Skeen v. State

bar, Turning to the we cannot case

find, us, SKEEN, al., on the record before that the trial Respondents, et Sheridan ju appropriately exercised its inherent v. power ordering meeting dicial closed public Minnesota, bodies which are al., Appellants between two STATE et (C7-92- (C5-92-677) opposing parties underlying lawsuit. Respondents 678) meeting To label this a settlement conference with, begin is a misnomer. To not all of the parties litigation included-in the .were Consequently, pro closed conference. Virginia Independent School District No. meeting County City posed between the (C5- al., Interveners, Respondents et in a could have resulted resolution or 92-677) (C7-92-678). Appellants underlying settlement of the lawsuit. Nor C5-92-677, Nos. C7-92-678. proposed was the closed conference avoid lawsuit, well-recognized purpose trial of the Supreme Court of Minnesota. conferences, of settlement because the order was made after a trial on the merits while Aug. underlying appeal case on to this was Finally, scope proposed of the .court.7 narrowly settlement conference was not specific

drawn to focus on issues raised underlying lawsuit. The issue of public safety facility”

“where to site this than the Ar

broader issue of whether the

mory building site could be used for the

public safety facility. The trial court must

ensure that closed settlement conference public purpose

between bodies is for the

settling underlying litigation and not to Open

be used as a vehicle to avoid Meet by discussing, private, Law issues properly belong arena. judicial

A power court has inherent litigation

order bodies in closed into constitutionally pre-

settlement conferences

cluding application Open Meeting

law, but, under the facts and circumstances case, meeting

of this- was not a ordered requirements

settlement conference and the Open Meeting apply. Law affirm We appeals.

the order of the court of

Affirmed. Rather, say ciently limited settlement conference. 7. This is not to that in all instances the court say power that whether a settlement conference is cannot exercise its inherent to order a is to before, during, or after trial is a factor to closed settlement conference after trial. Nor is it ordered determining appropriate- say lacked be considered in that in this instance the trial court constituted, judicial power. inherent jurisdiction properly ness of the exercise of to order a suffi- KEITH, Chief Justice. presents

This case the issue of whether the present system state’s of educational finance is sufficient to meet the state constitutional requirement “establish schools” and sufficient thorough “secure a and efficient throughout schools the state.” plaintiffs in of 52 this case consist parents brought who school districts and ten Jones, Levinger, Mark B. Sara Jarvinen against suit in the State of October 1988 Gens., III, Atty. Humphrey Asst. Hubert H. Minnesota, Education, State Board Gen., Paul, Minnesota, Atty. St. State of (“defen of Education Commissioner et al. dants”), injunctive seeking declaratory and Gullickson, Fabel, Randy L. Thomas G. against by claiming that cer relief the state Skeen, Minneapolis, for et al. Sheridan components tain of the Minnesota education O’Brien, Amy Magnuson, J. Dennis Eric J. under finance were unconstitutional Adams, Minneapolis, Virginia Indep. K. the Education Clause of the Minnesota Con School Dist. No. 700. (“Edu XIII, § 1 stitution. Minn. Const. art. Clause”). higher tax June Rufer, Stephen Building, F. Law Office joined by inter base school districts the state Falls, Fergus Independent for amici curiae vening in this case. as defendants Dist. No. et al. School County Clark, Following 67-day Wright Harley Ogota, Rog- L. M. trial Christina Court, Barret, Hamblin, three com L. the court declared er Rebecca H. Minneso- District system— Ass’n, Paul, finance ponents for amici curiae of the education ta Educ. St. sup levy, levy, and debt service Minnesota Educ. Ass’n. referendum average, their school districts have plemental under state revenue—unconstitutional equal protec and the property per pupil (ppu) the Education Clause tax unit base below guarantees tion of the Minnesota Constitu average. tion, I, § 2. The Minn. art. Const. mix intervenor districts are a Constitution, held, under Minnesota schools, inner-ring Range suburbs and Iron right, property education is they represent approximately 17% of suspect property tax base is a wealth or Many enrollment. of these districts provi under this constitutional classification Metropolitan belong to the Association of sion, disparities and wealth-based between (AMSD). School Districts These districts ex- “impermissible in an absence districts result enrollment, uniformity” sys perienced of the state educational a 32% decline on tem. average, between the 1973-74 and 1987-88 fact, years. In some of these districts separately ap- The state and intervenors lost more than 50% of their enrollment dur- appeals. pealed the decision to the court of ing period. prop- the aforementioned Their appeals appeals The court of consolidated erty significantly tax base is above the state court, and certified the matter to this which average. accepted appeal, certification. On present is asked to decide whether the state challenges financing to state of edu- Unlike system financing educational is constitution- states, frequently cation in other which al. by property-poor inner-city been initiated concerns, addressing In these we must be districts, this case does involve the three cognizant parties involved in law- districts, largest metropolitan school Minne- suit, language of the Education Clause Paul, apolis, Although St. and Duluth. constitution, components under the majority contain AFDC and system, of the state educational minority population, they high- also have the underlying policy other issues which are rele- property tax est base because the state

vant to this court’s consideration. Each of places higher property tax rate on commer- these will be considered below. addition, In cial entities. this case is some- small, atypical what rural because the dis- A. The Parties tricts also are not included. These rural parties plain- The to this include 52 lawsuit districts, represent which than less 12% of districts, districts, tiff school 24 intervenor pupil population, comprise the state’s over Department and the of Education. State half of the total number of school districts. plaintiffs primarily The located areas, adjacent outer-ring suburbs and rural they represent about 25% of the state’s B. The Education Clause Claims of majority plain- K-12 enrollment. The of the Harm Relative belong tiff districts to the Association of Sta- provision generates impetus which (ASGSD). Growing ble and School Districts for this lawsuit is the Education Clause of experiencing These districts have been provision the Minnesota Constitution.1 This increase, higher average than enrollment requires rising by

with their enrollment 22% between schools,” but, many unlike cases years. the 1973-74 and 1987-88 school states, other this case never involved a chal- Meanwhile, state-wide enrollment declined lenge adequacy of education in Minne- by period. Although 12%over the same time fact, parties sota. conceded that all the resident income and home values in plaintiff plaintiff districts are somewhat above the districts met or exceeded the edu- provides: legislature provisions 1. This shall make such Clause thorough taxation or otherwise as will secure system public schools. The stabili- Uniform ty system public through- and efficient schools republican government depend- of a form of ing upon intelligence out the state. mainly people, XIII, § "Edu [hereinafter Minn. Const. art. it is the general to establish a system public Clause”]. uniform schools. System Education in Rather, C. The General requirements of the state. cational Minnesota on claims of premised action is plaintiffs’ i.e., by the avail- relative harm — harm caused evaluating plaintiffs’ claim of relative dis- ability resources low-wealth of fewer disparity, important to understand the counterparts. high-wealth in them torts than property gener- tax which basic state present contend that Plaintiffs ates funds for state education as well as opportunity disparities causes other mechanisms which districts wealth, property there- are related to which supplement use to the level of basic disadvan- by leading to a lifetime relative provided revenue the state. The follow- uniformity require- tage ing violates the chart demonstrates how the state’s fund- changed the last has over decade: ment of the Education Clause. indicates, chart as the above has enacted various statutes in an effort to equalized legislature has more of the state a and uniform” funding years, for education recent with throughout education the state. The percentage of uniform basic revenue ris- accomplished goal primarily by state has this roughly from 67.5% 1984 to 90% guaranteeing a certain amount of “basic rev- large part (also revenue”) 1990. This shift occurred as a enue” known as “foundation legislature’s result of the 1987 reform of the to all districts in the state. This basic reve- system. time, At that basis, “per pupil nue is distributed on a unit” legislature separate funding eliminated figure adjusted according which is many categorical programs for and educating relative costs of students at vari- money pro- folded that into the foundation grade ous levels. Under the current formu- gram, thereby increasing the basic allowance la, kindergarten pupil account for .5 students permitting regarding district choice each, elementary units with students at 1.0 proper programs to offer. Under this new secondary pupil units and students at 1.3 formula, programs such as summer school or 124.17, § See Minn.Stat. pupil units. subd. gifted programs longer and talented no were (1992) (defining “pupil at units” various Instead, separately funded. each district re- levels).3 grade at number of students “lump given ceived a sum” and was discre- multiplied by each level is then the corre- money.2 tion as to how to distribute this sponding “per pupil” figure grade for that plaintiffs receiving These reforms resulted in level, together and the totals are added revenue, compared 8.1% more to intervenors’ pupil derive the total number of units 3.8% increase. trial, given district. At the time of the level $2,953 statutorily revenue was set at generating In terms of meet basic goals, per pupil (“ppu”), figure unit in- the state’s educational which time, spending through $90 2. At this about million in for or raise additional revenue ref- (T E) training experience & was eliminated. erendum levies. money designed compen- This T & E sate districts which had more had been experienced staff trial, secondary 3. At the time of students were higher and teachers costs. therefore encountered weighted pupil See at 1.35 units. Minn.Stat. funding, In the absence of such districts 124.17, (1988). 1(g) § subd. costs, higher many with staff of which were districts, intervenor were either cut forced $3,050 capacity.” determining ppu for 1992 and subse- basis of “tax tax creased to years. quent Minn.Stat. percentage See capacity, property’s mar- (1992). 124A.22, § subd. base,” placed value is “tax ket according type of property. varies system, generate To funds percentages applied The current to various impose all school requires state property property types tax. Minn.Stat. uniform are: (1992). § Property taxes are as- 124A.23 base, percent of tax at the sessed as a

