Rapid response, radical reform: The story of school finance litigation in Vermont

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2002 by Rebell, Michael A, Metzler, Jeffrey

Many state leaders blamed this failure to reach a compromise on partisanship. "The demise of the bill had more to do with political muscle-flexing than the substance of the issue," said Democratic Senator Jeb Spaulding. Democrats in the House accused the Republican-controlled Senate of appointing "an obstructionist panel of negotiators who would not bend."19 Attorney Robert Gensburg noted that "Democrats were always supporting equalizing education funding, so Republicans were always opposing it."" One Republican, however, suggested that "Democrats were convinced that a statewide property tax was the way to go, while Republicans were flat out against it because it is inconsistent with local control."21

ting the education budget by $100 million by increasing the pupil/teacher ratio from 13:1 to the national average of 18:1. In the 1996 legislative session, this plan failed to even pass in the Senate.25

In the 1996 elections, Vermont Democrats gained control of the Senate and retained control of the House. Some observers attributed the Republican defeat primarily to their position on education finance reform.26 Democratic control of the Statehouse and of both houses of the legislature significantly changed the political dynamic for education funding reform in the 1997 legislative session, as did the dramatic and largely unexpected decision of the state Supreme Court, which was handed down on February 5, 1997, early in that legislative session.

II. THE LITIGATION

A. Origins of the Suit

In late 1994, frustrated with the legislature's failure to correct what he perceived as longstanding educational inequities, Robert Gensburg, a resident of one of the state's poorest school districts of the state and a member of Vermont's American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) chapter, recommended that the group bring a lawsuit challenging the state funding system.27 The ACLU's board of directors agreed, and a team of six lawyers volunteered to take on the case. After researching the Vermont constitution's education and equal protection clauses, the attorneys decided to bring three separate claims: one on behalf of school children from property poor districts, one on behalf of taxpayers from property-poor districts, and one on behalf of the districts themselves.

opportunities as students who reside in wealthier school districts."29 The taxpayers' claim was that the finance system "compel[led] them to contribute more than their just proportion of money to fund education."30 Finally, the districts' claim was that they were deprived "of the ability to raise sufficient money to provide their students with educational opportunities equal to those afforded students in wealthier school districts," and that the finance system "compel[led] them to impose disproportionate tax rates in violation of the United States and Vermont Constitutions."31

B. The Legal Arguments: Equity Plus Implied Adequacy

In 1973, the United States Supreme Court refused to invalidate Texas's education finance system, despite its acknowledged inequities.32 The Court held that education was not a fundamental interest under the United States Constitution, and the education finance system was therefore not subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, the Court applied the standard equal protection analysis and found that the unequal financing of local schools was "rationally related" to the legitimate state interest in promoting local control and the fiscal autonomy of local school districts.33 This effectively meant that no meaningful education finance reform would be forthcoming from the federal courts.