Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar
220 Ill. Dec. 166, 174 Ill. 2d 1, 672 N.E.2d 1178 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's statutory school finance scheme that relies on local property taxes and results in funding disparities between wealthy and poor districts does not violate the Illinois Constitution's education or equal protection clauses. Challenges to the quality and equity of education funding are non-justiciable political questions reserved for the legislature.
Facts:
- Illinois public schools are funded through a combination of federal, state, and local sources, with local property taxes being a primary component.
- The amount of revenue a school district can raise locally is directly dependent on the value of the taxable property within its boundaries.
- This system creates significant disparities in available funding per pupil between districts with high property wealth and those with low property wealth.
- During the 1989-90 school year, the average property tax base in the wealthiest 10% of elementary school districts was over 13 times larger than in the poorest 10%.
- The state's general aid formula provides supplemental funds to poorer districts but is insufficient to eliminate the large funding gaps.
- Funding disparities lead to significant differences in educational resources, including teacher salaries, teacher experience, course offerings, and the quality of facilities, between wealthy and poor districts.
- On average, the school districts with the lowest property wealth tax their residents at higher rates than the districts with the highest property wealth.
Procedural Posture:
- The Committee for Educational Rights and other plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Governor Jim Edgar and other state officials in the circuit court of Cook County.
- Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the state's school funding statute was unconstitutional.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The appellate court then issued a certificate of importance, allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court of Illinois.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Illinois' statutory school finance scheme, which results in significant funding disparities between school districts based on local property wealth, violate the education article's requirement for an 'efficient system of high quality public educational institutions' or the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nickels
No. Illinois' statutory school finance scheme does not violate the education article's 'efficient' and 'high quality' provisions, nor does it violate the equal protection clause of the Illinois Constitution. The court reasoned that the term 'efficient' in the education article was not intended by the framers to guarantee funding parity but rather to address practical matters like school district boundaries. The court held that determining what constitutes a 'high quality' education is a non-justiciable political question because there are no 'judicially discoverable and manageable standards' for making such a determination; it is a policy matter for the legislative branch. Regarding the equal protection claim, the court found that education is not a fundamental right under the Illinois Constitution, so the rational basis test applies. The funding system survives this test because it is rationally related to the legitimate state goal of promoting local control over education, which includes allowing communities to decide how much to tax and spend on their schools.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Justice Freeman
No on the equal protection claim, but the education article claim should be allowed to proceed. Justice Freeman concurred with the majority's conclusion that the funding scheme does not violate the equal protection clause. However, he dissented from the majority’s holding that the education article claim is non-justiciable. He argued that the constitution's mandate for a 'high quality' education is directed at the 'State,' which includes the judiciary, not just the legislature. By refusing to hear the case, the majority abdicated its constitutional duty to interpret the law. He contended that the disparities alleged in the complaint are so severe that plaintiffs have stated a valid claim that the state is failing to provide a 'high quality' education to all children, and the courts have a duty to determine if the state has met this constitutional minimum.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that in Illinois, the judiciary will not intervene in matters of public school funding equity or adequacy, classifying them as political questions for the legislature. It effectively closes the courts as a venue for advocates seeking to remedy funding disparities through constitutional litigation based on the education or equal protection clauses. The ruling solidifies the legislature's role as the sole arbiter of school finance policy and forces reformers to pursue their goals through the political process rather than legal challenges, significantly impacting the strategy for educational reform in the state.
