FISCAL EQUITY v. State of NY
| Citation | 769 N.Y.S.2d 106,100 N.Y.2d 893,801 N.E.2d 326 |
| Parties | CAMPAIGN FOR FISCAL EQUITY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 26 June 2003 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, New York City (Joseph F. Wayland, David E. Massengill, William T. Russell, Jr., Jonathan K. Youngwood, Daniel H. Tabak, Elaine M. Divelbliss, Nihara K. Choudhri, Jason S. Stone and Jill L. Goldberg of counsel), and Michael A. Rebell Associates (Michael A. Rebell, Molly A. Hunter and Deborah A. Widiss of counsel), for appellants.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Daniel Smirlock, Caitlin J. Halligan, Denise A. Hartman, Melanie L. Oxhorn, Jean Lin, Deon Nossel and Robert M. Blum of counsel), for respondents. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York City (Elizabeth S. Natrella and Leonard Koerner of counsel), for City of New York and others, amici curiae.
Arthur N. Eisenberg, New York City, Christopher Dunn and Donald Shaffer for New York Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.
DeGraff, Foy, Holt-Harris & Kunz, LLP, Albany (Robert E. Biggerstaff and Amy Quandt of counsel), for New York State Association of Small City School Districts, Inc., amicus curiae. DeGraff, Foy, Holt-Harris & Kunz, LLP, Albany (Robert E. Biggerstaff and Amy Quandt of counsel), for New York State Coalition for 853 Schools, Inc., amicus curiae.
Denise C. Morgan, New York City, for Black, Puerto Rican and Hispanic Legislative Caucus and others, amici curiae.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York City (Roberta A. Kaplan, Daniel R. Garodnick and David W. Wang of counsel), for Partnership for New York City, Inc., amicus curiae.
Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett & Reitz, P.C., East Syracuse (Benjamin J. Ferrara and Norman H. Gross of counsel), for Midstate School Finance Consortium, amicus curiae.
Betsey Boardman Swan, Menands, for League of Women Voters of New York State, Inc., amicus curiae. Michael J. Looby, Rochester, and Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP (Carol E. Heckman and Carol L. O'Keefe of counsel), for Rochester City School District, amicus curiae.
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, New York City (Alan M. Klinger and Adam S. Grace of counsel), and Carol L. Gerstl for United Federation of Teachers, amicus curiae.
Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York City (Sharon Katz, Thomas Childs, Aisha Christian-Royall, Monica Lamb, Tyson Pratcher and David B. Toscano of counsel), for Alliance for Quality Education and others, amici curiae. Hogan and Hartson, L.L.P., New York City (Adam J. Heft of counsel), and Patricia A. Brannan, Washington, D.C., for Council of the Great City Schools, amicus curiae.
Jay Worona, Latham, and Pilar Sokol for New York State School Boards Association, Inc., and another, amici curiae.
SMITH concurs in a separate concurring opinion; Judge READ dissents in another opinion; Judge GRAFFEO taking no part.
We begin with a unanimous recognition of the importance of education in our democracy. The fundamental value of education is embedded in the Education Article of the New York State Constitution by this simple sentence: "The legislature shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free common schools, wherein all the children of this state may be educated" (NY Const, art XI, § 1). Plaintiffs claim that the State has violated this mandate by establishing an education financing system that fails to afford New York City's public schoolchildren the opportunity guaranteed by the Constitution. Plaintiffs additionally claim that the State's method of school funding in New York City violates their rights under United States Department of Education regulations pursuant to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 USC § 2000d et seq.; 34 CFR 100.3 [b] [2]).
This case does not arrive before us on a blank slate. On June 15, 1995—precisely eight years ago—we denied the State's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims, thereby resolving three issues of law that now become the starting point for our decision (Campaign for Fiscal Equity v State of New York, 86 NY2d 307 [1995] [CFE]).
First, echoing Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist (57 NY2d 27 [1982] [Levittown]), in CFE we recognized that by mandating a school system "wherein all the children of this state may be educated," the State has obligated itself constitutionally to ensure the availability of a "sound basic education" to all its children. (86 NY2d at 314.) Second, we made clear that this Court is responsible for adjudicating the nature of that duty, and we provided a template, or outline, of what is encompassed within a sound basic education. And third, we concluded from the pleadings that plaintiffs had alleged facts that, if proved, would constitute a violation of the State's constitutional duty as well as the federal regulations. The actual quality of the educational opportunity in New York City, the correlation between the State's funding system and any failure to fulfill the constitutional mandate, and any justification for claimed discriminatory practices involve fact questions. For that reason, we remitted the matter to the trial court for development of the record. Extensive discovery ensued. Trial commenced on October 12, 1999 and the last witness left the stand seven months later, on May 15, 2000.
Based on the testimony of 72 witnesses and on 4,300 exhibits, the trial court on January 9, 2001 determined that the State over many years had consistently violated the Education Article of the Constitution. In keeping with our directive, the trial court first fleshed out the template for a sound basic education that we had outlined in our earlier consideration of the issue. To determine whether the State actually satisfied that standard the court then reviewed the various necessary instructional "inputs" we had identified, and concluded that in most of these the New York City schools were deficient. The trial court further held that the "outputs"—test results and graduation rates—likewise reflected systemic failure and that the State's actions were a substantial cause of the constitutional violation. Finally, the court found a violation of title VI, and directed defendants to put in place systemic reforms.
