Randolph County Bd. of Educ. v. Adams
| Citation | 196 W.Va. 9,467 S.E.2d 150 |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 22902,22902 |
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Parties | , 107 Ed. Law Rep. 324 RANDOLPH COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Chris ADAMS, et al., Defendants Below, Appellees. |
3. Section 1 of Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution creates a strong presumption in favor of making everything that is deemed a necessary component to public education cost-free. When a board of education seeks to charge parents for their children's participation in public education, the board bears a heavy burden in rebutting this constitutionally based presumption.
4. Syllabus Point 1, Jarrett Printing Co. v. Riley, 188 W.Va. 393, 424 S.E.2d 738 (1992).
5. Syllabus Point 2, Jarrett Printing Co. v. Riley, 188 W.Va. 393, 424 S.E.2d 738 (1992).
7. Whatever items are deemed necessary to accomplish the goals of a school system and are in fact an integral fundamental part of the elementary and secondary education must be provided free of charge to all students in order to comply with the constitutional mandate of a free school system pursuant to Section 1 of Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph County, John Henning, Judge.
Harry M. Rubenstein, Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise, Morgantown, John O. Kizer, Kay, Casto, Chaney, Love & Wise, Charleston, David W. Hart, Prosecuting Attorney, Elkins, for Appellant.
Earl W. Maxwell, Elkins, for Appellees.
The plaintiff below and appellant herein, Randolph County Board of Education (Board), appeals from an order of the Circuit Court of Randolph County, which held in a declaratory judgment action that it was unconstitutional
[196 W.Va. 13] for the Board to charge parents of non-needy school children a book user fee for school books and materials necessary for the completion of the "required school curriculum."
On July 26, 1993, the Board, after losing a levy at the polls, established a book user fee for non-needy school children. The Board asserts that the "driving force" behind the fee system was the serious financial difficulties of the school system. According to the Board, its deficit at the end of the 1993-94 school year was $490,000. The deficit purportedly grew to $800,000 at the end of the 1994-95 school year. 1 The parents of kindergarten children were charged $30.00, parents of first through sixth graders were charged $60.00, and parents of junior and senior high school students were charged $80.00. The Board based the fee system on a recommendation from the Textbook Funding Committee which obtained information from various school systems.
The Board reduced the book user fee by one-half for the 1994-95 school year so parents of kindergarten children paid $15.00, first through sixth graders paid $30.00, and junior and senior high school students paid $40.00. The decision to reduce the fee was based, in part, on the fact that no new textbooks were adopted for the 1994-95 school year.
According to the defendants below and appellees herein, 2 the Board's book user fee essentially amounted to tuition because the fee was mandatory on a non-needy basis regardless of what type of books and materials was given to the child and regardless of whether the parents purchased textbooks through private vendors. The Board claims, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that no student was deprived of a textbook or restricted from school based on nonpayment of the book user fee. The Board created a standard for classifying students by economic need by relying on a list of children actually receiving reduced cost or free meals through a school lunch program. The book user fee was ultimately imposed only upon the 40 percent of students deemed non-needy (60 percent of the students in the Randolph County School system were participating in the free or reduced school lunch program). However, parents whose children qualified for free or reduced meals but chose not to participate were charged the book user fee. No procedure was established to separate children who may have been needy and qualified under other need based programs and either chose not to apply or simply failed to apply for assistance. According to the defendants, the book user fee was specifically designed to equal the amount needed for the deficit in purchasing books. 3
On June 7, 1994, the Board filed a petition for declaratory judgment directing over one hundred parties (single parents and married couples who were parents of school children) to pay the book user fee. In response, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendants asserted the book user fee was unconstitutional and the Board's establishment of the fee was ultra vires.
The circuit court held hearings on August 22, September 1, and October 24, 1994. On December 13, 1994, the circuit court ruled the book user fee was unconstitutional and dismissed the Board's suit. The circuit court held: "[I]t is unconstitutional for the Randolph County Board of Education to charge for textbooks and materials necessary for the completion of the required school curriculum and those textbooks and materials necessary for completion of the required school curriculum must be provided free of charge."
