes
a number
“
(noting
A.2d
‘it
categorized by
that have been
com-
sizes
well
province
judicia
within the
mentators. Some
clauses are char-
ry
determine whether
coordinate
“weak,”
acterized as
while others are
government
has
branch
conducted it
thought to be more robust.46
‘the authority
self
accordance with
significant
A
number
constitutions
*69
”
upon
conferred
it
constitution’
require
provide
to
legislature
that
for a
(quoting
v. Select
Governor
Office of
efficient,” “liberal,”
“thorough
“gener-
Inquiry,
Comm.
271 Conn.
858
uniform,”
of
suitable,
al and
“general,
(2004))); Evans,
A.2d
730
850 P.2d efficient,”
of
system
“a
free common
(“[W]e
accept
at 734
the re
decline
schools,”
system
or an “efficient”
of
spondents’
argument
that
the other
schools,
to provide
have been held
government
branches of
be allowed to in
for
judicially
basis
a
enforceable mandato-
terpret
for us.
constitution
That
ry obligation to
children
a
provide
with
abject
quality
be an
of our role
level or
of education.47 One
would
abdication
certain
See,
James,
stronger
e.g.,
parte
category containing
836
45.
Ex
So.2d
"a
and more
Comm,
(Ala.2002);
Rights,
Educ.
220
specific
than
mandate”
in the first
education
for
Coal,
1193;
Ill.Dec.
Neb.
672 N.E.2d
groups,
strong
two
but
than a fourth
less
Equity Adequacy,
Educ.
&
N.W.2d at
for
group).
183;
Ass’n,
1066;
Okla. Educ.
158 P.3d at
Sundlun,
court,
opinion
has found
a require-
appendix Opin
attached as an
always
Justices,
(Ala.
pub-
“there shall
be free
ment that
ion
624 So.2d
elementary
secondary
1993),
lic
schools” is
the Alabama circuit court declared
a
qualita-
minimum
sufficient to establish
that “it well-settled in this
state that
Rett,
See
990 A.2d at
requirement.
tive
deprives
when the state
citizens
liberty
227, 281-82.
benefiting
for the purposes of
them with a
service,
requires that
process
due
the ser
hand, there are cases de-
On the other
vice be
them in an
provided
adequate
mandatory
find an enforceable
clining to
Justices,
form.”
Op.
So.2d at
adequate
an
duty
however,
161.
approach,
This
was later
provisions
pro-
on constitutional
based
Supreme
the Alabama
overruled
Court
schools,”48
of common
a
system
“a
vide for
James,
parte
Ex
836 So.2d
be “thorough
that schools
requirement
(Ala.2002).
uniform,”49
“ade-
requirement
a
to make
a
system
...
uniform
provision
quate
arising
Issues
in state education
schools,”50 provision
a
estab-
of free
equal protection
cases based on state
obligation” for “the
lishing
primary
a “a
clauses.
arising
In state education cases
education,”51
adequate
provision of an
a
privileges
under state
and immunities or
provision requiring
state to “establish
equal
challenges,
state
protection
several
system
a ...
thorough
and maintain
issues
repetitively appear
the cases.
schools,”52
public,
pro-
and a
free common
They
review,
include the standard of
“general
and uniform
requiring
vision
whether
party attacking
an education
Schools.”53
of Common
scheme must show intentional discrimina-
state education cases
4. Overview of
tion, and
whether the
have identi-
considering challenges based on substan-
support
fied a
equal
class sufficient
At
process.
tive
least one court has
due
protection claim.
to state educational
challenges
considered
A critical issue is the standard of re-
pro-
based on substantive due
frameworks
view.
number of
significant
A
state su-
In Ala-
cess under state constitutions.
preme court cases have found that edu-
instance,
bama,
Supreme
the Alabama
gives
cation
rise to a fundamental interest
more
adopted
rigorous
Court
stan-
has
under
constitutions.
cases
state
These
process
due
em-
dard of substantive
than
reach
in a number
ways.
this result
ployed by
Supreme
the United States
adopt
Some of
Towers,
explicitly
them
the funda-
Royal
Court. See Mount
Inc.
Health,
1209, mental
framework
interest
advanced
Ala. State Bd.
388 So.2d
(Ala.1980).
court San
the lower
Antonio and find
because edu-
*70
suitable,
efficient”);
Lujan,
("general,
Bishop,
and
49. See
at 1010-11.
