NEW YORK

Major Court Decision: Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 655 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y. 1995)

Result: Financing System Overturned

Summary: The court overturned the funding scheme because it found that it failed to provide a sound basic education to school age children in less wealthy districts.  The court also stated that the education clause is not “hortatory,” but establishes a “constitutional floor” with respect to a minimally adequate educational opportunity.  The court, however, did not overturn its prior decision in Levittown that held inequalities in funding are permissible under equal protection.

Key Quotes:

“... The measure of a sound basic education is educational content-the set of ‘basic literacy, calculating, and verbal skills’ children acquire and its fit with the goal of productive citizenship.”  Id. at 316.

“If the physical facilities and pedagogical services and resources made available under the present system are adequate to provide children with the opportunity to obtain these essential skills, the State will have satisfied its constitutional obligation (Levittown).”  Id. at 317.

“The State must assure that some essentials are provided. Children are entitled to minimally adequate physical facilities and classrooms which provide enough light, space, heat, and air to permit children to learn. Children should have access to minimally adequate instrumentalities of learning such as desks, chairs, pencils, and reasonably current textbooks. Children are also entitled to minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date basic curricula such as reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies, by sufficient personnel adequately trained to teach those subject areas.”  Id.

“We do not attempt to definitively specify what the constitutional concept and mandate of a sound basic education entails. Given the procedural posture of this case, an exhaustive discussion and consideration of the meaning of a ‘sound basic education’ is premature. Only after discovery and the development of a factual record can this issue be fully evaluated and resolved. Rather, we articulate a template reflecting our judgment of what the trier of fact must consider in determining whether defendants have met their constitutional obligation.”  Id. at 318.

 “... Plaintiffs' claim that heightened scrutiny is required under the Equal Protection Clause of the State Constitution because, unlike the Levittown plaintiffs, in this case they have alleged that the State's educational funding methodology has a disparate impact upon African-American and other minority students. The Court rejects this contention, noting plaintiffs' concession that no discriminatory intent has been charged in this case. The Court relies on the case law from our Court and the Supreme Court holding that an equal protection cause of action based upon a disproportionate impact upon a suspect class requires establishment of intentional discrimination.”