Kukor v. Grover
| Decision Date | 22 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1544,86-1544 |
| Citation | 148 Wis.2d 469,436 N.W.2d 568 |
| Parties | , 52 Ed. Law Rep. 241 David J. KUKOR, Christopher A. Kukor, Glen W. Kukor, Mark Czerwinski, Renee Czerwinski, Jean Czerwinski, Jill Czerwinski, Eric Czerwinski, David Czerwinski, Dieter Czerwinski, Julie Harling, Pamela Harling, Stephanie Harling, Eric Bates, David Bates, Douglas Bates, Paulette M. Eddie, Percy E. Eddie, Lillian A. Eddie, Patrick O. Eddie, Antrice L. Eddie, Martha Swigart, Kristin Kreuzer, Richard Kreuzer II, Amalia Kreuzer, Jenny Tooley, Henry Brumirski, Terrence Brumirski, Denise Swiderski, Barbara Tibbits, Todd Tibbits, Timothy Tibbits, and Vickie Tibbits, minor residents of the City and County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin, by Howard B. Schoenfeld, their Guardian ad Litem, on behalf of themselves and all other children in the City and County of Milwaukee similarly situated; Cynthia Broydrick, Brian Czerwinski, Harry A. Morris, Mary J. Morris, Joseph Bates, Sharon Bates, William James, Velma James, Stephen Swigart, Frances Swigart, Richard Kreuzer, Susan Kreuzer, Russell R. Tooley, Mary Tooley, Dominik Brumirski, Arleen Brumirski, John Swiderski, Betty Swiderski, Benjamin Tibbits, and Jean Tibbits, adult residents of the City and County of Milwaukee, State of Wisconsin, on behalf of themselves and all other parents in the City and County of Milwaukee similarly situated; Lois Riley, Margaret Dinges, Michael Elconin, Gerald P. Farley, Stephen Jesmok, Jr., Peggy Kenner, James F. Koneazny, Marian McEvilly, Edward S. Michalski, Lawrence J. O'Neil, Lorraine M. Radtke, Doris Stacy, Leon W. Todd, Jr., Henry W. Maier, Roy B. Nabors, John R. Kalwitz, Sandra Hoeh, Kevin D. O'Connor, Rod Lanser, Ben E. Johnson, Robert M. Weber, Wayne P. Frank, James Kondziella, Betty Voss, Joan Soucie, Clifford A. Draeger, Robert L. Spaulding and Gregory G. Gorak, as taxpayers and residents of Milwaukee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, * Rochelle Bethia, James Blask, Jennifer Giradot, Debbie Narloch, Kevin O'Connell, and Daniel Walsh, minor residents of the West Allis-West Milwauk |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Alan Marcuvitz, and Howard B. Schoenfeld, argued; Fiorenza & Hayes, S.C., on brief, Milwaukee, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Daniel D. Stier, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom on the brief was Donald J. Hanaway, Atty. Gen., for defendants-respondents.
Bruce Meredith, Madison, amicus curiae, for Wisconsin Educ. Ass'n council.
Michael J. Julka, Jean M. Williams, and Lathrop & Clark, Madison, amicus curiae for Wisconsin Ass'n of School Boards, Inc.
This case is before the court on certification from the court of appeals, pursuant to sec. (Rule) 809.61, Stats., and is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County, William C. Sachtjen, reserve circuit judge, dismissing the appellants' complaint. The issue presented concerns the constitutionality of the statutory school finance system set forth under ch. 121, Stats. The constitutional challenge consists of two prongs. First, appellants assert that the system of school finance is unconstitutional for the reason that it fails to meet the requirement of art. X, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution that "[t]he legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable...." Second, appellants assert that the school finance system is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection provision of art. I, sec. 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The circuit court determined that the finance system survived both challenges and, consequently, entered a judgment dismissing the complaint. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
We commence our analysis by summarizing the statutory scheme under consideration. The general public school finance scheme of equalization has remained in principal part substantially the same as the system existed when addressed by this court in Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis.2d 550, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976). Those changes to ch. 121, Stats., which are relevant to certain of the challenged deficiencies in the school finance system will be discussed, where appropriate, below.
Schools in Wisconsin are funded by a combination of state, local and, to a lesser extent, federal funds. 1 The state share of the cost of public education consists of equalization aid and categorical grants. Equalization aid, distributed under the state general aid formula, distributes the largest proportion of state aid, 2 and it is this formula that is challenged in the present action. The purpose underlying the current statutory equalization formula is as follows:
It is declared to be the policy of this state that education is a state function and that some relief should be afforded from the local general property tax as a source of public school revenue where such tax is excessive, and that other sources of revenue should contribute a larger percentage of the total funds needed. It is further declared that in order to provide reasonable equality of educational opportunity for all the children of this state, the state must guarantee that a basic educational opportunity be available to each pupil, but that the state should be obligated to contribute to the educational program only if the school district provides a program which meets state standards. It is the purpose of the state aid formula set forth in this subchapter to cause the state to assume a greater proportion of the costs of public education and to relieve the general property of some of its tax burden.