649 P.2d
uniform”);
("general
77 Clause); impliedly Equal or rooted expressly cation is in Protection Tenn. Small constitutions, it arises to a fun McWherter, their state Sys. 139, Sch. v. 851 S.W.2d equal protection pur interest for damental (Tenn.1993) 154 (citing dispari- substantial poses. Cnty. See Sch. Dist. No. Washakie districts). ty based on school Herschler, 810, (Wyo. 606 P.2d 333 One A final frequently issue arising equal 1980). depart Others from the San Anto protection analysis is the power of the apply nio framework and either a more state’s asserted interest in local control in test, generous finding a fundamental inter the education arena. As noted in Serrano est on the underlying importance based cases, I subsequent local generally,54 education or a narrower test control is a than San Antonio order to avoid a “cruel illusion” if disparities imposed are' finding of fundamental interest.55 poor districts due to the limitations placed by system on them the itself. Ser- cases,
In contrast to these some state I, 601, 1260; CahRptr. rano 96 487 P.2d at supreme courts have followed San Antonio 30, see also DuPree v. Sch. Dist. No. applied a rational basis standard to Alma 340, (1983). 90, challenges. In most of 279 Ark. 651 S.W.2d these If cases, up- the state frameworks have been there are disparities educational oppor- every held.56 But not in case. In several tunity, question a factual arises: Are the cases, supreme applied state courts have decisions, disparities due to local or are rational basis “with teeth” test and have they by system caused the state of financ- invalidated state education structures on ing providing of education? See that basis.57 Elementary Roosevelt Sch. Dist. No. 66 v.
A
plaintiff
second issue is whether the
Bishop, 179 Ariz.
877 P.2d
showing
has the burden of
disparate treat
(holding question
dispar-
of whether
ment.
respect
disparate
With
treat
by
ities
making
caused
local decision
ment,
the state courts that address the
ques-
school
raises factual
generally
issue
build on the
in San
dissent
court).
tion for trial
Antonio, which notes that
the class con
type
6.
Issues related to the
and scope
persons residing
property
sists of
in low
A critical
issue in education
of relief.
jurisdictions
tax
who are treated different
type
sought by
cases is the
of relief
ly than those in tax rich geographic loca
plaintiffs.
Some
seek
some
what
Antonio,
69-70,
tions.
See San
U.S. at
parity
commentators have
identified as
(White,
at
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d at 64
opportunity.58
educational
Others
seek
J.,
I,
dissenting);
Cal.Rptr.
Serrano
“sound,
(state’s
only
“adequate”
an
or a
basic”
general
Plaintiffs opportuni- the same educational precisely ties, substantially opportuni- the same but Kentucky Supreme The in Rose Court strength parity The ties, as others. developed a more detailed seven-factor perfectly understanda- theory is that it is Kentucky Supreme test. The Court has manageable, namely, that judicially ble and an adequate stated that order to in school districts program the educational education, sys- the state must establish substantially the same. The needs to goal tem of education with the ultimate however, multiple. Parity are problems, providing every to each and child seven requires that the state aban- theory often capabilities: property reliance local don traditional (i) sufficient oral and written communi- seeking Plaintiffs to fund education. taxes cation skills to enable students to func- specter of “Robin thus raise parity rapidly changing in a and complex tion whereby wealthier school Hood” remedies (ii) civilization; knowledge of sufficient required to transfer edu- are districts economic, social, political systems and districts, poorer with the funds to cational the student to make informed enable of education in quality that the more result (iii) choices; understanding of sufficient districts suffers. fortunate school governmental processes enable because of the difficulties of part In student to understand issues theory, plaintiffs developed have an parity state, community, or affect his her and theory parity that does not seek alternate (iv) nation; self-knowledge sufficient and advantage adequacy. but instead of his or her mental and knowledge it does not theory is obvious: adequacy (v) wellness; ground- sufficient physical wealthy district require any school arts to enable each student to ing program, sacrifice its but transfer funds or appreciate his or her cultural and histor- it the state to ensure that merely requires (vi) training heritage; ical sufficient to all stu- provides adequate an in ei- preparation training for advanced approach does not adequacy dents. The ther academic or vocational fields so as of local require complete abandonment pur- each to choose and to enable child property taxes. (vii) intelligently; sue life work and suf- n adequacy the- major challenge with ficient levels of academic or vocational proper of a stan- ory development is the school skills to enable students to example, County in Abbeville dard. For counter- compete favorably with their State, 335 S.C.
School District
states,
parts
surrounding
in aca-
(1999),
South
S.E.2d
Carolina
job
demics or
market.
to a “mini-
Supreme Court found
Rose,
212; Leandro,
S.W.2d
According to
mally adequate education.”
(adopting
adaptation
S.E.2d at 255
Court, a mini-
Supreme
the South Carolina
standards);
Campaign
the Rose
see also
included:
mally adequate education
State,
Equity,
Fiscal
Inc. v.
100 N.Y.2d
1)
read, write,
speak
and
ability
N.Y.S.2d
801 N.E.2d
knowledge
English language,
(2003) (adopting
adequacy).
standard of
science;
physical
mathematics and
2)
approach
adequacy
A third
was taken
knowledge of eco-
a fundamental
nomic, social,
systems,
Supreme
the Arkansas
Court in Lake
political
Huckabee,
history
governmental processes;
School District No. 25 v.
View
(2002).
351 Ark.
3)
View,
Supreme
Lake
the Arkansas
Court
academic and vocational skills.
*72
provide
“adequate”
declared in order to
specific legislative remedies in the face of
education,
the state must
legislative
stan-
See,
inaction or intransigence.
dards, develop
system
to determine
e.g.,
Burke,
Abbott ex rel. Abbott v.
met,
whether
goals
being
are
and es-
140,
(2009).
N.J.
971 A.2d
994-96
tablish a
of accountability to deter-
Application
VI.
of State
mine whether funds that are being spent
Principles
Constitutional
are providing
opportunity.
educational
in Iowa.
View,
Lake
80
in
provided
the
the
implied that
education
assembly
repeal provisions
general
the
meaningful
in a
schools must be a
ed-
school matters
common
authority over
vesting
education,
op-
formal-
just
empty
this constitutional
and not
some
ucation
of
board
manner in which
solely to the
substance to the
related
ism. There must be some
tion
interest
in edu-
reality,
mandatory duty,
state’s constitutional
some concrete
the
The Iowa
implemented.
be
cation would
Just as the
some meat on the bones.
context,
Constitution,
requires
a
read
to counsel” under the Federal
“right
throughout
schools
of “Common
system
right
means the
to “ef-
State Constitutions
Const,
IX,
2,
art.
div.
Iowa
See
counsel,
the State.”
of
McMann v.
fective” assistance
Clark,
where we
much
§
said as
14,
8. We
759,
Richardson,
n.
771 &
U.S.
State had an obli-
the
emphasized
763,
14, 25 L.Ed.2d
1449 & n.
S.Ct.
IX,
division
section
article
gation under
(1970),
duty
the
of the state to
773 & n.
of all the
the education
“for
provide
12 to
the
throughout
schools
provide common
State,
system
a
through
youths
in the
requires that
the education
state
Clark,
at 274
24 Iowa
schools.”
common
ade-
meet minimum standards of
schools
Const,
12).
IX,
1; §
art.
div.
(quoting
quacy.
provisions without
constitutional
Our
Porter, 237 Iowa
Nothing in Kleen v.
a
as others which
strong
are as
question
(1946),
to the con-
60. As noted Universal Declaration mental under its state constitution. 5, 26, Pauley, S.E.2d at 863 n. 878. Rights, Human article describes right. education as to a a human See, DuPree, 93; e.g., 61. 651 S.W.2d at Serra The Universal Declaration has been ratified II, 952; Cal.Rptr. no 557 P.2d at Paquete the United States. case of The Horton, 373; Rose, 790 376 A.2d at S.W.2d at Habana, 175 U.S. 44 L.Ed. S.Ct. 206; 313-14; Skeen, Robinson, 505 N.W.2d at (1900), proposition stands for the 720; Sys., 351 A.2d Tenn. Small Sch. at treaty obligations binding international are 142; 154-56; Scott, S.W.2d 443 S.E.2d at at upon Virginia United States courts. The West 92; Seattle Sch. No. 585 P.2d Pau Dist. Supreme Court relied on the Decla- Universal 878; Kukor, ley, 255 S.E.2d at N.W.2d at declaring ration in that education a funda- concept heightened protection effectively, communicate to perform in or basic education but not for adequate computations, mathematical to have expo- has in sure to support principles, all educational differences scientific to have a basic example, the caselaw of other states. For understanding of govern- economics and ment, both the Minnesota and Wisconsin Su- and to learn how to computer- use preme adopted ap- technology Courts have such an based indispensible that is so proach through in their efforts to sort the postmodern An pro- world. gram constitutional issues related to education. guarantee need not results to meet State, test, See Skeen v. 505 N.W.2d 315 the constitutional but it must provide Grover, (Minn.1993); Kukor v. meaningful Wis.2d a opportunity educational (1989). participate social, in the political, eco- *76 nomic life. By limiting heightened scrutiny to the
deprivation
not, however,
of an adequate or basic edu-
I
adopt
'would
ap-
the
by
cation and
employing
degree
proach
a lesser
Supreme
the Arkansas
Court in
scrutiny to legislative classifications that Lake View. While
adoption
the
of stan-
education,
dards,
impinge
adequate
do not
on an
systems of monitoring, and systems
ample
state officials would have
breathing
accountability
might help ensure compli-
room for their
important policy-making ance with the substantive constitutional re-
role, yet
require
provide
still
that the state
quirements outlined in
opinion,
I
all students
a meaningful
with
educational
precise
would
mandate the
manner in
opportunity.
performs
which the State
its constitutional
obligation.
I would decline to enter the
question
next
which arises is the
fray of educational philosophy other than
content of a
adequate
basic or
education
required
as
to ensure that children have a
triggers heightened
scrutiny. Based
opportunity
reasonable
to a basic edu-
reasoning
on the
of the adequacy cases
cation and that all other material differ-
above,
cited
I conclude that a basic or
ences in educational opportunity
justi-
adequate education must be sufficient to
fied
a rational basis as described below.
person
allow a
to participate meaningfully
democracy
vote,
through
right
the
to
privileges-and-immuni-
defense to
is,
course,
right
petition government,
to
jury
ties-type
invariably
claims
duty, and to have meaningful prospects of
“local control.” But local control is not an
“life,
enjoying
liberty,
property.”
In
automatic trump
applies
card that
as a
ends,
order
to achieve these
involving
matter of law all cases
edu-
must be sufficient to allow an individual a
cational
interests
Justice Mansfield’s
meaningful
Instead,
opportunity
participate
opinion
to
seems
believe.
wheth-
postmodern
economic life in the
carry
world.
er “local control” will be sufficient to
Inc.,
Campaign
Equity,
See
Fiscal
day
depend upon
769 the
will
a number of
330-32;
First,
N.Y.S.2d
801 N.E.2d at
Hoke
determinations.
the court must de-
State,
termine,
Cnty.
fact,
Bd.
Educ. v.
358 N.C.
as a matter of
whether the
(2004);
599 S.E.2d
alleged shortcomings
Abbeville
in education are
Dist.,
540; Rose,
Cnty.
Second,
Sch.
present.
S.E.2d at
the court must deter-
ple
test,
of stricter rational basis review
stringent
under
terests is sufficient—and more
Clause);
Equal
Federal
Protection
inquiry
Peter S.
regarding
which includes
whether the
Smith, Note, The
government
justifiable).
actual
Demise
Three-Tier Review:
action taken is
rejected
have
an
variations. Several states
inconsistency, there is
from
Aside
rationality
supreme
“any
courts to
conceivable basis”
for state
other reason
when ana
precedent
exacting judicial
for more
review
from federal
standard
depart
See,
claims. A
protection-type
classifications.
lyzing equal
legislative
of some
ra
highly
in the
deferential
factor
major
Trujillo
City Albuquerque,
v.
e.g.,
developed by the
(1998);
basis standard
305,
tional
965 P.2d
Mac
N.M.
is the de
Supreme Court
States
United
452, 686 A.2d
Seymour,
v.
165 Vt.
Callum
and to avoid im
federalism
honor
sire to
(1996).
states,
Other
for in
938-39
onto the states.
solutions
national
posing
stance,
adopted
unitary
have
test
that na
long ago
warned
Harlan
Justice
right,
nature of the
the extent
balances the
federal standards
application
tional
upon the
government
to which the
intrudes
the states el
give
the states
order
the restriction.
right, and the need for
processes
in their criminal
bow room
Cosio,
See,
v.
e.g., Dep’t
Revenue
of substantive
would lead to
dilution
(Alaska
1993); Planned Par
P.2d
Baldwin
protections.
constitutional
Farmer, 165
enthood Cent. N.J. v.