In this appeal, we are asked to clarify, if not define, what is meant in the West Virginia Constitution by "free schools." This case is our second encounter with the "free schools" language in Section 1 of Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution. In Vandevender v. Cassell, 158 W.Va. 87, 208 S.E.2d 436 (1974), we left unresolved the very question presented in this appeal. Thus, the specific question before us today is unanswered by binding precedent of this Court. The textbook user fee system at issue was adopted by the Board in response to an unfortunate reality: the rejection of a school levy by the citizens of Randolph County that, if passed, would have avoided the necessity for the adoption of such a fee. Nevertheless, we now determine that the "free schools" clause prevents local school authorities from charging students and their parents a fee for the use of necessary textbooks. In voiding the fee under the West Virginia Constitution, we attempt to avoid engrafting upon this constitutional provision a judicial gloss so protean, elusive, or arbitrary as to prevent the political branches from performing their mandatory constitutional function of providing "for a thorough and efficient system of free schools." Our cautious approach in construing Section 1, therefore, is intended not to excessively encroach on the powers which the Constitution has reserved for the Legislature.
This appeal arises from the circuit court's granting of a pretrial motion to dismiss in a declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, our review of the issue arising from this dismissal is plenary. As we recently noted in Syllabus Point 3 of Cox v. Amick, 195 W.Va. 608, 466 S.E.2d 459 (1995):
"A circuit court's entry of a declaratory judgment is reviewed de novo."
Similarly, in Syllabus Point 2 of State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995), we stated:
"Appellate review of a circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo."
Most importantly, the issue presented in this appeal is a matter of construction of our Constitution and mandates de novo review by this Court.
The "free schools" clause contained in Section 1 of Article XII of the West Virginia Constitution provides: "The Legislature shall provide, by general law, for a thorough and efficient system of free schools." Its central mandate is to require equal and quality educational opportunities for all West Virginians. Though the application of this imperative raises difficult choices and questions, the framers of our Constitution enacted Section 1 to facilitate public access to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kanawha Cnty. Pub. Library Bd., Corp. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Cnty. of Kanawha
...to review legislative and administrative attempts to alter what are alleged as constitutional mandates.” Randolph Co. Bd. of Educ. v. Adams, 196 W.Va. 9, 24, 467 S.E.2d 150, 165 (1995). That the statute at issue is subject to equal protection analysis is fairly self-evident by virtue of the......
-
State ex rel. Carenbauer v. Hechler
...find that this behavior is simply outside the express terms of our social compact. As we recognized in Randolph County Board of Education v. Adams, 196 W.Va. 9, 467 S.E.2d 150 (1995), "[w]hen the Constitution is silent on a particular issue, the solution cannot be found in a methodology tha......
-
State v. Beaver
...ordinary principles employed in statutory construction must be applied to ascertain 26 such intent." Randolph Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Adams, 196 W.Va. 9, 16 n. 8, 15, 467 S.E.2d 150, 157 n.8 (1995). We find that the language of the "free schools" clause is clear and its meaning is plain-the L......
-
Cathe A. v. Doddridge County Bd. of Educ.
...Our appellate review of a circuit court's interpretation of the West Virginia Constitution is also de novo. Randolph Co. Bd. of Educ. v. Adams, 196 W.Va. 9, 467 S.E.2d 150 (1995). C. The Safe Schools Act--Facial Constitutional Analysis Syllabus Point 3 of Pauley v. Kelly, 162 W.Va. 672, 255......
-
"virtual" Schools: Real Discrimination
...of whether current education statutes allow similar costs, see infra Part IV.B. 91. See generally Randolph County Bd. of Educ. v. Adams, 467 S.E.2d 150 (W. Va. 1995) (providing a compilation and explanation of how other courts have analyzed the constitutionality of student fees). It is impo......