Opinion ID: 1936279
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dispositive issue

Text: This case concerns the constitutionality of the Michigan public school financing system. The nature of this action is a complaint for declaratory judgment brought October 15, 1971 in the Ingham County Circuit Court by the Attorney General and the Governor to test the constitutionality of the Michigan public school financing system on the grounds of violation of the equal protection clauses of the Michigan and United States Constitutions. The State Treasurer and the Bloomfield Hills, Dearborn and Grosse Pointe school districts, all with high state equalized valuation per pupil, were named defendants. The Governor having on December 3, 1971 addressed an Executive Message to the Supreme Court adverting to the above case or controversy as having controlling questions of public law of such public moment as to require early determination, this Court ordered the Ingham Court to certify such questions and take appropriate proofs, permitting the intervention and representation of school children in alleged economically disadvantaged districts. Subsequently, certain tax-paying parents of public school children in disadvantaged school districts intervened as plaintiffs and as representatives of the class of tax-paying parents of school children in disadvantaged school districts. On May 8, 1972 the circuit court filed its findings of fact. This case is unique in this country in two respects. First, as one defendant's brief points out, [t]he Michigan Supreme Court, however, unlike all the courts in the foregoing cases [some finding constitutionality and some unconstitutionality] is presented with unrebutted evidence which destroys plaintiffs' assumption that the quality of a child's education is a function of the wealth of the school district in which he resides. [1] Second, as will be immediately made clear, the basis for decision in this case need not be and is not the broad philosophical questions posited in the certified questions argued by both plaintiffs and defendants here and the dispositive issue generally speaking in the other cases in this area throughout the country and referred to in the defendant's brief above. The reason this Court need not consider the broad philosophical question posited in the certified questions is that the excellent briefs of all parties and the oral arguments make clear that the dispositive question in the case at bar depends upon the much narrower and objective question posed by the specific language of the Michigan Constitution which controls the Michigan public school financing system. Art 8, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution reads: The legislature shall maintain and support a system of free public elementary and secondary schools as defined by law. This is a very simple and direct mandate to finance schools without any room or necessity for speculation as to whether the wealth of the school district affects the quality of a child's education. The only real question this provision leaves open is whether or not the Legislature's action maintains and supports free public schools equally or, if not equally, with valid classifications. As a consequence, the issue in this case is posited as follows. The language of the certified question is used for almost the whole predicate but new language is substituted for the verb and object. The new language for convenience is put in capitals and the old language not used is included in brackets afterwards. This is the issue considered by this Court and is a correction of the certified question: Does the Michigan public school financing system, consisting of local, general ad valorem property taxes and state school aid appropriations, by relying on the wealth of local school districts as measured by the state equalized valuation of taxable property per student which results in substantial INEQUALITY OF MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS, DENY the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article I, Section 2 of the Michigan Constitution? [disparities of revenue produced per student, invidiously discriminate against and deny substantially equal educational opportunity to students in violation of]. The facts in this case are not in contention and most of them are jointly stipulated to. As the quoted certified question indicates and no one denies, the Michigan public school financing system is a combined system of property taxes raised by school districts and a grant of state aid. It is incontrovertible that the differences in property tax bases create revenue inequalities among the school districts. The state aid formula from year to year has sought to equalize these inequalities and has reduced them. Substantial inequalities still remain, however. None of this is denied.