Section 121.01, Stats. 3 The state general aid formula responds to the articulated purpose by providing for equalization of the property tax bases up to a certain level. The operation of the general state aid formula may be broadly explained as follows:
The local tax base available for the education of each child may be determined by dividing the district's equalized valuation by its membership. The resulting equalized valuation per member varies widely, from a low of $77,927 to a high of $988,561 for districts offering grades kindergarten through 12 in [1985-86]. Obviously, if the local tax base provided the only source of revenue available to the local school district, the quality of education would likely vary widely among schools, depending on the ability of each district to raise sufficient property tax for operation of the schools.
The state general aid formula provides for equalization of the property tax base. A tax base of $270,100 [in 1985-86] is guaranteed to support education costs for each pupil in K-12 districts. If the district tax base falls below that amount, the state general aid formula supplements the local tax base up to the guaranteed tax base level.
Basic Facts (1986-87), Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, at D-1 (emphasis in original) [hereinafter Basic Facts]. The equalization formula consists primarily of two levels of sharing: primary and secondary school costs. 4 The primary shared cost is the amount of a district's costs which is less than the primary ceiling cost determined by the legislature, and the secondary shared costs are those costs which exceed the ceiling. 5 The extent to which the state contributes to the shared costs depends upon the difference between the property value of each district (the "equalized valuation") and the guaranteed valuation. See sec. 121.08, Stats. The equalized valuation is the full value of the taxable property in a school district. Sections 121.004(2) and 121.06, Stats. The primary guaranteed valuation per member is based upon the appropriation for general equalization aids, sec. 121.07(7)(a), Stats., and is higher than the secondary guaranteed valuation per member which equals 106% of the state's actual average equalized valuation. 6 Guaranteed valuation is determined by multiplying these amounts by the number of pupils enrolled in the respective districts. See sec. 121.004(7), Stats. (definition of pupils). As we observed in Buse, the lower secondary guaranteed valuation serves as a "built-in disincentive" against spending above the primary shared cost ceiling. 74 Wis.2d at 558, 247 N.W.2d 141.
Where the primary guaranteed valuation exceeds the equalized valuation, this difference is multiplied by the primary required levy rate to determine primary state aid. Section 121.08, Stats. The primary required levy rate, or mill rate, is the primary shared cost divided by the primary guaranteed valuation, with both figures computed as explained above. Section 121.07(10)(b), Stats. Simply stated, the required levy rate is determined by dividing the amount of money which needs to be received by the guaranteed value of the property to be taxed. Where shared costs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. Superintendent of Schools of Worcester
... ... in Article XII, Section 1 of our Constitution"); Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d ... Page 1102 ... 469, 496, 498, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989) ("we do agree with appellants that 'equal opportunity for ... ...
-
Montoy v. State
... ... ) (finding education is fundamental right under state constitution's mandatory requirement of "thorough and efficient system of free schools"); Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 496, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989) ("`[E]qual opportunity for education' is a fundamental right," as emphasized by Wisconsin's ... ...
-
Estate of Makos by Makos v. Wisconsin Masons Health Care Fund
...statute does not implicate "fundamental rights" or "suspect classifications," the rational basis test applies. See Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 495, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989). The statute "must be sustained unless it is patently arbitrary and bears no rational relationship to a legitimate g......
-
Jackson v. Benson
... ... See id. at § 119.23(5)(a) ... ¶8 The original MPCP withstood a number of state constitutional challenges in Davis v. Grover, 166 Wis.2d 501, 480 N.W.2d 460 (1992). In Davis, this court first held that the original program, when enacted, was not a private or local bill and ... See id. at 537-38, 480 N.W.2d 460 (citing State ex rel. Comstock v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 1, 65 Wis. 631, 636-37, 27 N.W. 829 (1886) and Kukor v. Grover, 148 Wis.2d 469, 496-97, 436 N.W.2d 568 (1989)); accord Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis.2d 550, 565, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976); Reuter, 44 Wis.2d at ... ...
-
State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.
...Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Washington, 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978) (p); Pauley v. Kelly, 255 S.E.2d 859 (W. Va. 1979) (p); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568 (Wis. 1989) (S); Washakie County Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo. 1980) (P). Note that two states, Arizona and Ohio, init......
-
HOW DO JUDGES DECIDE SCHOOL FINANCE CASES?
...last resort WI 1976 74 Wis. 2d 550 Court of last resort WI 1986 [Unreported] Trial court WI 1987 [Unreported] Intermediate court WI 1989 148 Wis. 2d 469 Court of last resort WI 1997 [Unreported] Trial court WI 1998 223 Wis. 2d 799 Intermediate court WI 2000 236 Wis. 2d 588 Court of last res......
-
Educational issues and judicial oversight.
...the state constitution imposes a "paramount duty" that is "supreme, preeminent or dominant" (emphasis omitted)); Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568, 579-80 (Wis. 1989) (finding a fundamental right but refusing to apply strict (60) Serrano v. Priest (Serrano I), 487 P.2d 1241, 1250 (Cal. 1971).......
-
Christopher E. Adams, Is Economic Integration the Fourth Wave in School Finance Litigation?
...therefore, state system does not satisfy even rational basis). 56 See LUKEMEYER, supra note 44, at 44-47. 57 See, e.g., Kukor v. Grover, 436 N.W.2d 568, 580 (Wis. 1989) (applying rational-basis standard). 58 Id. 59 YUDOF ET AL., supra note 29, at 811-12; William S. Koski & Rob Reich, When "......