A divided Appellate Division reversed, on the law and facts. The majority rejected the trial court's definition of a sound basic education, as well as the bulk of Supreme Court's findings of fact concerning inputs, outputs and causation. Lastly—and on this point the panel was united—the Appellate Division concluded that plaintiffs' title VI claim failed in light of Alexander v Sandoval (532 US 275 [2001]), which postdated the trial court's decision. Plaintiffs appealed to us as of right on constitutional grounds.
Plaintiffs' appeal presents various questions of law, but one is paramount: whether the trial court correctly defined a sound basic education. Further—in light of the Appellate Division's express and implicit substitution of its findings of fact for those of the trial court regarding the inputs, outputs and causation—we must determine which court's findings more nearly comport with the weight of the credible evidence (see CPLR 5501 [b]). We now modify, affirming for reasons stated by the Appellate Division so much of the decision as dismissed plaintiffs' title VI claim,1 and otherwise reversing the Appellate Division's order (see, by contrast, Paynter v State of New York, 100 NY2d 434 [2003] [decided today]).
At the time of trial, the New York City public school system comprised nearly 1,200 schools serving 1.1 million children and employing a staff of over 135,000, including 78,000 teachers (see generally 187 Misc 2d 1, 19-23 [2001]; 295 AD2d 1, 5-6 [2002]). Some 84% of City schoolchildren were racial minorities; 80% were born outside the United States; and 16% were classified as Limited English Proficient (LEP—persons who speak little or no English)—most of the state's students in each of these categories. Upwards of 73% were eligible for the federal free or reduced price lunch program; 442,000 City schoolchildren came from families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children; and 135,000 were enrolled in special education programs.
The New York City public school system was and is supervised by the Board of Education and its Chancellor (see Education Law § 2590-b [1]; §§ 2590-g, 2590-h).2 The system is divided into 32 geographically-based community school districts to provide elementary and middle school education; six geographically-based high school districts; and four nongeographical districts. At the time of trial, elected community school boards supervised the community school districts, and had done so since 1969. Statewide, oversight of the public school system is vested in the Regents of the University of the State of New York (see NY Const, art XI, § 2; Education Law § 207). The State Education Department (SED) and Commissioner of Education supervise and manage the State's public schools, promulgating regulations and determining teaching standards and curricula, among other things.
Neither the Regents nor the SED is responsible, however, for the day-to-day operation of the schools or for their funding. Rather, a combination of local, state and federal sources generates school funding. Almost half of the state aid component consists of operating aid, which is allocated using a complex statutory formula that apportions various categories of aid based on a district's combined wealth ratio—which measures its ability to generate revenue—and student attendance (see Education Law § 3602). The statute contains extensive prescriptions regarding how districts may use funds, and it is perhaps the proliferation of highly specific aid categories that most differentiates the current section...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conn. Coal. for Justice in Educ. Funding, Inc. v. Rell
...York Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the trial court's determination on appeal. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State , 100 N.Y.2d 893, 903, 801 N.E.2d 326, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2003) ( Campaign III ) (affirming portion of decision of Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court dis......
-
Gulino v. New York State Educ. Dept.
...Sch. Dist. v. Nyquist, 57 N.Y.2d 27, 48, 453 N.Y.S.2d 643, 439 N.E.2d 359 (1982); see also Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. New York, 100 N.Y.2d 893, 905, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106, 801 N.E.2d 326 (2003) ("[A] sound basic education conveys not merely skills, but skills fashioned to meet a practic......
-
Campaign for Quality Educ. v. State
...adequately trained to teach those subject areas." (Ibid . ) Following a trial, in Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York (2003) 100 N.Y.2d 893, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106, 801 N.E.2d 326 (CFE II ), the court defined "sound basic education" more exactly, as the "opportunity for a meanin......
-
Woods v. Rondout Valley Central School
...tilts more favorably toward its immunity claim. Nor does it appear that it could do so. In Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 100 N.Y.2d 893, 905, 769 N.Y.S.2d 106, 110, 801 N.E.2d 326 (2003), the New York Court of Appeals observed that, in the 1996-97 school year, local communities......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...(160.) 616 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1994). (161.) Id. at 855-56. (162.) Id. at 856. (163.) Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 801 N.E.2d 326 (N.Y. (164.) See, e.g., Pendleton Sch. Dist. 16R v. State, 200 P.3d 133, 141 (Or. 2009) (en banc) (agreeing with plaintiffs' demand for a "......
-
Safeguarding the right to a sound basic education in times of fiscal constraint.
...participants in the political system, and competitors both economically and intellectually"); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 801 N.E.2d 326, 330-33, 337 (N.Y. 2003) [hereinafter CFE II] (defining "sound basic education" in terms of providing students with a "meaningful high scho......
-
Rethinking constitutional welfare rights.
...to educate children but was instead based on former spending levels and political compromise"); Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. New York, 801 N.E.2d 326, 348 (N.Y. 2003) (observing that "the political process allocates to [New York] City schools a share of state aid that does not bear a perce......
-
Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy v. Heineman, 273 Neb. 531, 731 N.w.2d 164 (2007)--the Political Question Doctrine: a Thin Black Line Between Judicial Deference and Judicial Review
...See, e.g., Neeley v. W. Orange-Cove Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 176 S.W.3d 746 (Tex. 2005); Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State, 801 N.E.2d 326 (N.Y. 2003); Abbeville County Sch. Dist. v. State, 515 S.E.2d 535 (S.C. 1999). The appellants list 15 states that have found the issue justici......