time of trial rate was set §

26.3%.4 Minn.Stat. 124A.23. The See up difference makes between guaran- raised this tax and the

revenues 124A.23, §

teed minimum. Minn.Stat. subd. (1992). process “equaliza- This is called

tion.” “mills,”

Once referred to as the measure of

property is now on the taxation calculated § ca- average

Minn.Stat. 273.13 The net tax ed means that cities such as Paul, Minneapolis and St. which have the pacity a school district the sum of the highest percentage recipients, of AFDC computed parcel proper- for each amounts highest also the school districts with the ty in the district. Due to the increased capacity under the tax “wealth” state’s net percentages applied to commercial entities system.5 apartment complexes, a net tax district’s Defining the correspond D. Relevant Terms and capacity may not to the wealth of Funding Programs given of a school district but citizens greater percentage instead reflect a of com- Despite equalized funding the more state, weight- contend throughout plaintiffs mercial entities that district. This district, high property 4. The the rate tax rate is value calculation legisla- amount of into tax which raises the revenue fails to take account the relative burden. particular capaci- ture be adjusted determines must raised for a note that the net tax Intervenors Thus, year. year (ANTC) not, fiscal this rate varies from ty system does used in Minnesota year depending states, on the of tax revenue amount many simply other use the market like necessary system. to fund the Instead, graduated system property. value of high value and commercial enti- in which homes plaintiffs’ higher percentage 5. Part the debate between and inter- than low value ties face a tax (1992). position centers tax § venors' around the relative The Minn.Stat. 273.13 net homes. See imposed taxpayers. primary their dis- high on property that the value areas are effect is pute the difference "tax rate” focuses on between higher initially generate paying a tax burden and "tax burden.” for the basic revenue formula. One the monies group expert that if districts with no noted point focus on tax rate out that a Plaintiffs per- levy were the same to devote referendum percent property high property- tax one in a (i.e., personal centage face of their income generate substantially will more wealth district burden) levy did the districts same tax as money equivalent an a low- than increase in existing levy, the referendum with an property wealth district. Plaintiffs assert a referendum would raise 83.6% without system gives high proper- this ty an incentive to the by raised the districts with referendum revenue pass an incentive referendum value districts only levy. This leaves attributable dif- 16.4% (or, conversely, prop- levies low disincentive to in tax base. ferences districts) erty supplement reve- value basic po- plaintiffs' intervenors' while the formula, prop- particularly nue because the low respect to tax seem to with base sitions erty impose would a tax wealth districts have to inconsistent, wholly particular ANTC higher high rate to five times than three system employed property in Minnesota indi- tax gain property an wealth districts order to findings respective their and conclu- cates that equivalent amount of funds. consistent, mutually or at least are percentage proper- sions are a certain increase in While rate) (i.e., ty generate money tax will more exclusive. taxes revenue, levy, supplemental prises financing. the referendum 6.3% of overall education levy, training experi- debt service expert, Augenblick, Plaintiffs’ Dr. testified (T E) should ence & statutes be declared levy quadrupled use has between 1983— the trial 1991-92, unconstitutional. While court found frequency 84 and and extent of plaintiffs respect with to the first three levy use with increases the size of the tax programs, T E base, declared the & statute high-wealth and that districts can ob- constitutional, finding and this is not chal- unequalized tain more revenue from levies at lenged appeal on to this court. lower tax rates than low-wealth districts. total, 184 of Minnesota’s 435 districts had a Currently, funding fully equalized levy raising average referendum an approximately funding for the 93% state 1990-91, ppu. By 278 districts were $205 attributable the basic revenue formula. availing levy, themselves of the referendum However, remaining 7% of is not average funding and the level had increased equalized and is often left to local control. ppu. to $432 largest component of this additional levy, is the referendum and it com- Dr. plaintiffs Mueller also testified for prises funding. 6.3% of overall Because this study about a he conducted of districts in largest component non-equalized is the paired which he seven intervenor districts greatest 7% and the one which has the plaintiff with seven districts. Mueller’s districts, disparity wealth between much of study only focused on of the 430 school analysis our will focus on this factor. Never- state, districts in paired but these dis- theless, briefly we will outline the current tricts were selected based on certain similar structure of each of funding pro- the three characteristics, such as location and school grams levy, supplemental reve- —referendum particular size. importance throughout Of nue, levy challenged and debt service here — comparison the trial was the between Edina appeal. on Elk study River. The revealed that Levy $1,334 levies, Referendum ppu Edina receives while Elk generates only ppu, despite River $113 unequalized

The first form of revenue is fact that both approximately districts had levy. the referendum specifi- Such levies are adjusting 6000 students. Even for other fac- cally authorized the Minnesota statutes tors, study Mueller’s estimated that Edina under a section which defines and outlines ppu funding advantage had Elk over $837 the use of these levies local districts. See Although study River. Mueller’s did not ful- § Minn.Stat. 124A.03 These levies ly adjust for cost factors or enrollment fluc- permit local school districts to increase fund- tuations, accepted study his ing over that of the basic formula if voters large disparities evidence of the which exist approve percentage a certain increase in between districts. property their taxes.6 Until none of generated by levy the revenue this was Although point potential these studies equalized, thereby providing high property disparities, challenged the intervenors these tax base with districts more revenue than low findings and asserted that the results of the property tax equivalent base districts for an plaintiffs’ experts necessarily disposi- are not rate increase. example, tive. study For Mueller’s failed to plaintiffs’

The crux of the adjust fully claim is that for cost differences the effects these additional revenue changes. sources which are of enrollment These factors be- apart wholly above and from equalized important, especially come for the intervenor districts, basic formula funding result in popu- wealth-based which have suffered a relative disparities among Minnesota comparison school districts. lation in plaintiff decline largest component Recently, of this additional districts. the intervenor districts levy, enrollment, is the referendum experienced declining which com- have election, 6. At levy year. the ballot must mention the the first It must also state that the per maximum amount of the increased revenue opera- revenue will be used to finance school pupil actual unit as well as the 124A.03, 2(a) estimated referen- (1992). § tions. Minn.Stat. subd. percentage dum tax rate as a of market value in While, by July this new stat- base, 1995. experienced aging population equalize all referendum revenue ute does not high salary. Mean- who command teachers existing permanent refer- not affect and does while, growing, been plaintiff districts enda, equality. it will lead to increased many young expanding and population with requires law being hired. State teachers evidence, Upon weighing the above seniority be laid the least with that teachers part, agreed, large in with the trial court stabilizes, and, enrollment off first experts. plaintiffs’ The court conclusions seniority be hired back the most those with while the levies themselves do not noted that 125.17, § subd. first. Minn.Stat. classifications, they prop- are based on create fact with the requirement, combined This erty characteristics which cre- wealth-related rela- overhead costs are that administrative opportunity disparities ate declining adapt to tively and are slow to fixed among In addition to school districts. enrollment, levies, often causes cost reductions the trial court increased use of such substantially declines. lag strong relationship behind enrollment there was a found that property wealth and between school district can, addition, declining enrollment levy the referendum and the both the use of itself, pressure additional fiscal and of create therefrom. For amount of revenue derived As the California Su- on those districts. plaintiffs example, had no refer- 83% noted, effect of “The immediate preme Court ppu, raised or less endum levies or $200 course, enrollments, a lowered declining had ref- almost of the intervenors while 80% daily and a corre- [average attendance] ADA trial in excess of erendum levies $600. state-provided founda- sponding reduction increasing use of court concluded that money to the affected district. program tion growing funding source resulted declining enroll- due to The cost of education disparities revenue wealth-based propor- in the same not decline ment does system and was school finance Minnesota Priest, 728, 135 v. 18 Cal.3d tion.” Serrano therefore unconstitutional. 929, n. n. P.2d Cal.Rptr. Supplemental Revenue denied, 97 S.Ct. cert. 432 U.S. (1977). Thus, declining component plaintiffs en which The second 53 L.Ed.2d 1079 supplemental rollment, is the than inherent wealth advan claim is unconstitutional rather Supplemental revenue explain disparities provision. revenue tages, may partially revenue stat- general education paid districts. levy between referendum (1992), ute, § and it com- 124A.22 Minn.Stat. Furthermore, changes various enacted funding. of total education prises 0.3-0.5% legislature addressed the differ- the 1991 however, is, complete- Supplemental revenue levy funding and have ences referendum ly equalized. in- disparities will not ensured that these guarantees supplemental revenue While part years. As crease in future they ppu more than school districts $250 reforms, levy capped was the referendum 1987-88, revenue guaranteed were sought may be new referenda and no expe- from designed prevent districts may only year. New levies 1992-93 school legis- after the 1987 riencing revenue decline they five-year period, and authorized for a reforms, especially those districts lative basis, “per pupil unit” which on a must be than other higher costs experienced raised as effectively alter the amount will pro- supplemental revenue This districts. § 124A.03 changes. Minn.Stat. enrollment receive districts would gram guaranteed that (1992). future, addition, only mar- In they than received per pupil unit more $250 value, the artificial measure rather than ket changes. This legislative the 1987 before Thus, capacity, will be used. net tax from keep districts intended to program was tax tied into the will not be future referenda operating- loss in relative suffering a sudden provides for Finally, the new statute base. revenue. help tax which will low partial equalization, however, designed, program was that This expert estimated districts. One base time, supple- subsidy. ongoing Over be an and direct between equalization $40 this will out being phased gradually revenue is base mental to low tax million in state aid $100 any expenditure rising district revenue million basic revenue increases. For from $0.5 ppu of year receives more than this that fiscal million in $250 $108 revenue, supplemental will be de- revenue fully revenue equalized and this in the same amount as increases creased capital ppu general to districts for their $195 compensato- in T E or the district receives & needs. (AFDC) revenue, components ry two which substantially by leg- increased were Thus, given portion the small 124A.22, § See Minn.Stat. subd. 8 islature. supplemental revenue accounts for (1992). (less budget education than overall state statute, 0.5%), subsequent evaluating this the trial court and actions which it the court partially equalize found unconstitutional because to fund been taken and commonly found that the revenue is more levy, areas debt service we hold that these districts, high the level of available wealth adequately legis by have been addressed political is based on historical any resulting disparities lature and do considerations, and, conjunction with the not rise to the level of a viola constitutional levy, the of this reve- referendum existence However, tion. this still leaves unresolved greater disparities nue creates even between extent, whether, the issue of and to what wealthy poor school districts. levy referendum withstands constitutional scrutiny. present systems Levy 3. Debt Service dispute analyzed must be under both levy, The debt service the other unlike two equal protection Education Clause and the components, general is outside the education clause of the Minnesota Constitution in order levies, which revenue fund. These must be present whether to determine voters, by locally approved authorized must be declared unconstitutional. taxes are used to finance bonds for construction or renovation of school build-

ings. § Minn.Stat. 124.95 I. levy The debt service has a different also The first present issue is whether the levy effect on districts from the referendum financing system general, supplemental revenue because those lat- levy particular, the referendum statute in components impact year-to-year oper- ter must declared unconstitutional under ating districts, budgets of whereas the debt Education Clause of the Minnesota Constitu levy provides funding service construction places duty legis tion. This Clause on the buildings paid which are for over time. lature to establish a levy capital The debt service is used fund system public claim education. Plaintiffs projects and is therefore determined “uniformity” requirement that this is violated demographic growth cycle and decline of dis- the current education finance be rather than being tricts related to the tax current much cause the leaves too wealth of a distinct. permits discretion with local officials and court, finding The trial although that the high generate wealth districts to much more levy patterns no tax showed base de- across funding than their additional low wealth ciles, provision struck down this because average counterparts. wealth Plaintiffs as high found that the effect debt service resulting funding this sert differential property levies low tax base districts ad- uniformity. constitutional violates the versely ability gener- affects district’s claim, In order evaluate this the struc- levy ate referendum the time dollars. At history Edu- ture and constitutional provision trial court struck down analyzed must be unequalized. Clause to determine wholly the debt service was 1992, however, meaning of the word “uniform.” In addi- program funded and tion, 29, 1992, law other partially equalized. April Act ch. an examination case from 5, § provides insight art. additional into the 1992 Minn.Laws states pro- of provides comprehensive The state also aid similar state constitutional treatment capital projects, capital by state’s other state courts. with the visions system Township is contained Arti- of Schools each the The Education Clause Constitution, XIII of Minnesota and it State. cle the as follows: However, at Id. 437-38. nowhere in these public system of schools. The Uniform proposals phrase “general is the and uniform stability republican govern- a form of of system” described. mainly depending upon the intelli- ment By the the time of 1857 Minnesota Consti- duty of of gence people, the is the the tution, provision the been had modified and legislature general establish a uni- document, slightly. present In that the Edu- system public legis- The form of schools. separate cation Clause was into two divided provisions lature shall make such taxa- sections, addressing one the establishment of thorough as will a tion or otherwise secure schools, system public of uniform and the system public and efficient of schools outlining other one the of such throughout the state. Specifically, schools. the clause at that time XIII, § 1 [hereinafter Minn. Const. art. “Ed provided: ucation Clause”]. system public of Section 1. Uniform interpreting meaning phrase the of stability republican schools. The of a public “general system uniform of and government depending mainly form of schools,” history provides constitutional little upon intelligence people, of it shall guidance. proposed of the Neither drafts duty legislature be of the establish included

the constitutional convention system general public present language and uniform.” In- schools. stead, Republican began, the initial version ic uniform of common schools which shall be Convention 460 ceedings Legislature “The proposal legislature legislature, as schools.” practicable,” read, ... the Minnesota Constitutional to establish a (1857). shall “It shall be the The Education Clause ... As while Debates establish initially proposed general the Democrat- duty of and nearly Pro- pro- wise, as, efficient make township in the State. school Section 3. Public schools be ^[******] such established. The fund, system public with the income provisions, by will secure a taxation or arising legislature schools in each thorough each township from the other- shall and (1857 vided: VIII, §§ Minn. art. Const. Consti tution). early interpreting Knowledge, An Article case Section 1. Wisdom and as VIII, Virtue, 1 noted that it was not a limita preser- Section well essential to the imposition power tion on but was instead an people, rights vation and liberties of and duty general of a to establish a uniform Leg- therefore: It shall Merrill, system public Curryer v. schools. islature of this State cherish inter- The court noted that 25 Minn. 6-7 ests of Literature and Education Sci- not, however, ence, prohibit did requirement and to establish creating other Schools; from encourage public Public and schools,- to those included promotion in addition private for the instruction Arts, creating exceptional from Science, Commerce, general system, or Agriculture, Manufactories, particular exceptional and Trade, districts to meet History Natural also noted that adopt cases. Id. at 6. Country; and to all means operation independent of common they may necessary prop- deem districts, specifically or other schools people advantages er secure for, this constitution provided did violate opportunities of Education. provision. Id. al n ; n : n n n n some dis- Plaintiffs contend that because Legislature shall make Section 3. otherwise, total education parities in the 6-7% of provisions, by exist such taxation as, referendum lev- generated revenue local arising from the School with the income ies, held unconstitu- Fund, levies should be thorough will secure efficient “general tional under the and uniform” lan- requirements answer these of the constitu- guage However, of the Education Clause. tion. against two finding: factors militate such a Board Education Sauk Centre v. (1) interpretation given the broad to the Moore, 412, 416, 391, 17 Minn. 17 Gil. phrase “general and uniform” this and (1871). (2) courts, relatively other state and Other state courts which have faced simi- disparity small in funding, combined with lar challenges to provisions constitutional plaintiffs’ admission that all schools in the have indicated that merely applies “uniform” state are able to an edu- general system, to the specific funding not to cation. disparities. Oregon The court stated that Plaintiffs claim that because the referen- language “complied “uniform” is with if levy unequal dum creates some lev- requires and for a mini- els, it uniformity requirement violates the mum opportunities of educational in the dis- the constitution. In doing, plaintiffs ap- so permits trict and the districts to exercise pear narrowly construe the word “uni- desire, local they control over what and can practically “identical,” form” so that it means furnish, State, over the minimum.” Olsen v. at least as it financing. They relates to claim 9, 139, (1976). 276 Or. 554 P.2d levy because the referendum creates A recent Wisconsin case stated that “uni- unequal funding levels, some it violates the form” referred to such items as minimum

uniformity requirement of the constitution. certification, standards for teacher minimal Although phrase “general and uni- days, number and standard school form” directly has not been construed Grover, curriculum. Kukor v. 148 Wis.2d court, early Minnesota cases indicated that (1989). 436 N.W.2d 577-78 The provision broadly should be interpreted. Kukor court noted that the state assures we stated: compliance with by provid- these standards uniformity The rule of contemplated by if sanctions compli- districts are not in provision this constitutional leg- which the ance. Id. 436 N.W.2d at 578. An Idaho case observe, required islature is has refer- provided a interpretation, similar noting that ence to may which provide, which, and uniform” is one and organizations not to the district within reasonable constitutional limits of may be established under it. may These equality, ample provision makes for the edu- size, respect differ in grade, corporate Thompson cation of all. Engelking, v. powers franchises, may and as seem to the Idaho 537 P.2d * * * legislature best but principle interpretations Similar uniformity violated, “thorough is not if the efficient” have promulgated. been adopted For ex- made to ample, a Virginia West application defined “thor- state, to the entire ough system” and efficient so that grade the same follows: or class of enjoyed by schools be all localities develops, It as best the state of education situated, similarly having requisite expertise allows, minds, bodies and particular conditions class or morality social charges prepare its grade. them for useful happy occupations, Minn, er, Curry added). citizenship, recreation and (emphasis at 6 does so eco- nomically. summarizing purposes provi- behind this sion, we noted: Legally recognized elements in this defi- object provisions] [of these is to development insure nition every child to his regular throughout (1) (2) method capacity or her literacy; ability

whereby may all add, acquire subtract, enabled to multiply and divide num- (3) bers; education which will fit discharge them to knowledge government intelligently their duties as citizens of the extent that the equipped child will be as a republic. present general laws re- citizen to make informed among choices schools, specting public denied, persons it is not gov- issues that affect his own

3H (4) (compared ernance; self-knowledge school districts to the 6-7% this and knowl- case). evidence, on total environment to Id. at 686. Based this edge his or her intelligently choose life child to the court found that the state had allow the Helena (5) options; pro- know or her adequately work —to his failed to fund foundation work-training academic and advanced gram. at 690. Id. may intelligently training the child as King County In No. 1 Seattle Sch. Dist. (7) (6) choose; pursuits; inter- recreational State, (1978), v. 90 Wash.2d 585 P.2d 71 arts, music, as in all creative such ests Washington Supreme Court determined arts; (8) theatre, literature, and the visual system” a had that abstract, ethics, both behavioral and social funding for been because the “ba established compatibility others in to facilitate with “depend sic education” was not derived from society. regular” able and tax sources. Id. 585 P.2d Pauley Kelly, 255 S.E.2d v. 162 W.Va. Instead, complaining at 97. district was 859, 877 required of its to raise 37.7% “maintenance all on these definitions focus operations” special through revenues system education purposes broad an levy. excess Id. at The court 98. concluded: system emphasize that such standardized statutory “We hold scheme In throughout the ad- be established state. special authorizes the use of excess levies to dition, “gen- read terms this court must paramount discharge the State’s pari uniform” to be in materia. eral and ample provision making for ‘basic education’ Construing meaning “uniform” as “identical” program is not the basic of education identical”) (or “nearly would inconsistent required dependable regular tax source plain reading of the Education Clause with 9, §§ art. 1 and comply with Const. 2.” and other court’s as well as this court’s state at Id. 99. interpretation phrasing. of similar Likewise, in Pose v. Council Better addition, In none of the state cases cited Educ., Inc., (Ky.1989), 186 S.W.2d funding equali- required complete above has Kentucky Supreme Court held zation; fact, cases have most system funding did not state’s education funding explicitly stated that local levies requirement of meet constitutional long underly- permissible as would be as schools” because “efficient of common needs have been met. fact basic inadequate, lacking the overall was receiving plaintiff an ade- discriminatory to the chil- uniformity, and as primary quate of basic education is the level the local school dis- dren served 80% of plaintiffs’ distinguishing feature between 198. tricts. Id. at those from other states in claim and cases Burke, 119 N.J. 575 A.2d In v. Abbott has found

which a scheme been (1990), Jersey funding New provision. violate a state constitutional at the fifth struck down because districts was every from in which a case another state $2,687 ppu, those at spent while percentile provision constitutional violation of $4,755 percentile spent ppu. ninety-fifth found, inadequacies there were noted that at The court Id. 575 A.2d 383. and, funding, consequently, a levels of basic getting an were inade- poor urban districts of education. deficient overall level mecha- quate and that Elementary example, For in Helena Sch. only 64% of the equalize about nism would State, 769 P.2d Dist. 1 v. 236 Mont. No. fully Id. at 370. districts if funded. (1989), Montana the state constitution of Indep. Edgewood Sch. oppor- disparities “[e]quality of educational stated that (Tex.1989), Kirby, 777 Dist. v. S.W.2d tunity guaranteed, person to each added). egregious of all. In most have been the (emphasis Id. 769 P.2d at 689 state.” case, to 1 between a 700 ratio there was Despite requirement, similar school dis- the wealthi- property taxable the value of funding disparities high as tricts had funding only districts. State poorest est and budgets all fund were 35% funding, overall for 42% of accounted from levies local obtained additional $2,112 spending from local district varied II.

$19,333 per sys- student. Id. This claiming addition to that the statutes tem, surprisingly, not held to violate the should declared be unconstitutional under requirement state of “an constitutional effi- Clause, plaintiffs Education also assert public system cient of schools.” free Id. at challenged statutes violate the 393. Equal Minnesota Protection Clause. This provides: clause Furthermore, many of these other No of member this state shall be disen cases, even some which the educational deprived any rights franchised or systems ultimately were declared unconstitu- any thereof, privileges or secured to citizen tional, discretionary the courts noted that by judg unless the law of land or * * * n by permitted levies local districts be if would peers. ment of his providing the baseline level of an or I, § Minn. art. Const. 2. This has system efficient of education was first recognized that applied the standard Edgewood achieved. The court noted that brought equal claims under protec the state system the establishment of an efficient applied tion clause is the same as that public free schools brought claims equal pro- under the federal 6, 14, does tection clause. not mean that the state AFSCME 65 not Councils Sundquist, 560, & 96 v. recognize 338 N.W.2d 569 n. 11 differences in area costs or (Minn.1983), dismissed, 933, appeal 466 U.S. providing equal- costs associated with 1902, 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 452 opportunity ized atypical disadvantaged students or students. Nor general principles Under of consti does it mean that local communities would adjudication, tutional presumed a statute is precluded supplementing from an effi- valid, challenging and the is on the system legislature; cient established party invalidity. prove its v. Essling however local (Minn.1983). enrichment must Markman, derive 237, 335 N.W.2d 239 solely from local tax effort. This court will not judgment substitute its legislature, for that of the and if the record 398; Olsen, Id. at see also 554 P.2d at 148 rationally indicates that statute is related (allowing districts to exercise local control legitimate govern the achievement of a met). once the has baseline been ment purpose, upheld. (citing it will be Id. Thus, Corp. Maryland, Exxon v. Governor 437 present readily situation dis- 124, 117, 2213, 2207, U.S. 98 S.Ct. 57 tinguishable L.Ed.2d from other state cases which (1978)). 91 system educational finance has been cases, found unconstitutional. those Unlike proof This burden of can shift to the plaintiffs here unable to establish that challenges state constitutional if the chal the basic is inadequate or that the lenged operates statute the disadvantage “general requirement and uniform” somehow suspect impinges upon some class or implies equalization full of local referendum right explicitly fundamental or implicitly pro inequities Any levies. which exist do not rise general, tected the Constitution. if to the level aof constitutional violation of the exist, either of these conditions strict scruti provisions require constitutional ny apply, will prove and the state will “general state to establish and uniform that necessary compelling the statute is to a system of public schools” which will secure a government interest. Indep. San Antonio “thorough and efficient Rodriguez, Sch. Dist. v. 411 U.S. schools,” especially existing system when the 1278, 1288, (1973); S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Ess continues to meet the basic educational needs Thus, ling, 335 N.W.2d at 239. this court of all pres- districts. we hold must determine whether there is a funda ent of educational suspect or mental class involved and not does violate the levy whether the referendum would survive a uniform system public challenge applicable schools” Edu- constitutional under legal Clause of the Minnesota Constitution. standard. “must,” Constitution, would have to such as “shall” or also the United States Under rights. This clearly be considered fundamental Rodriguez ease has established analysis under would to the conclusion that fundamental lead education is law, high despite importance. overall to a trunk its there is federal 37-38, at 1299. way system provi 93 S.Ct. that constitutional since U.S. explicitly implic- says education is not “shall” Because sion construct system. under the United States Con- Minn. itly protected highway maintain a trunk See stitution, XIV, Supreme determined that § Court art. Const. right. a fundamental Id. at is not However, only the not Education Clause Therefore, the at 1298. state’s S.Ct. language in fact such as “shall” but contains Rodriguez only needed bear some under places “duty” legislature a on the to establish relationship legitimate pur- rational system” of a 40, at poses. Id. at 93 1300. Because S.Ct. only place is schools. This the in the consti- standard, held state met this Court phrase duty “it is of the tution where system in Texas not vio- that the school did This, legislature” is with the used. combined Id. equal protection federal clause. late the magnitude sweeping opening of the sentence 55, at at 1308. 93 S.Ct. stability a of the Education of Clause—“The not a Although education is fundamental government depending form republican of constitution, may it right under federal mainly upon intelligence of people, right or still be a fundamental constitutional a duty is the to establish under Minnesota entitlement Constitu- uniform recognized that funda- tion. This court has support further for hold- schools”— rights are which have their mental “[t]hose right. ing education be a fundamental express terms of the Constitu- origin balance, on we hold that education is necessarily implied to be tion or which are right fundamental under the state constitu- a Gray, 413 State v. from those terms.” tion, only impor- its not because of overall (Minn.1987) 107, (quoting 111 Black’s N.W.2d also of the tance to the state but because (5th 1979)). Dictionary ed. We 607 Law language consti- explicit used describe this by that is not limited have noted Minnesota right a tutional mandate. While fundamental can Supreme Court and the United States man- cannot be found constitutional “[a]bsent provide protection more under the state con 33, date,” Rodriguez, at at 411 U.S. 93 S.Ct. is under the federal than afforded stitution mandate, 1296, a not is the Education Clause Id. constitution. grant power. Associated Schs. simply 83, No. case, Indep. No. District the determination of Dist. 68 v. School In this 325, 258, 142 N.W. right 122 Minn. 327 education is a fundamental whether is a close under the Minnesota Constitution a funda conclusion that education is Gray question. While the state claims recognized has also been mental recognizes status only right” “fundamental provi constitutional states with similar other Bill of for mandates found those Dist., Washington sions. Seattle Sch. constitution, parts Rights, not other placed noted that statute Supreme Court place any appear not such Gray does “paramount duty” on state to finding right. In a fundamental limits on P.2d at 91. The ample education. 585 stead, Gray merely requires a funda the “declaration is noted implied right be in or from the found mental social, and educational economic State’s Gray, 413 of the state constitution. terms policy or moral distinguished from a mere as 111. N.W.2d at that, “[flowing from obligation,” and jural ‘duty’ constitutionally imposed is its if suggest The state intervenors correlative, permit correspondent ‘right’ is a were to find that education this court (em conduct.” Id. solely ting control another’s the man based on fundamental omitted). (footnotes Like original) phasis datory language the Education found Court, wise, in evalu Supreme Clause, the Wisconsin provisions in the con then all other simi- provision which is ating a constitutional mandatory language, which contain stitution 314 to, than,

lar perhaps but weaker Minnesota’s as a “suspect classified class” due to the Clause,7 opportu “equal any Education held that absence evidence that the financing nity right. against any for education” is fundamental discriminates definable Kukor, Similarly, Wyo category “poor” N.W.2d at 579. people 436 that it results in ming’s requirement of “thorough deprivation and effi the absolute of education. Rod- regarded leaving riguez, cient” “no schools U.S. at S.Ct. conditions, room respondents conclusion but that education probably Given Wyoming “suspect the children is a matter of would be a class.” As one court County fundamental interest.” Washakie noted: Herschler,

Sch. 1 v. P.2d Dist. No. alleged “class” persons [T]he of low-income denied, (Wyo.), cert. U.S. incredibly amorphous constitutes an group, (1980).8 S.Ct. 66 L.Ed.2d 28 group which changes over time and context, and which unable to show Thus, our conclusion that education is a pattern historical of discrimination that amply supported by oth- “suspect” traditional classes can. er state which have interpreted courts simi- provisions. lar Rodriguez, constitutional In the court reiterated the suspectness: traditional features of name- way The second which courts (1) ly, subjected that the class either to a apply scrutiny challenged strict to a statute history purposeful unequal of treatment is to the challenged find that statute has (2) disabilities, with its attendant it is suspect burdened a class. trial The relegated position to political such a of suspect found that was a wealth class with powerlessness as to command extraordi- respect statutes, to these and other courts protection nary majoritarian from po- have reached similar results. See Washakie process. litical It is evident this case County, at (holding 606 P.2d 334 a that clas appellees satisfy that do not either of these sification basis of on the wealth is considered of suspeetness. indicia suspect, especially applied when to funda Lujan Educ., v. Colorado State Bd. 649 of education); mental interests such as Serra (Colo.1982). 1005, P.2d 1021 no, 367, Cal.Rptr. 135 557 P.2d at 951 (“discrimination present case, In the opportunity plaintiffs are unable to on the they subject basis of district wealth demonstrate that involves a have been to a classification”). suspect cases, history purposeful unequal In of those how treatment or ever, they apparent disparities great far that relegated position were have been to a of present political powerlessness. Furthermore, er than plaintiffs case and the relatively powerless, were thereby facilitating Minnesota does require Constitution “suspect finding. equality class” strict equal pro- See Washakie economic under the County, Thus, P.2d at (noting plaintiffs 606 329 that tection clause. qualify do not 1, suspect assessed valuation varied at a of 21 as a ratio class. $2,500 and total revenue varied as much as Nevertheless, suspect the absence of a student).

per not necessarily class does affect the strict provided, When basic revenues scrutiny howev- scrutiny test applies because strict if er, and wide differentials in revenue do not right there is either fundamental or a sus- exist, it is more difficult to find wealth pect class. this court must determine a suspect Rodriguez, As class. noted if the state right constitution’s fundamental disadvantaged funding class “general system to a and uniform of edu- generally cases is not susceptible being cation” has been met and whether that fun- Constitution, 672, 859, 7. legisla- Under Kelly, the Wisconsin 162 W.Va. 255 S.E.2d 878 schools, ture was (1979); directed Education, district Rose v. Council Better nearly practica- "which shall uniform as Inc., 186, (Ky.1989); 790 S.W.2d 206 Serrano v. Kukor, ble." 436 N.W.2d at 574. 728, Priest, 345, 367, Cal.Rptr. 18 Cal.3d 135 557 929, denied, (1976), P.2d 951 cert. 432 U.S. holding For other cases that education is a 1079 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Meskill, right, fundamental see Horton v. (1977); Pauley Conn. A.2d v. generis ta to an is sui and that right to the extends damental so, right, doing In we must look there is a the Edu- public schools. under Clause, constitution as “general structure to a uniform to determine the applicable ease law system well as an ade- education” evaluating apply appropriate standard to quate education to all students in Minnesota. constitutionality Minnesota’s edu- challenge evaluating to such a funda- funding system. cational employ right, mental this court must test, scrutiny strict test. Under that a law history of the The structure and upheld only necessary if will be it is to serve Constitution indicates while Minnesota compelling governmental interest. See right to a a fundamental there is Essling, 335 at 239. N.W.2d education,” fun does not extend damental fund case, plaintiffs concede provid beyond system, the education they continue to receive an to assure that a ing a basic level education, thereby satisfying the fundamen general uniform is maintained. general adequate system tal to a of 1857 Minnesota Constitution created respect uniformity, education. With pro to education the fundamental funding system question provides the VIII, Article that it is viding, in Section same amount of for each student. “duty establish equalization process the state uses uniform meets, figure arrive at revenue if the basic Meanwhile, entirely different schools.” exceeds, requirements not the constitutional VIII, section, Article stated that Section “general system public aof and uniform” of provide “shall”9 taxes to “se the present system pro the schools. Because Thus, thorough system.” a and efficient cure funding to in the vides uniform each student reading original a of the constitution clear generate in an an state amount sufficient to to a that the drafters intended draw indicates adequate of education which meets all level right between the fundamental distinction standards, its state the state has satisfied system a uniform of education” “general and constitutionally-imposed creating a duty of system, financing and the of the education system “general uniform of education.” and “thorough merely must and effi which be Therefore, present system of edu the state’s fact cient.” The the drafters distin analysis. scrutiny cation withstands strict guished financing and between the creation system a of constitu the education adequacy level and of Once this baseline distinguishing tional between the basis however, established, uniformity has been general sys aof establishment legisla- court will not strike down the uniform financing tem of schools and the of system the financing of such a unless ture’s Thus, evidence indicates those schools. the resulting adequacy of disparities dilute the analysis scrutiny strict should be that while entitlement to a the constitutional legisla applied determining whether the Because system” and uniform of education. right a ture has met student’s fundamental require strict the state does not constitution of general a equal protection under the equality economic standard, schools, as a rational a lesser such clause, it said that there is cannot be test, apply should to the determination basis any particular fund- right” to “fundamental financing of of such whether above, scheme, although, we there said “thorough and efficient.” level of to the basic fundamental case, funding general to achieve a needed sug- evidence In this available system. Where gests people of Minneso- uniform education that the of the VIII, Thus, merely which addressed the establishment Article 9. used constitution Thus, describing legislature's duty language used word "shall” of the schools. from, financing, through provide taxation or financing other- to wise, the schools differed section on than, thorough fund a and efficient perhaps imposed a lesser contrast, "duty legisla- schools. language in Section language only in Section 1 of ture” was used Coleman, merely requires {.quoting Strayer constitution that the J. Forward to G. thorough Haig, Financing of education “secure and efficient & R. Edtication (1923)). system”; employed particular means the State New York legisla- finance state education are left to the courts, Many other state when confronted ture’s we believe that determination. challenges with similar to state education challenges financing to the state’s of edu- statutes, have followed a similar beyond necessary cation what is analysis although held that edu- level education which meets right, ais fundamental some lesser evaluated, all state standards must scrutiny, level of such as the rational basis scrutiny, under strict but rather under the test, apply evaluating should the constitu- test, rational basis and we will not set aside tionality financing the educational legislature’s determination unless the court, system. example, For the Wisconsin funding system employed impinges somehow Kukor, recognized “equal opportunity upon adequacy with which the state right, for education” is a fundamental but meets the to a finding concluded that this did not mandate uniform education. equality financing, absolute if even certain test, legisla Under the rational provide specialized basis lacked funds upheld tive they programs classifications will be if impov- to meet needs of certain rationally legitimate least related erished children. 436 N.W.2d at 579. Harhut, conclusion, interest. In re 385 N.W.2d reaching this the Kukor court (Minn.1986). only It must be shown equalization system noted that (1) legitimate purpose there was a actually statutes in more resulted (2) the challenged legislation, and that it uniformity required than that under con- reasonable for the lawmakers to believe that provision in stitutional Article X of the Wis- challenged use of the classification would consin Constitution: promote purpose. Western & Southern present equalization system ex- far Equalization, Ins. Co. v. State Bd. Life degree uniformity ceeds the 648, 668, 2070, 2083, 451 U.S. 101 S.Ct. might he accomplished under the constitu- (1981). L.Ed.2d 514 provision: tional whereas the constitution provides only each for district to receive an present system clearly The satisfies equal per pupil, amount of state resources the challenged rational basis The test. stat 121, Stats., ch. greater amount provide utes an level of education pupil of state per funds to with districts students, to all local merely districts equalized property lower valuations. The capacity supplement have the to operates aid formula to assure that amounts once the baseline level of all provide districts will be able to the for provided. has been legiti The state has a pupils, regardless basic education its mate encouraging interest in local districts to property wealth, slightly at a cost higher supplement component, the basic revenue than average per pupil state cost allowing augment localities to the state * * * previous year *. [T]o the extent rationally contribution is related to further that the a district needs of exceed that cost goal one sufficiently and is ceiling, categorical to grants, addition goals competing balances the which have supplemental “secondary may be aid” challenged and troubled states and munici relatively available to districts with low palities throughout history. their As the Su property valuation. preme Rodriguez, Court noted “The histo added). (emphasis Id. at 577 ry The court later of education since the industrial revolution concluding of reasoning continued this line struggle shows a continual between two scrutiny applied that strict should not to forces: society the desire members of to funding disparities: opportunity children, for all family Moreover, and the provide desire of each extent X de- to the that art. best education it can afford its own chil lineates state on distribution resources basis, dren.” equal per-pupil U.S. at 93 S.Ct. at an to assert that by art. X mandates trol over education as mandated equal opportunity of the Wisconsin Constitution. entirely scheme of different an resources distribute requiring (footnote omitted). at 582 Id. respond to among unequally students Supreme explained The Connecticut Court is of each student particularized needs imposing behind a lower stan- the rationale evidenced with intent inconsistent scrutiny evaluating than strict dard when language art. X. Accord- express financing statutes: “The discrimina- wealth deficiency allegedly exists ingly, since among found differs ma- tion districts right of a to attend not in the denial terially equal protection from the usual case charge, nor in the less public school free fairly indigent where a defined class suffers to meet the edu- affluent districts’ failure peculiar disadvantage. to its discrimination under see. cational standards delineated The discrimination is relative rather than Stats., 121.02, nor failure the state’s Meskill, Horton v. 195 Conn. absolute.” the less afflu- state resources to distribute 1099, 1105 486 A.2d The Horton per-pupil equal on at least ent court noted because educational to wealthier aspects as distribution made significant generis,” basis “in sui strict was districts, impli- scrutiny applied. no could not be Id. dispari- challenged spending cated Washington Supreme also Court ty. although a fundamental found that there was education, scrutiny test did strict added). (emphasis court then Id. at 579 case, apply. In that the court found not applied the rational basis test because a fundamental Article Section created spending were on dis- claims at issue based that it provided to education because it oppor- parities, on a denial of educational not “paramount duty” of the state was scope tunity of Article X. Id. within “ample provision” for Se- make education. Although the court found that Dist, However, at 95. attle Sch. P.2d provided in local state’s interest control10 section, separate Article Section because basis, the that it a rational court noted such funding,11 the court found governed usually, always, but defer would merely required legis- provision legislature on such matters: rather provide lature to “basic education” abruptly cease our deference would While or other edu- than some “total education” subjects, programs, should the determine or services cational at 95. might be P.2d “impracticable” to each stu- which offered. 585 stated, Legislature “While the at The court a to attend a dent man- pursuant to obtained, act the constitutional must which a basic education could be duty, general au- discharge its the date to diseriminatorily or if funds were disbursed discharging the thority to select means of no for such and there existed rational basis Legislature.” duty be should left that to system, finance we will otherwise defer only (emphasis original). The in Id. at 96 legislature’s determination of the de- the placed legislature was duty on the the policy applied fiscal can be gree to which com- fund the education” the to “basic uniformity. Consequently, we to achieve regular tax dependable * * ponent * with present in is that the case there hold Id. sources. any disparities in justifying a rational basis expenditures resulting from the edu- per-pupil Finally, cases which have struck down 121, Stats., equal financing systems rational under state operation of ch. the cational wide have involved either protection clauses being preservation of local con- basis section, required to was provision, that 11. In 10. Unlike Minnesota's constitutional specifically "general X of Article Wisconsin’s a however, difference, Dist., school districts. This at 95. local Sch. 585 P.2d Seattle schools." Cutryer's significant light probably in not is approval the use of local school districts Minn, Curryer, 25 at 6-7. Minnesota. 318 funding inadequa they live in

disparities outright or districts which either wealthi- cies, larger portion present spend er choose to a neither of which exists or education, tax County, at their revenues on we do not case. 606 P.2d 329 See Washakie (a funding infringes that this scheme 1 in terms of value believe ratio of 21 to assessed impacts suspect on a funding disparities per between districts class, particularly $1,600 $4,300); where the United States ranging from to Du student Supreme Court has not deemed economic pree Ark. v. Alma Dist. No. 279 Sch. suspect (1983) (local to classifications be classes within funding ac S.W.2d meaning Equal Protection Clause. Serrano, funding); counted 38% of for over Rodriguez, 411 at at See U.S. 93 S.Ct. Cal.Rptr. 353 n. at 937 n. P.2d Furthermore, to 1 n may play while wealth (1.625) (wealthy up had will willing factor whether a district be poorer times the amount available to dis augment funding, to tricts). able it is clear- contrast, this case a basic In involves ly only not factor. funding adequate, level of which is and avail systems able case law on educational finance case, portion In this because state’s suggest that while basic substantive level funding equally is distributed —and ad- students, provided to all local must be dis mittedly provides funding for an ade- capacity supplement tricts can quate present education —we believe that the Jersey those The New amounts. court noted funding of education withstands con- that a education certain substantive level of scrutiny. legisla- stitutional The method the achieved, must but that local districts can narrowly ture has chosen is tailored to the go beyond that amount: having money spent end of as much on edu- feasible, obligation mini- State’s to attain that cation as is at the while same time any providing mum is district fails floor beneath which the absolute — If, however, compelled comply. must be may education individual student reached, important level is the constitutional sink. It is note that “adequacy” fully regardless mandate satisfied as used here refers not to some minimal floor fact that it. some districts exceed but the measure of the need that must be words, case, other does not Constitution met. where the expenditures pupil. equal per adequate,” mandate than such a “more satis- implied requirement. We the level can—and the constitutional fies should —be defined terms of substantive argues holding The dissent disparity educational content. But while constitutional, funding system current we de- permitted, explicitly there was cave- prive generations future Minnesotans spending at —the excess not some- could an education. That is how be to mask a allowed failure achieve Rather, our not what decision does. it re- thoroughness efficiency in other dis- quires provide enough the state to funds tricts. that each ensure student receives an ade- Burke, Abbott v. quate A.2d at 369. The deci- that the funds are dis- reflect, part, sions cited also above tributed a uniform manner. The statutes question accomplish goal. courts’ view that the of edu- determination this glar- policy, finance the absence of holding present In that the education fund- ing disparities, legislative must be a decision constitutional, ing system is we do not mean balancing competing because it involves the suggest impossible to that be to would equality, efficiency, interests of and limited system of devise fairer or more efficient local control. Instead, financing. we believe sum, any In attempt system of such a the Minnesota to devise is State legislative and uniform education which meets best left to determination. matter all merely merely present system the standards. It allows locali- We hold that augment scrutiny. agree ties to this basic amount. While withstands constitutional We Court, may some ultimately Supreme the which students have more with Colorado money spent facing on their because summarized the concerns state courts educations

319 challenges necessary high- to assure both a constitutional evaluating similar quality greater uniformity er level of and when it stated: opportunity. of matters merit These the a better could [W]hether continued of the scholars attention who decision, be is not material devised already much have contributed their to rule on consti- as our function is the sole challenges. But the ultimate solutions system. tutionality our This de- state’s must come and from the lawmakers from be read to cision should not indicate pressures the democratic of those who we find Colorado’s school finance elect them. requiring be fault further without legislative improvements. Our decision to- 58-59, Rodriguez, 411 93 S.Ct. S.Ct. at day only constitutionally it is declares 1309-1310. permissible. present case, In the we believe the Educ., Lujan Bd. State 649 v. Colorado job legislature has an excellent done bal Supreme P.2d at 1025. The United States ancing competing the inherent interests many of these con Court also echoed same designing an education and Rodriguez cerns decision: in its has, occasions, many significant on taken steps inequities.12 hardly

We that this ac- to reduce Educational need add Court’s which, as finance is a like the today placing tion is not to be viewed its delicate area ebb river, judicial quo. the and flow of a in a constant state imprimatur on status legislature apparent in tax flux. We that the state need is reform believe systems may fairly intelligently well have too has reacted and relied these long heavily fluctuating attempted property too on the local conditions and has certainly thinking ever-changing meet the needs of all tax. And innovative education, methods, throughout its the state.13 and its heard, supplemental example, receiving revenue 12. after this case was the of districts For 1994, significant legislature changes year compared year 1993 made in the fiscal to fiscal lawsuit, which arc at issue sharp statutes changes and a reduction in the amounts received. disparity reduce the which further be- legislature The 1993 also made substantial plaintiff tween the intervenor particular, districts. changes levy. Specifically, in the referendum legislature significant the 1993 made legislature changes in the made four referen- levy changes supple- referendum in the levy in which the dum which address areas trial 17, 1993, May Act mental revenue statutes. summary, court found flaws. 224, 224”). constitutional ("Chapter ch. 1993 Minn.Laws (1) changes: statute, levy increase state referendum respect supplemental With to the revenue equalization expanded districts which legislature aid to low tax base accelerated 224, I, levies, process Chapter phase-out so that art. amount have referendum see supplemental per 8-9; (2) pupil cap levy revenue unit for fiscal §§ the referendum lower the on year beyond is frozen at the amount of 1994 and process and initiate to reduce referendum year supplemental Chapter fiscal districts, revenue. including levy many amounts for those 224, addition, I, legisla- § 16. In art. I, 7; 224, (3) cap, § Chapter above the art. see "Supplemental ture tion” Revenue reduc- introduced category permanent referendum eliminate levies, scope supple- which further limits 37; I, (4) Chapter § see art. districts that enti- mental revenue. For will be require spread all referendum levies to revenue, supplemental re- tled amount comparable against property in a value of on a ceived will first be reduced dollar-for-dollar manner, I, § Chapter see art. 37. equivalent amount basis that the basic signifi- already taken has formula allowance is increased above revenue equalize any dispari- attempting cant action $3,050 ppu. Chapter year level of fiscal sys- present funding ties which exist I, § art. 17. Since formula allowance tem. subsequent years year for $3,150, 1995 and is set at fiscal I, § Chapter art. all districts fleeting Testimony revealed the nature at trial supplemental entitled to receive which will be expert's study suggested of district wealth. One ppu $100 will revenue in an amount of or less highest the 44 in the wealth that of supplemental have all their revenue eliminated 1983-84, highest only eight in the were decile as an the increase in the formula allow- off-set to years, 44 were after and 16 of the not decile five Any ance. which is entitled receive district Thus, highest three deciles. even supplemental ppu $100 more revenue than capacity rankings suggest that the tax wealth $100 revenue re- have of that amount would characteristic a district is not an immutable The net of these duced as an off-set. changes result legislature sharp in fact time. The but fluctuates over will be a reduction the number Thus, system present may achieving while the not be that end. I believe the a state has perfect, clearly compelling we conclude that it satisfies in encouraging interest additional duty provide public money spent state’s constitutional to be on education. Al- lowing augment education” to localities to the state contri- all carefully students the state. We therefore bution hold is crafted method further- challenged means, course, that the goal. statutes are constitution- This ultimately money al under both the Education some students Clause and the have more equal protection spent they on their clause of the Minnesota educations because live in Constitution. districts which are either wealthier or choose spend larger portion of their tax reve-

