Yes. The whole system is unconstitutional because it's fundamentally unfair. It's the state government's job to make sure every single kid gets a good education, no matter where they live. Because the current system is so unequal and broken, we are ordering the state legislature to throw out all the laws related to schools and create a brand new, fair system for everyone.

No, the court is going too far. It's the legislature's job, not a judge's, to decide how much money to spend on schools. The majority's plan is also confusing because it complains about inequality but still lets rich towns raise extra money, which is the whole problem. This decision will just lead to more lawsuits.

We shouldn't even be deciding this case. This is a political fight, not a legal one for courts to solve. The school districts are suing the very government that created them, and you can't sue the entire legislature by just naming two leaders. The court is meddling where it doesn't belong.

Yes, the system is unconstitutional, but just saying that isn't enough. We should have forced the Governor to call a special meeting of the legislature right away to start fixing the problem. A right without a remedy is meaningless.

Yes, the system is broken, but the majority's decision is way too broad. They can't just throw out every single school law. The court should have just said it's the legislature's job to fix it and then stayed out of it.

No, the lawmakers didn't do their job because not all kids in Kentucky are getting the same chances in school. The system needs to be changed so every child gets a good education no matter where they live or how much money their family has. The court says that getting a good education is a very important right in Kentucky. It's the job of the lawmakers to make sure the school system is fair and works well for everyone. The court explains what a good school system should look like and says the current system doesn't meet these standards. The court is giving the lawmakers some time to fix the problems before the decision becomes final.

No, the decision still allows some areas to have better schools if they can pay more, which isn't fair. Justice Vance thinks that letting local areas raise extra money for their schools will keep things unequal. He also says the court shouldn't say the whole system is wrong without pointing out exactly which parts are bad.

No, this case shouldn't be in court at all because it's about politics, not something judges should decide. Justice Leibson thinks the court is trying to do the job of the lawmakers, which it shouldn't. He also says there are problems with who brought the case to court and who is being sued.

Yes, but the court should also make sure the lawmakers fix the problems identified. Justice Gant agrees the school system isn't fair, but he thinks the court should do more to make sure the problems get fixed. He suggests telling the governor to call a special meeting of lawmakers to work on the school system.

Yes, the system isn't good enough, but we should let the lawmakers figure out how to fix it without too much interference. Justice Wintersheimer agrees the system needs to be fixed but thinks the court shouldn't tell the lawmakers exactly how to do it. He's also worried that the court said too much was wrong with the schools.

Yes. Kentucky's system of common schools violates the constitutional mandate to provide an efficient system because it is inadequate, inequitable, and lacks substantial uniformity. The court defines an 'efficient' system as one that is the sole responsibility of the General Assembly, is adequately funded to provide every child an equal opportunity for an adequate education, and is monitored to prevent waste or mismanagement. Based on overwhelming evidence of disparities in funding, resources, and student outcomes between rich and poor districts, the court declared the entire statutory system for common schools—from funding mechanisms to the creation of local districts—unconstitutional. The General Assembly is now constitutionally required to create and implement a new system that meets these defined standards.

No. The system has not been shown to be constitutionally inadequate or underfunded, although it fails the test of equality. The majority opinion is internally inconsistent because it declares the system must be equal yet permits local districts to continue supplementary taxation, which is the primary cause of inequality. The constitution does not mandate a specific level of 'adequacy' in funding, only that the system be 'efficient,' a matter of legislative discretion. The seven educational capacities defined by the majority are so vague they will invite endless litigation, improperly shifting policy-making from the legislature to the courts.

The court should not answer the issue because the case presents a nonjusticiable political question. The constitutional phrase 'efficient system' lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards, committing the issue to the legislative branch. The parties are improper, as local school districts, as creatures of the state, have no standing to sue their creator, and the General Assembly as an entity cannot be sued by serving only its leaders. By issuing what is effectively an advisory opinion without striking down specific statutes, the court has exceeded its judicial power and violated the separation of powers.

Yes, the system is unconstitutional, but the majority's remedy is insufficient. The Court has a constitutional duty not only to declare the right but also to provide a remedy for its violation. To merely declare the school system deficient without compelling action is to shirk judicial responsibility. The Court should have directed the trial court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling the Governor to call an extraordinary session of the General Assembly to rectify the constitutional deficiency immediately.

Yes, the system is inefficient, but the majority opinion's reasoning and remedy are flawed. I concur only in the holding that the General Assembly has failed to provide an efficient system. The majority's holding that service on two legislative leaders is sufficient to sue the entire General Assembly is incorrect. Furthermore, its declaration that the entire system is unconstitutional is too sweeping, as many existing statutes are necessary and sound. The sole holding should be that the General Assembly has the responsibility to provide an efficient system, leaving the methods entirely to its discretion.

No, the Kentucky General Assembly has not complied with its constitutional mandate because the current system of common schools does not provide equal educational opportunities across the state, leading to disparities that affect the quality of education. The system must be reformed to ensure uniformity and equality in educational opportunities. The Court holds that education is a fundamental right in Kentucky and that the General Assembly has the sole responsibility to provide for an efficient system of common schools throughout the state. The Court defines an 'efficient' system as one that is adequately funded, substantially uniform, available to all Kentucky children, and that provides equal educational opportunities regardless of place of residence or economic circumstances. The Court declares the entire existing system of common schools unconstitutional, but withholds the finality of this decision for 90 days after the adjournment of the General Assembly to allow time for corrective action.

No, the majority's decision permits the continuation of a system that does not provide equal educational opportunities. The decision allows local districts to levy taxes that could perpetuate disparities in educational funding. Justice Vance argues that the majority's definition of an 'efficient' system is inconsistent with allowing local districts to supplement state funding, which will inevitably lead to continued inequalities. He also contends that the Court lacks authority to declare the entire system unconstitutional without specifying which statutes are problematic.

No, the case should be dismissed as it does not present an actual controversy suitable for judicial resolution. Justice Leibson argues that the issues presented are political questions that lack judicially manageable standards. He contends that the Court has exceeded its constitutional authority by intervening in matters properly left to the legislative branch. Leibson also raises concerns about the standing of the plaintiffs and the proper representation of the General Assembly as a defendant.

Yes, but the court must also direct the trial court to issue writs mandating the correction of the constitutional deficiencies identified. Justice Gant agrees with the majority's finding of unconstitutionality but argues that the Court has a duty to provide a remedy. He suggests that the Court should order the Governor to call a special session of the General Assembly to address the constitutional deficiencies in the school system.

Yes, the system is not efficient, but the General Assembly should not be overly constrained by the court in how it chooses to address the inefficiencies. Justice Wintersheimer agrees that the system is unconstitutional but emphasizes that the specific remedies should be left to the legislature. He also expresses concern about the broad language used by the majority in declaring the entire system unconstitutional.

Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot