Title: Brigham v. State

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Brigham v. State  (96-502); 166 Vt. 246; 692 A.2d 384

[Filed 05-Feb-1997]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                            No. 96-502

Amanda Brigham, et al.                      Supreme Court

                                            On Appeal from
     v.                                          Lamoille Superior Court

State of Vermont                            December Term, 1996

John P. Meaker, J.

       Robert A. Gensburg, St. Johnsbury, Joshua Diamond of Diamond &
  Associates, Inc., Montpelier, Franklin L. Kochman of Kochman & Smith,
  Burlington, Mitchell L. Pearl of Langrock Sperry & Wool, Middlebury, David
  Putter, Montpelier, and Peter Welch of Welch, Graham & Manby, White River
  Junction, for plaintiffs-appellees

       Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Geoffrey A. Yudien and
  Ronald A. Shems, Assistant Attorneys General, Montpelier, for
  defendant-appellant

PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.

       PER CURIAM.   In this appeal, we decide that the current system for
  funding public education in Vermont, with its substantial dependence on
  local property taxes and resultant wide disparities in revenues available
  to local school districts, deprives children of an equal educational
  opportunity in violation of the Vermont Constitution.  In reaching this
  conclusion, we acknowledge the conscientious and ongoing efforts of the
  Legislature to achieve equity in educational financing and intend no
  intrusion upon its prerogatives to define a system consistent with
  constitutional requirements.  In this context, the Court's duty today is
  solely to define the impact of the State Constitution on educational
  funding, not to fashion and impose a solution.  The remedy at this juncture
  properly lies with the Legislature.

       When we consider the evidence in the record before us, and apply the
  Education and Common Benefits Clauses of the Vermont Constitution to that
  evidence, see Vt. Const. ch. I, art. 7 and ch. II, § 68, the conclusion
  becomes inescapable that the present system has fallen 

 

  short of providing every school-age child in Vermont an equal
  educational opportunity.  This duty was eloquently described in Brown v.
  Board of Education,