N.J.
117, 118,
York,
90 S.Ct.
New
899 U.S.
(2000).
A.2d
Other
1914, 1915,
26 L.Ed.2d
adopted
have
of means-
states
(Harlan, J.,
part
and dis
concurring
scrutiny
appears
more inten
focused
Indeed, federalism con
part).
senting
some
sive than the most lenient standard
motivating factor in the
straints were a
States Su
applied
times
the United
.impose
strict
refusal
Supreme Court’s
See, e.g.,
Mowrey,
State v.
preme Court.
Because of the
scrutiny in San Antonio.
(2000).
1217, 1221
134 Idaho
9 P.3d
concerns,
Equal
the Federal
federalism
variability
in “rational basis” tests is
among the
tends to be
Protection Clause
demonstrated
the state education cases.
pro
of constitutional
most underenforced
courts,
Indiana,
like
have declared
Some
Hershkoff, 112 Harv. L.Rev.
visions. See
that,
strong dissent
as a matter of
over a
1134-38;
Sager, Fair
Lawrence Gene
law,
adequate
local control is an
rational
Legal
Underen-
Status
Measure:
justify
pro
a state framework for
basis to
Norms, 91 Harv.
Constitutional
forced
states, however,
*79
viding education. Other
(1978).
The
federalism
L.Rev.
Arkansas, have found after the devel
like
course,
concern,
wholly absent when
is
of substantial factual records that
opment
consider claims under
state courts
meet
funding
their
of state
fails to
state constitutions.
See, e.g., Du
even the rational basis test.
result,
surprising that a
As a
it is not
Pree,
88 of which the claim arose and I have no incident out Clause. Due Process
D.
process
Haug
due
of the action.
potential
general
is a
nature
that there
doubt
land,
Schmidt,
121,
compulsory nature of
of the
light
claim in
v.
N.W.2d
as much in
(Iowa 1984).
We said
attending.
school
We have stated that “[i]n
uncontroversial that
notion is
Extra. The
Iowa,
way of
very
required by
little is
impaired
interest
is
liberty
where a
v.
notice.” Wither
pleading
—and
mandatory school
by
impaired
is
surely
2001).
it
(Iowa
Wither,
590,
630 N.W.2d
liberty
deprivation
attendance —the
require
in
does not
pleading
Notice
legitimate
related to a
rationally
must be
support
that
pleading of ultimate facts
at
Youngberg,
U.S.
objective.
state
only
action but
elements of the cause of
2462,
42-
324,
that the courts VII. Conclusion. government. Ex branches' political view, my regardless whether (Moore, James, 836 So.2d parte pled preserved have and/or C.J., part result in concurring under IX of the Iowa Consti- claim article dissenting part). Due or stated a claim under the tution however, find, problems I do not Process Clauses of the Iowa and Federal should oust this court’s related to remedies inescapable I believe it is Constitutions. merits consider the substantive ability to a fundamental interest that education is approach would ease. Such of this guarantee of under the state constitutional Broadside precedent. an unwise establish equal protection. Because of the sensitive “The Structural In- regarding statements making, decision nature of educational instance, threaten to for under- junction,” however, I would differentiate between case, in this but only mine not the result other ele- adequate education and basic Brown, cases such as Gideon bedrock that fall outside that ments of education 792, 9 83 S.Ct. Wainwnght, U.S. apply heightened I would scru- category. (1963), courageous holding L.Ed.2d 799 tiny respect deprivation with to claims of Aderholt, less celebrated and countless only a rational adequate nitty gritty of ob- dealing with the cases scrutiny to other claims. type basis with re- compliance taining constitutional issues, I Having legal determined these prison systems and spect to overcrowded plead- apply traditionally our liberal would health facilities. inadequate mental grossly plaintiffs’ petition. to the ing standards regarding remedies Sweeping declarations very precise and does approaches petition nuanced is not highly ignore also action clearly government courts to remedial issues outline what many state adequate edu- provision to the causing deprivation. related what Neverthe- collaboration over emphasize less, stage cation that at this prepared say I am not See, Rell, e.g., 990 A.2d at confrontation. plain- possibility that there is no flexible, gradu- (discussing 221-23 need an entitlement to will be able to show tiffs remedies); Equi- Fiscal Campaign ate judgment rush to relief. Rather than Inc., N.E.2d at ty, 769 N.Y.S.2d of an development without the this case (N.Y.2003)(discussing flexible rem- record, deny I would adequate factual context). edies in education case to to dismiss and remand the motion proceedings. court for further district approach prudent respectful While sense, this remedies makes potential HECHT, J., joins this dissent. for this springboard case should not be a doctrine that adopt court a radical jurisprudence. many
