Background and Purpose

In March of 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the argument, presented by the plaintiffs in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, that a school finance system relying heavily on local property taxes to determine the level of per-pupil expenditures in public elementary and secondary schools was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. With recourse to the Federal judiciary effectively closed by that decision, further challenges to State school finance systems will have to be brought in State courts, relying on State constitutions and statutes for legal theories. Legislators contemplating changes in existing school finance plans must now look to the law and the courts of their own individual State for guidance and standards as to what kind of finance system would be appropriate and acceptable within that State's constitutional tradition and structure.

With this background in mind, the U.S. Office of Education, in cooperation with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has prepared this compendium to provide a general overview of those State constitutional provisions and some of the related statutes and case law that must be considered in designing school finance legislation and in understanding the issues being raised in school finance litigation in State courts throughout the country.

While the publication was designed primarily as a research tool for lawyers and legislators already familiar with school finance issues, it can be used by laymen as well to obtain a general understanding of the kinds of requirements demanded by State constitutions.

The purpose of the publication is twofold: first, to familiarize the reader with the major relevant constitutional provisions for each individual State; and second, to provide a mechanism for general

comparisons of the types of constitutional provisions present in all 50 States.

Contents

The publication is in two parts. The first is composed of four summary tables that analyze, classify, and compare the major categories of constitutional provisions more fully detailed in the second part. The second part is a compendium with a section for each State listing those constitutional provisions most likely to be important in determining educational requirements, selected statutory material signifying the importance attached to the education function by each State, and interpretative case law indicating the particular constitutional gloss given those provisions by the State courts. Each State's section contains five parts: A. General Provisions, B. Education Provisions, C. Taxing Provisions, D. Compulsory Attendance Statutes, and E. School Finance Policy.

A. Summary Tables

The first part of the publication contains four summary tables analyzing for all 50 States the major types of constitutional provisions contained in Parts A, B, and C of the State sections. For each type of provision (i.e., equal protection, due process, education, tax uniformity), a table was prepared breaking down the constitutional language into those words and phrases recurring with some frequency from State to State. Unusual language or unique provisions were specified in footnotes where that was feasible. Occasionally the analysis included interpretations given to the provisions by the courts; when that was the case it was so noted. In many situations the language analyzed was found in several separate constitutional provisions, and reference should be made to the section for each State to determine the exact wording of those provisions.

B. Compendium of State Materials

The materials for each State are arranged as follows:

General Provisions include each State's constitutional guarantees for equal protection and due process, where they exist, as well as any general constitutional language that has been interpreted by the courts to imply these constitutional guarantees.

Education Provisions include those provisions of the constitution that indicate the extent of a State's responsibility to provide public education, delegate fiscal authority to tax for public school support, set up minimum standards for public education, and, in general, demonstrate the importance attached to education in each State.

Taxing Provisions included are those that require uniformity in the treatment of taxpayers in collecting revenues to pay for governmental services in general and education in particular.

Scattered throughout these first three categories are numerous provisions that are difficult to categorize but which the authors felt might be significant in determining the extent of a State's responsibility to assure equal educational opportunity to its students.

The last two sections, Compulsory Attendance Statutes and School Finance Policy, are included, not for their substantive requirements, but as indications of the States' general attitudes toward education and the importance attached to public schooling in the States' statutory schemes.

The general compulsory attendance provision in many State laws restricts the attendance requirement to public schools. This should not, however, be read as precluding attendance at accredited private or parochial schools since (a) provision for such attendance is generally found in later sections of the State education code and (b) such a restriction would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

The School Finance Policy sections contain no information as to the actual workings of those systems but are included where they indicate some purpose on the part of the State legislature to equalize educational opportunities through the working out of the school finance mechanism. For the most part, these are statutory provisions. How

ever, the reader should be aware that when the provision is preceded by an article and section number it is constitutional material.

Cautions

A compilation such as this is intended as a tool to be used in conjunction with more extensive research activities. While it was intended that the publication provide a general overview of State constitutional frameworks within which future judicial and legislative actions in school finance will take place, such a publication cannot be considered a comprehensive study of the constitutional structure of any State.

Limitations of time, staff, and library resources precluded an exhaustive survey of the case law of every State, so the legal interpretations presented should be treated as examples rather than as the definitive constructions of the provisions. This is especially true considering the fact that these interpretations are essentially quotations out of context. A careful look at the facts of each case is necessary before one can rely on the legal principles apparent on the face of the quotations.

For the most part the cases selected were those rendered by State supreme courts. Occasionally, however, particularly where State interpretations of the provisions were sparse or ambiguous, cases from Federal courts were included. But it should be kept in mind that the final arbiter of each State's law is that State's supreme court and that the Federal judiciary's interpretations of State law are only persuasive, not binding precedent, for State courts.

Two final notes of caution are necessary. First, the main effort in this study was to collect those types of provisions typically found in many State constitutions. In the process, provisions that are of peculiar importance to a particular State may have been missed. Therefore, for an individual State this compendium should be considered as a starting place for further study rather than as a definitive reference work. Second, although an attempt was made to include recent case law and legislative developments, in recent years events have tended to move fairly quickly in school finance, and some of the information included here may be quickly outdated.