CCJEF
v. Rell Overview
Connecticut Supreme Court Faces Historic Question:
Do Children Have the Right to an
Adequate Education?
The
most important, far-reaching education case in this state in 30 years awaits
a late summer decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court. The outcome of the
CCJEF v. Rell appeal is expected to determine whether Connecticut
schoolchildren have the right to an adequate education. The state argues
that schoolchildren do not, that even a poor quality
education meets constitutional muster and is an inappropriate concern for
the courts.
On November 22, 2005,
fifteen students and their families from across the state brought an action
in the Hartford Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of
Connecticut’s broken education system. The Connecticut Coalition for
Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) helped bring the case to ensure that
the interests of all schoolchildren, whether they attend large urban,
urban-ring, suburban, or rural school districts, are similarly represented
in this action.
The CCJEF v. Rell
complaint alleges that the state’s failure to suitably and equitably fund
its public schools has irreparably harmed thousands of Connecticut
schoolchildren by limiting their future ability to take full advantage of
the nation’s democratic processes and institutions, to secure meaningful
employment in the competitive high-skills/high-wage global marketplace, and
to successfully continue their education beyond high school. The
state’s failure to provide plaintiff schoolchildren with opportunities to
meet the state’s own learning standards has resulted in a system that fails
Connecticut’s students and offends the Connecticut constitution. The
complaint also alleges that the state’s systemic school funding failure
disproportionately impacts African-American, Latino, and other minority
students, in violation of the Connecticut constitution and federal law.
In a September 2007
pre-trial ruling, Hartford Superior Court Judge Joseph Shortall dismissed
three of the four causes of action, ruling that schoolchildren have no right
to a “suitable” education under the Connecticut constitution. This
essentially gutted the case of its education adequacy claims, leaving intact
only the unchallenged equity claim.
CCJEF immediately
appealed. In light of the profound public policy ramifications of this case
for schoolchildren, school boards, and municipalities, the Connecticut
Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal on an expedited basis. In the
ensuing few months, briefs were filed by the parties. In addition, numerous
municipal, business, education, and advocacy organizations filed amicus
briefs on behalf of plaintiffs/appellants, arguing that the substantive
rights of schoolchildren to a quality education are essential to success in
the workplace and higher education and to full participation in a democratic
society. No amicus briefs were filed in support of the state’s position.
Oral arguments took place
before the Connecticut Supreme Court on April 22, 2008. Watch the
Connecticut Television Network’s broadcast of those proceedings online at
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ondemand.asp?ID=3511.
Arguing on behalf of
CCJEF and the other plaintiffs before the five-member panel of Supreme Court
Justices were second-year law student David Noah and third-year law student
Neil Weare, both members of the Yale Law School Education Adequacy Clinic.
The Clinic has served pro bono as CCJEF’s legal counsel since the coalition
was founded in 2004. Currently some fourteen law students work under the
supervision of Prof. Robert Solomon and other Yale Law School faculty.
Sitting in the front row
of the crowded courtroom was Judge Simon Bernstein, the 95-year-old author
of the education clause that now lies at the heart of the CCJEF appeal. A
delegate at the 1965 Connecticut Constitutional Convention, Judge Bernstein
had successfully introduced the education clause and championed its
ratification. Now, some 43 years later, he had filed an amicus brief on
behalf of CCJEF and traveled to Hartford to lend his support to the Yale Law
students and to make certain that his message was heard by the media and
legislators: The intent of the education clause, he noted, was to ensure
schoolchildren a good education, not merely an adequate one. Watch
his Connecticut Television Network interview online, together with a legal
briefing of the appeal, at
http://www.ctn.state.ct.us/ondemand.asp?ID=3494.
The Supreme Court decision in this case is
expected sometime in late summer or early fall.
This lawsuit has already produced progress.
CCJEF’s filing of the lawsuit and ongoing advocacy efforts directly led to
the formation of the Governor’s Commission on Education Finance in 2006 and
to the subsequent increases in education funding that were passed by the
2007 Legislature. Although these are steps in the right direction, CCJEF
members believe that providing suitable and substantially equal educational
opportunities to the children of Connecticut will require much more —
including a comprehensive reform of the fiscal infrastructure for education
to put into place a state aid formula that is based on the learning needs of
students and the real cost of delivering high-quality education in each
community, and which is paid for by a rebalanced/restructured revenue system
that lessens the reliance on Grand Lists and property taxes by substantially
shifting the funding burden to the state in accordance with its
constitutional obligation.
