School Funding Cases in Florida

in Florida Litigation

Historical Background

In 1995, plaintiffs filed an “adequacy” case, Coalition for Adequacy and Fairness in School Funding v. Chiles, to challenge the state’s system of funding its public schools. In its 1996 decision affirming the lower court’s dismissal of the case, the Florida Supreme Court was deeply concerned about the separation of powers doctrine and found that plaintiffs had “failed to demonstrate . . . an appropriate standard for determining ‘adequacy’ that would not present a substantial risk of judicial intrusion into the powers and responsibilities of the legislature.”

After losing the Coalition for Adequacy case, education advocates in Florida turned to the state’s initiative and referendum process. Voters approved an amendment to the state constitution in the November 1998 election and dramatically strengthened the education clause. The new language makes Florida’s education clause one of the most strongly worded in the nation:

The education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. It is, therefore, a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all children residing within its borders. Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education…

Recent Events

In November 2009, public school students, parents and citizen organizations filed a complaint alleging that the state has failed to provide an adequate education in accordance with the enhanced requirements of the 1998 constitutional amendment. In Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc. v. Florida State Board of Education, plaintiffs state that the new constitutional amendment is the only one in the United States that mandates all of the following: a high quality education, specific characteristics of the educational system; and the elevation of education above other governmental functions. They allege that the state has failed to meet each of these mandates.

The defendants brought on a motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that the case raised political questions that were not justiciable, and relying mainly on language from the Florida Supreme Court’s Coalition for Adequacy & Fairness in School Funding decision. In August 2010 the trial court denied the motion to dismiss, stating that the defendants’ position “renders the citizens’ vote to create a new education article as meaningless and this provision as a nullity.” The court also held that plaintiffs and plaintiff organizations have standing and that Coalition decision should not be the measure by which to judge the current case because of the adoption of the new constitutional amendment since that decision was decided.

The state’s legislative leaders, as well as the commissioner and state board of education, then filed a “writ of prohibition” in the Court of Appeals for the First District, arguing that the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the issues are not justiciable. Plaintiffs attacked this move as being an end-run around a proper appeal; they stated that a writ of prohibition is a rarely used procedural device that is invoked only when a court cannot hear a case under any circumstances.

On November 23, 2011, by a 8-7 majority, the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee, Florida refused to grant the defendants’ motion for a “writ of Prohibition” that would stop the lower court from proceeding with a trial in the pending adequacy case. The defendants appealed the dismissal of their motion, but on September 11, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court declined to consider the matter.

After numerous further procedural motions were finally resolved, trial was held in in March, 2016, and the judge issue his ruling in May, 2016. Finding that the plaintiffs did not prove “beyond a reasonable doubt,” that Florida’s education finance system is not “rationally related” to a system that allows students to obtain a high quality education, Judge George S. Reynolds held  that the system does not violate Art.IX of the state constitution. Citizens for Strong Schools v. State of Florida

Judge Reynolds held that most of the terms in the new constitutional language like “efficient” and “high quality” did not provide judicially manageable standards. In doing so, he ruled that these terms were “non-justiciable” “political questions” that should be determined by the legislative and executive branches and not by the courts. This stance rejected the prior conclusion of another Circuit Court judge who had ruled earlier in in the case that these issues are justiciable. Judge Reynolds did hold that the terms “safe” and “secure” provided judicially manageable standards, but he also concluded that the proof offered by the plaintiffs failed to establish that Florida’s school facilities were not structurally safe or that there was inadequate funding for building maintenance.

In concluding that the  state’s current state system for funding public education does allow for a high quality education, the court issued an extensive 176 page set of findings of fact that, among other things, found that the scores of the state’s students on the National Assessment of Educational Progress ( NAEP) had increased substantially over the years, that achievement gaps have narrowed, that minority and low income students perform well compared to their peers in other states and that the state’s accountability and assessment system is rated among the best in the nation.

Plaintiffs claim that Florida’s 4th grade NAEP scores are inflated by its system of retaining low scoring 3rd graders, that there are numerous flaws in the state’s assessment and accountability system and that over-all Judge Reynolds’ ruling ignores the overwhelming weight of the evidence that “more than a million children fail to pass required statewide assessments, thousands attend persistently low-performing schools, and the quality of their education is dependent on their race, ethnicity, geography or socioeconomic status.” The plaintiffs are appealing the order.

 

Last updated: June 2016.

Previous post:

Next post: