Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education
Funding, Inc., et. Al. vs. Governor M. Jodi Rell et. al.
295 Conn. 240 (2010)
Officially Released: March 10, 2010
This case was brought on
behalf of individual plaintiffs' children who attend public schools
in Bridgeport, Danbury, Windham, Hartford, New Haven, East Hartford,
New London, Plainfield, and New Britain. Plaintiffs argue that the
state has failed to provide their children with "suitable and substantially
equal educational opportunities" under Article 8, §1 of the Constitution
of the State of Connecticut. They believe their children have been
denied this quality of education because of "inadequate and unequal
inputs" to the public school system which include: high quality
preschool, appropriate class sizes, programs and services for at-risk
students, programs and services for at-risk students, highly qualified
administrators and teachers, modern and adequate libraries, modern
technology and appropriate instruction, an adequate number of hours
of instruction, a rigorous curriculum with a wide breadth of courses,
modern and appropriate textbooks, a school environment that is healthy,
safe, well maintained and conducive to learning, adequate special
needs services, appropriate career and academic counseling, and
suitably run extracurricular activities.
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that asserts they "have a right to receive suitable and
substantially equal educational opportunities as a matter of state
constitutional law," and that the current school funding system
is unconstitutional because of the state's failure to provide this
right.
The trial court applied the
state constitutional analysis of State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672,
610 A.2d 1225 (1992), and granted the defendants' motion to strike
for the following reasons: the language of the state constitution
did not support the plaintiffs' claim to a minimum quality of education,
the court's precedent demonstrated its "reluctance to insert itself
into educational policy decisions in the absence of clear constitutional
or legislative authority to do so," and finally, those states that
have found their constitutions to support the right to a quality
education have done so based upon language "substantially different"
than the language in the this state's constitution.
Finally, the court considers
the merits of plaintiffs' claims, utilizing the Geisler factors
to determine whether the Constitution of the State of Connecticut
affords broader protections than those provided by the federal constitution,
under which education is not a fundamental right.
These factors include: persuasive
relevant federal precedents, the text of the operative constitutional
provisions, historical insights into the intent of the drafters
of the constitution, related Connecticut precedents, persuasive
precedents of other state courts, and relevant public policy concerns.
In consulting the text of
the provision in question, the court determines the language to
be ambiguous, including the use of the word "school" in general
and the use of "excellence" when discussing the standard of education
to which the University of Connecticut should hold itself. When
held in comparison to the text of other state constitutions of states
who have maintained the right to a standard of education, the court
found that those constitutions include more specific language denoting
quality than does the Connecticut constitution.
In reviewing Connecticut
court precedent, the court reiterated the importance of Horton I's
determination that "the right to education is so basic and fundamental
that any infringement of that right must be strictly scrutinized."
In addition, the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions in
Horton I all agreed that Article 8, §1 "necessarily embodies some
qualitative component."
The most recent decision
concerning Article 8, §1 is Sheff v. O'Neill which held that the
state failed to provide plaintiffs with an equal opportunity to
a free public education, because the Hartford public school district
"is severely economically disadvantaged, fails to provide equal
educational opportunities…and fails to provide a minimally adequate
education" for its students. This disparity resulted in a violation
of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Especially persuasive
to this case is the fact that the Sheff court indicated the court's
"willingness to consider and order judicial remedies" in order to
"protect the state constitutional right to an education afforded
under Article 8 §1.
In addressing the last Geisler
factor, policy concerns, the court found that the arguments fell
in favor of the defendants. Defendants pointed out Connecticut students'
higher than average test scores and other indicia of academic success,
arguing that "it is unlikely that judicial remedy would remedy imperfections"
in the system, and that judicial intervention would actually "stifle
educational innovation" by reducing local control.
The court ultimately decided
in favor of plaintiffs, holding that Article 8 §1 "entitles Connecticut
public school students to an education suitable to give them the
opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully
in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting" as
well as to move onto higher education or productive employment.
Echoing the New York Court of Appeals' enumeration of the "essential"
components to an adequate education, the court highlighted the importance
of physical facilities conducive to learning, adequate instrumentalities
of learning, adequate teaching, and a sufficient number of properly
trained personnel.
The court remanded the case
to the trial court to determine whether, in fact, the state has
provided its students with an education that provides suitable educational
opportunities.
