Vincent v. Voight
2000 WI 93, 236 Wis. 2d 588, 614 N.W.2d 388 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Wisconsin Constitution guarantees students an equal opportunity for a 'sound basic education,' defined by statutory standards for proficiency in core subjects. A state school finance system that provides sufficient resources for all districts to meet this standard is constitutional under the uniformity and equal protection clauses, even if it results in spending disparities among districts.
Facts:
- The Wisconsin legislature enacted a school finance system that funds public schools through a combination of local property taxes and state aid.
- The system includes state equalization aid, which provides a guaranteed tax base for school districts but does not fully equalize the revenue-raising capacity between districts with high and low property values.
- This funding formula results in significant disparities in per-pupil spending across the state's school districts.
- Some school districts with lower property values ('property-poor' districts) have deteriorating facilities, limited curricula, and less access to modern technology compared to wealthier districts.
- Many districts, particularly urban and rural ones, have disproportionately high numbers of students with greater educational needs, such as students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and students with limited English proficiency, which increases educational costs.
- The state also imposes statutory revenue limits, which cap the amount of money a school district can raise from state aid and local property taxes without holding a voter referendum.
Procedural Posture:
- Various students, parents, school districts, and teachers' groups (Petitioners) filed an action in Wisconsin circuit court challenging the constitutionality of the state's school finance system.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants (the state), ruling that the school finance system was constitutional under the precedent of Kukor v. Grover.
- The Petitioners appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment, agreeing that the current system was not materially different from the one previously upheld as constitutional.
- The Petitioners appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which granted review.
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 Wisconsin's statutory school finance system, which results in significant spending disparities between property-rich and property-poor school districts, violate either the uniformity clause of the Wisconsin Constitution's education article (Art. X, § 3) or the state's Equal Protection Clause (Art. I, § 1)?
Opinions:
Majority - N. Patrick Crooks, J.
No. The Wisconsin school finance system does not violate the uniformity clause or the Equal Protection Clause. The constitution guarantees an 'equal opportunity for a sound basic education,' defined as an education that equips students for citizenship and personal success by providing the opportunity to be proficient in core subjects outlined in state statutes. The uniformity clause requires uniformity in the 'character of instruction,' not absolute equality in spending. As long as the state provides sufficient resources for every district to offer this sound basic education, the system is constitutional, and any disparities from local spending above that floor are permissible. The petitioners' equal protection claim, based on wealth disparities rather than a complete denial of education, is subject to a rational basis review, which the system survives because its equalization formula is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of educating children and providing property tax relief. The petitioners proved spending disparities but failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any child was denied the opportunity for a sound basic education.
Concurring - Jon P. Wilcox, J.
No. While I agree that the school finance system is constitutional, I do not join the majority's creation of the new 'sound basic education' test. The system's constitutionality can and should be affirmed under existing precedent from Kukor v. Grover, without articulating a new, judicially-created standard for educational adequacy.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Shirley S. Abrahamson, C.J.
I join the majority's adoption of the 'sound basic education' standard but dissent from its holding that the current system is constitutional. The case should be remanded to the circuit court. Because the court has just established a new constitutional standard, the parties must be given an opportunity to develop and present evidence specifically related to whether the current finance system provides the resources necessary to meet this standard, especially for districts with many high-needs students.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - William A. Bablitch, J.
I join the majority in adopting the 'sound basic education' standard but dissent from the outcome and would remand the case. The undisputed record already details 'woeful conditions' in many districts, including inadequate facilities, curtailed course offerings, and the immense financial strain of educating special needs students. This evidence raises serious and troubling questions about whether the constitutional guarantee is being met, and these questions should be thoroughly examined by the circuit court under the new standard.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - David T. Prosser, J.
No. I agree with the majority's conclusion that the system is constitutional but dissent from its creation of the 'sound basic education' standard. This new standard is a judicial invention with no basis in the constitutional text of Article X, § 3. The phrase 'as nearly uniform as practicable' is a flexible goal, not a judicially enforceable rule of adequacy, and the court's new test is legislative in character and will invite perpetual litigation.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Diane S. Sykes, J.
No. I agree the system is constitutional but dissent from the creation of the new standard because defining 'educational adequacy' is a non-justiciable political question. The legislature, not the judiciary, is responsible for determining what constitutes a 'sound' or 'basic' education. By creating this new standard, the court is encroaching on the separation of powers and inviting endless litigation over policy matters that should be resolved through the democratic process.
Analysis:
This landmark decision shifts the constitutional analysis of Wisconsin's school finance system from a focus on fiscal equity to one of educational adequacy. While upholding the existing funding formula, the court establishes a new precedential standard: the 'equal opportunity for a sound basic education.' This gives future litigants a new avenue to challenge the system by arguing that districts lack sufficient resources to meet specific, statutorily-defined academic standards, rather than simply pointing to spending disparities. The deeply fractured opinions highlight the ongoing tension between judicial review and legislative authority in the complex policy area of public education funding.