Reversed. explained, nues on education. IAs have I do funding not believe that scheme in- JANOVICH, (concurring TOML Justice fringes right. it Nor does specially). impact suspect majority on a class. As the agree judgment I majority, with the explains, Supreme the United States Court reasoning. but not its has not deemed economic classifications to be majority concludes that the structure suspect classes within meaning and the words of the state constitution indi- Equal Furthermore, Protection Clause. public cate that right education is a of funda- may play while wealth a factor in whether a importance. agree mental I with this conclu- district willing augment will be and able to out, sion. As properly points the dissent funding, the state clearly only it is not the issue, when a fundamental is at we are factor. apply scrutiny analysis, strict not rational sum, provides adequate analysis. basis I funding- believe that education, uniform which it allows localities legislature decision the has made in the stat- augment. portion Because the state’s ute scrutiny analy- before us survives strict funding equally is pro- distributed —and sis. funding vides the for an edu- question essentially in this case requirements cation —I believe the of strict whether it constitutionally proper for the scrutiny have been met. The method the legislature state governments to allow local narrowly has chosen is tailored to augment funding having money end of as much spent on provided by the state. The fundamental education as is feasible while the same conferred the state constitution is to providing funding time floor beneath which “a and uniform” education. The the education of individual student plaintiffs in argue this case do they not sink. inadequate receive educations. Thus the I judgment concur question the court. before us is whether the education funding system is “uniform” within the mean-

ing of the state constitution. PAGE, (concurring part, Justice dissent- ing in judgment). question,

Under the state the same amount of that, I respectfully I dissent. believe be- for each student. I believe the state is cause education is a fundamental under fulfilling constitutionally imposed duty its Constitution, duty the Minnesota the state’s a uniform of education for toward its children is not satisfied unless Minnesota’s attending students provides equal opportunities schools. all children. This is not satisfied when In applying scrutiny analysis strict some “adequate” children receive an edu- compelling must have a interest and cation while others receive a more-than-ade- narrowly must choose a quate drawn method of education. constantly changing effectively must react to these condi- established has done so.

tions, system they and we believe that the

321 1278, 16 Even consistently rec- 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d has Supreme Court so, Supreme acknowledged of edu- Court this importance ognized the tremendous country’s edu- “historic dedication country. in this 30, at 93 at 1295. cation.” Id. S.Ct. important perhaps the most is [Education governments. and local function of state right right A fundamental is a is laws and Compulsory school attendance expressly implicitly protected the con both great expenditures for education 107, Gray, v. 413 N.W.2d 111 stitution. State impor- recognition our demonstrate (Minn.1987). Thus, correctly the court holds to our democratic soci- tance of education right is a in fundamental ety. required performance It is Minnesota, expressly guaranteed by responsibilities, even our most basic Const, Minn. art. our state constitution. very It in the armed forces. service traditionally XIII. held that strict We citizenship. Today it is good foundation scrutiny applied will be where fundamental awakening the in principal instrument Essling v. Mark has been limited. values, preparing in him cultural child to (Minn.1983). man, 237, 239 335 N.W.2d help- training, and in professional for later However, apply the court has chosen adjust normally to his environ- ing him to scrutiny than rational basis test rather strict days, In it is doubtful ment. Minnesota’s school fi- to determine whether reasonably expected to any be child violates child’s fundamen- nance opportu- in life if he is denied succeed I tal to an education. believe opportuni- nity Such an education. of the rational basis test application pro- ty, has undertaken to tchere the state contrary precedent case is established it, right %vhichrmist be made vide is a See, e.g., rights. the area of fundamental equal terms. available to all on Bakke, University Regents v. of California Educ., 483, 493, 2733, 2782, Brown v. Board 347 U.S. 98 S.Ct. 57 438 U.S. (1954) (em 686, 691, (1978) (Brennan, White, 74 98 L.Ed. 873 S.Ct. Mar- L.Ed.2d 750 added). recognized Minnesota has phasis shall, Blaekmun, JJ., concurring in the educating well. importance of children as dissenting part). judgment part (Minn. Newstrom, 525 v. 371 N.W.2d State any leg- scrutiny given to Strict should be 1985), approval that: Wahl noted with Justice right to which affects a child’s islative action itself, relied for its the Court Brown school finance an education. Minnesota’s recognition revolutionary holding on the directly Minnesota affects each which a child that the circumstances under to an education. child’s fundamental impart can and do to children is educated scrutiny, a classification pass strict such To equality messages of their claims social govern- necessary compelling for a be must “may self-respect which affect their State, Dept. Pub. Bolin v. ment interest. unlikely way in a ever to hearts and minds (cit (Minn.1981) Safety, 313 N.W.2d undone.” Bd. Elections v. Socialist ing Illinois State Brown, at (citing at 347 U.S. Id. 184-5, Party, 440 S.Ct. U.S. Workers 691). today’s holding, with we Yet S.Ct. (1979)). 983, 990-91, L.Ed.2d 230 Under our chil- message to some of send the social fails be scrutiny, scheme strict future which opportunities for the dren that compelling interest no cause there is only avail- the best education come with oppor in the educational creating disparities they enough to be born if were fortunate able differing dis for children tunities wealthy school dis- family living into compelling in has a tricts. While trict. funding for districts providing extra terest of low income Constitution, large concentration the with a the Minnesota Unlike popula students, sparse with for districts not have an does United States Constitution tions, or for com therefore, expenses, Clause; and, desegregation the U.S. Education Disabilities Americans with plying with the to find education Supreme Court declined creating Act, compelling interest exists no Indepen- right in San Antonio opportunity 1, disparities in educational Rodriguez, U.S. District v. dent School solely on a school wealth. based district’s our schools. The Education Clause of our Tomljanovich’s in As noted Justice concur- constitution makes no reference to school ring opinion, compelling XIII, the state also has districts. Article Section states: encouraging “in interest additional stability republican govern- “The of a form of education,” money spent to be on but there depending mainly upon ment the intelli- compelling creating can be no interest in gence people, duty it is the of the disparities opportunity. educational to establish a Therefore, I provisions added). would hold that the system public (emphasis schools” abridge the school finance before us I language say read this to that the education right the fundamental to an education held paramount, of all children is attending wealthy each child less education pro- and its must districts. equal opportunity vide all children. goes great lengths The court to to distin- repeatedly The court states that the fund- guish right the fundamental to an education ing system pro- is constitutional because it funding, from education but there is no adequate vides at least an education for all meaningful distinction between the two. A satisfy children. state’s a funda- Nothing in the Education Clause of our con- right provides mental is if not fulfilled suggests stitution that the fundamental merely group level to one applies only to an education to the education people providing while more-than-adequate itself, money not needed to fund that group. level to another education. Education does not occur vacuum; it is as the achieved result of The constitutional mandate for our edu- expenditures. Any system system, cation inference for its fund- greater expenditures for some children over mechanism, develop “intelligence is to undergo others should exacting the most people” prepared so that all are to deal scrutiny. economic, social, with political, the difficult that, and moral issues of the Failing future. right,

Because education is a fundamental stability “the republican gov- of our form of each child has a equal opportunity to an placed jeopardy. ernment” If our to be edu- educated. Education tool which achieving is to be successful in prepare enables children to themselves for goal, its all equal children must have an Giving any future. advantage child an opportunity to be educated. The court’s de- over others because of the wealth of the today cision ensures that some of our chil- school district in which he or she lives denies prepared dren will be less than others for the children who not do live such districts the difficult issues of the future. opportunity prepare for the future on equal footing. It generally harms the state I dissent. by creating disparity in the relative abili- ties of children educated our In- schools.

deed, disparity opportunity in the GARDEBRING, (concurring Justice learn disparity ensures that the in wealth will part, dissenting judgment). in the continue into the future. join I Page. dissent Justice Appellants sight purpose lost system. of our education In their briefs and

arguments court, they repeatedly fo-

cus on the needs of the school dis-

tricts, opposed educating the child. At argument,

oral counsel for the intervenor say so far as to that children

went do

have a equal opportunity. argument, apparently

This adopted by the

court, ignores beneficiary the intended of our system: the children who attend

Case Details

Case Name: Skeen v. State

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Aug 20, 1993

Citation: 505 N.W.2d 299

Docket Number: C5-92-677, C7-92-678

Court Abbreviation: Minn.