Supreme Court Says Students Guaranteed "Suitable" Education

3/22/2010

By Christian Nolan
Connecticut Law Tribune

A divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday that all school children in the state are guaranteed not just a free public education, but a “suitable” one that adequately prepares them for a career or college.

The 4-3 decision could ultimately change the way public education is funded in the state. If so, then Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding v. Rell will go down as the most significant education-related ruling in Connecticut since 1996, when justices in Sheff v. O’Neill mandated efforts to end racial isolation in schools.

“We conclude that [the state Constitution] entitles Connecticut public school students to an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting,” wrote Justice Flemming L. Norcott in the majority opinion.

“A constitutionally adequate education also will leave Connecticut’s students prepared to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state’s economy,” continued Norcott.

The next step is for the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding lawsuit to go to trial to determine if, in fact, public school students in Connecticut have been provided with a constitutionally suitable education.

The lawsuit, brought on behalf of a group of parents and children, alleges that the state’s failure to adequately fund public schools has irreparably harmed thousands of schoolchildren. At trial, the plaintiffs will present evidence that they say shows inadequate resources and substandard test results in districts with a high percentage of minority students.

The state, represented by the Attorney General’s Office, had argued that the state Constitution does not confer a right to “suitable” educational opportunities, but simply free public schools for all. Further, the state argued that the constitution does not “guarantee equality or parity of educational achievement or results.”

Then-Hartford Superior Court Judge Joseph Shortall sided with the state in 2005 in dismissing three of the four counts in the complaint. He ruled that schoolchildren had no right to “suitable educational opportunities” under the Connecticut Constitution.

CCJEF, represented by students from Yale Law School’s Education Adequacy Clinic, then appealed the ruling and the state Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2008. The opinion, released nearly two years after oral arguments, also features two dissenting and two concurring opinions.

Had the state Supreme Court upheld Judge Shortall’s decision to dismiss the claims, Connecticut would have been the first state to deny that schoolchildren have a state constitutional right to an adequate education. New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts are among more than 20 others that have already recognized such a right.

In February 2004, a New York judge, after similar arguments were made, ordered the state to put an additional $5.6 billion into the New York City public school system over four years.

Justices Peter T. Zarella and McLachlan in a dissenting opinion, believes their fellow justices are getting involved in an issue better left for lawmakers.

“It will require the legislature to appropriate at least $2 billion per year in additional funding to ensure that Connecticut schoolchildren will be provided with the resources allegedly required for an adequate education,” wrote Zarella.

“Thus, by extending judicial authority into areas expressly reserved to the legislature, this court’s ruling in the present case sets a dangerous precedent that will create a quagmire of uncertainty with respect to future controversies regarding the boundaries of judicial and legislative power in matters concerning education,” concluded Zarella.