threatens decades curtailed disabling sharply
A doctrine of guarantees
remedies would reduce
the State and Federal Constitutions Notes from Unks, The Illu- Gerald statehood. sion to Monthly 1860 to 12 Iowa Normal No. Federal A Chronicle Intrusion: sion (1889). 7, at One of Benton’s succes- of of Education, F. 49 Educ. Aid Public Fanville, sors, remarked 1865 that Oran (1985). only New Mexico After education is the central idea of “universal admission into the Un- gain attempted republicanism.” Id. at 299. clause, and an education Con- ion without early governors, state like Robert Iowa’s New Mexico go along. gress refused Lucas, In were advocates for education. clause and was an education then added Briggs recognized Governor Ansel into the Union. subsequently admitted education, significance the constitutional Inst, Equity Opportunity, & See for Educ. stating: States: A Deskbook Education in the 50 have ever manifest- people The of Iowa History State Constitutions zeal in ed an earnest and commendable (2008). about Education 29 Laws education, and, spread especially, very first act of the First General The in the of an efficient and establishment related Assembly of Iowa was a measure system of Schools. permanent Common funds, demonstrating impor- to school importance prominent Of such fledgling state. 1 tance of to the estimation, they subject their importance Aurner at 16-17. ample provisions have made the most government is re- educational function for the of edu- spread the Constitution the fact that the Chief Justice of flected support cation and the common Court, Mason, Supreme the Iowa Charles schools.... was a member of the first Iowa Board Shambaugh at 370. at 415 n. 105. Education. Aurner was Hempstead, Governor who Superintendent of Edu- The state’s first delegate also a of the 1844 constitutional Benton, Jr., cation, nephew Thomas Hart convention, addressed education his first Missouri, Senator was of the famous from legislature. the Iowa message biennial move- a national leader in the education can claim a subject He noted that “no ment, serving on the executive committee pressing more interest than that of for the Ad- of the American Association instruction.” Id. at 430. He further de- Street, An- of Education. vancement clared: 400; Proceedings of the nals of Iowa at great object place should be to first the American Association Fifth Session of every within the reach of child in the (New for the Advancement of Education 3
Notes
Notes the Debates James (James Netherlands), 59, 63, and the United No. the Federal Convention of Madison) 143, 145, (discussing of a 132, 136-37, 141, the characteristics 76, 83, 100, 126, 241, 255-56, 307, 205, 207, 214-15, 223, government compar- republican form of Holland, Venice, ed., (Bicentennial 334, 359, governments Po- ing the firmly I am convinced that education is heart of democratic government, to the itself, just important enjoyment interest. It is a one- essence of of life and to goes very dignity. of-a-kind interest. It to the the core of human Without edu- land, (James Madison) England), Rights No. 43 the Universal Declaration of Human Greece, Crete), (discussing Sparta, No. 52 vindicating right to freedom of move- (James Madison) elections), (referencing Irish ment); Pauley Kelly, 162 W.Va. (Alexander Hamilton) (citing examples No. 75 (1979) (citing S.E.2d 864 n. 5 the Univer- Diet, Tribuneship, the Roman Polish sal Rights support Declaration of Human Netherlands). and the States-General of the education). for state constitutional addition, the founders were all familiar ap- framers of the Iowa Constitution Vattel, with international authorities such as well, plied perspective a broad to their task as Grotius, Montesquieu, Burlamaqui, and Puf- specifically George in the field of education. Lutz, generally endorf. See Donald S. Ells, debating importance W. of edu- European Relative Writers on Late Influence of during cation the 1857 constitutional conven- Eighteenth-Century American Political tion, observed: