Opinion ID: 2131483
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: local control under art. x, sec. 4.

Text: [7] The language of art. X, sec. 3, provides that district schools were to be established by the state, that is, schools in each separate district. Art. X, sec. 4, requires that each town and city raise tax . . . for the support of common schools therein, . . . (Emphasis added.) Thus the clear implication is that the various districts, at least as to a part of the funding of their schools, did possess some measure of control. Experience Estabrook, Chairman of the Constitutional Committee on Education and School Funds, expressed his rationale for the minimum local tax requirement of art. X, sec. 4, as follows: . . . It was intended that whatever the amount of the school fund might be, one-third of the expense of supporting schools, should be borne by each town. If a sufficient sum was not contributed by the school fund, the towns should have power to raise more. This provision was directly for the advantage of the poor. The gentleman who had last spoken, might not appreciate this; but a poor man with a family of children, and no fancy lots to dispose of, could understand the advantage. Experience had shown that if nothing was contributed by the town, the common schools languished, and select schools rose on their ruins. The school fund of Connecticut was so large as to be sufficient to defray the expenses of the education of every child within the limits of the state. Yet there, until a year or two, the district school-system had declined. No adequate interest was felt by the people, in common schools, unless they contributed to their support. To obviate this danger, the committee had inserted the section. Journal and Debates Constitutional Convention 1847-48, p. 335. With the adoption of the constitution and the creation of the state, the subject of public education became an expressed concern of the state, with the state assuming the control of the establishment and operation of district schools. Respondents seem to argue that the very nature of the subject makes that power an unlimited plenary power over education. While the state's power over education is extensive, there remains some local control. In the forward to Coons, Clune and Sugarman, Private Wealth and Public Education (1970), at p. vii, Professor James S. Coleman described the basic competing forces underlying the development of education in America: THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION SINCE the industrial revolution shows a continual struggle between two forces; the desire by members of society to have educational opportunity for all children, and the desire of each family to provide the best education it can afford for its own children. . . . That the framers of the constitution recognized the importance of local interest and some measure of local control over local schools is evident from the statement of Experience Estabrook set forth herein. Sec. 40 of ch. 19 of the Revised statutes of 1849 first manifested a construction of the state-local division of power in school matters when it empowered district boards to teach, in addition to those required subjects any . . . such other branches of education as may be determined upon by the board. Provisions similar to sec. 40 have been included in the Wis. Stats., since 1849. (See sec. 118.01 and secs. 120.12-120.13, Stats.) The grant of power embodied in sec. 40, ch. 19, of the Revised statutes of 1849, and subsequent similar statutes could be termed a delegated power and not a constitutionally granted power. School districts are after all, but arms of the state, carrying out state duties. Nevertheless, the power to determine educational subjects over and above those imposed by the state is a necessary adjunct to the constitutionally granted power of localities to raise revenues for the support of schools therein, art. X, sec. 4. Localities are empowered to raise funds for education, and to spend those funds for educational purposes over and above those required by the state. Considering the expressed provisions of art. X, sec. 4; the expressed concern of the framers of the constitution that local interest in local school systems be maintained; and the contemporaneous construction evidenced by sec. 40, ch. 19, Revised statutes of 1849, it is evident that the power possessed by local districts to determine what educational subjects it will offer over and above those required by the state, and to raise funds therefor, is not merely a delegated power. Rather the state-local control dichotomy in that limited regard is part and parcel of the constitution. That dichotomy has been an essential feature of our educational system since the adoption of the constitution and that fact in itself is entitled to some weight. Board of Education v. Sinclair, supra . Local districts retain the control to provide educational opportunities over and above those required by the state and they retain the power to raise and spend revenue . . . for the support; of common schools therein, . . . (Emphasis added.) These rights of the local districts have their foundations in the constitution.