Court Opinion

ID: 9668370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:10:38.522245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:44.558495
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
(dissenting). The majority characterizes this case as one of “spending disparities.” That is not at all the focus of this case. The primary issue is whether the state, through its system of school financing, has met its constitutional obligation to provide an equal opportunity for educa*516tion to all children of this state, rich and poor alike. As the record amply demonstrates, it has not.
Every member of this court agrees on four basic points:
1) that it is a fundamental right of every child in this state to have an equal opportunity for education;
2) that the state is constitutionally mandated to provide that opportunity;
3) that the method the state has chosen to fulfill its constitutional responsibility is the statutorily created system of financing K-12 public education;
4) that the trial record clearly establishes that the educational needs of a significant number of school children in this state, primarily those from high poverty districts, are very great, and these needs are not being met. These children come to school unready to learn. Compensatory education programs are unavailable to remedy their learning deficiencies. Supportive services and exceptional educational needs are insufficient to assist them. The little money that is channeled into these programs comes at the expense of the regular educational programs, thereby “shorting” the regular programs. The result, as one educator at trial stated, is that “until you meet those (social and emotional) needs, you’re not going to be doing much educating....” Circuit Court dec. at 18.
The reason these educational needs are not being met was established beyond any doubt in the trial court: the state system of financing K-12 public education is fundamentally flawed.
The fundamental flaw of the state formula is that it distributes dollars without regard to educational needs. It assumes that every child in this state begins his or her educational journey from the same starting point. If all children began that journey from the same *517starting point, then the formula would provide no constitutional objection: every child would start with the same opportunity. That may well have been the reality, with few exceptions, in 1848. It is not even close to reality today. The result is that a significant number of school children in this state are denied an equal opportunity to become educated people.
To use an analogy which everyone can understand, while a majority of our children are handed the “educational ball” on the twenty yard line, a significant number are handed this ball on the one yard line with a three-hundred pound lineman on their back. Unquestionably both groups of youngsters have the “opportunity” to score an educational touchdown. The opportunity, however, is far from equal.
I conclude that the uniformity clause of art. X, sec. 3, of the Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the state provide a character of instruction in the state schools such that each child is provided with a uniform opportunity to become an educated person. Neither absolute uniformity nor absolute equality is required. The funding may come in part from the state and part from local government, or in whole from the state. However it comes, the opportunity to become an educated person must be relatively equal across the state. To use the analogy once more, the uniformity clause does not mandate that the character of instruction be such that everyone must score a touchdown; it does mandate that everyone on the playing field have an equal opportunity to do so. Because the state has the constitutional responsibility to provide this equal opportunity, and because it has failed to do so, I respectfully dissent.
*518HH
The majority opinion recognizes, as did a unanimous court in Buse v. Smith, 74 Wis. 2d 550, 567, 247 N.W.2d 141 (1976), that equal educational opportunity is a fundamental right, grounded in art. X, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution. That this is so is readily gleaned from a review of the constitutional convention proceedings of 1846 and 1848.
What emerges from those proceedings is a recognition of the value of education, and a commitment to provide everyone, rich and poor alike, an equal opportunity to become an educated person. The framers were resolved that this opportunity be free to all, and that it be the state’s responsibility to implement this right and provide the primary financial support. In addition, the framers determined that the local population of the respective school districts provide some measure of financial support in order to maintain local interest.1
The first four sections of art. X which emerged in 1848 were intended to remedy the patchwork system of district schools common during the territorial years. Article X contained all of the elements necessary for a system of education provided for and overseen at the state level. The first section, cited in full below,2 *519established the office of state superintendent and provided for statewide supervision to guarantee the goal of a statewide system. The second section3 secured the school lands as the basis of state support for the district schools, a source of funds that most felt would fund the entire system munificently. The third section4 made it clear that the state had the constitutional responsibility to implement the system. The fourth section5 described the responsibilities of the two small political units involved in statewide education, the towns and cities.
Section 3, the focus of this case, engendered no debate at either constitutional convention. This court has traditionally interpreted sec. 3 by looking to the constitutional debates surrounding the education article and by considering the conditions and practices which existed in 1848.
*520Article X, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution reads in part, as follows: “The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable. ...”
Although the Buse court unanimously recognized that equal opportunity for education is a fundamental right defined in art. X, sec. 3, we have never had the occasion to define precisely that term. This court has determined that the uniformity requirement refers to the “character of instruction” provided in the district schools. State ex rel. Zilisch v. Auer, 197 Wis. 284, 289-90, 221 N.W. 860 (1928).
Character of instruction has been more recently expressed as “services, procedures, opportunities or rules” provided in district schools. Zweifel v. Joint Dist. No. 1, Belleville, 76 Wis. 2d 648, 653, 251 N.W. 2d 822 (1977).
Although this court has never precisely defined the term “equal opportunity for education,” we have stated that the uniformity clause refers to “the character of instruction” that should be provided in district schools, and we have referred to the character of instruction that should be provided as denoting “‘the training that these schools should give to the future citizens of Wisconsin.’” Buse, 74 Wis. 2d at 566 (quoting Zilisch, 197 Wis. at 289-90).
The constitutional requirement that the schools provide training for the future citizens of Wisconsin is common to other state constitutions. It has generally been defined as embracing broad educational opportunities needed to equip children for their roles as citizens, participants in the political system, and competitors in both the labor market and the marketplace of ideas. See Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473, 303 A. 2d 273, cert. denied, 414 U.S. 976, 295 (1973); Seattle *521Sch. Dist. No. 1 of King Cty. v. State, 90 Wash. 2d 476, 585 P.2d 71, 94 (1978).
Our constitutional history is rich with references to the importance of education and the need for it to be provided free to rich and poor alike. Consistent concern was expressed that our educational system be “suited to the entire wants of our varied population, and our extended Territory.” Croswell Report, Committee On Common Schools 3, H.R., January 26, 1846. From this history, as well as our past cases interpreting the Education Article, I conclude that the mandate given by the uniformity clause in art. X, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution is that the state provide a character of instruction in the state schools such that all children are provided with a uniform opportunity to become equipped for their future roles as citizens, participants in the political system, and competitors both economically and intellectually. In short, the state must provide a character of instruction that allows each child an equal opportunity to become an educated person. This was the unequivocal intention of the framers of our constitution as demonstrated timé and time again in the history of our constitutional debates.
HH HH
A careful review of the circuit court s findings of fact are essential to an understanding of the problem. The circuit court held a 16 day trial in 1985. Professional educators, school administrators, academic experts on the relationship between poverty and educational needs and experts on educational finance systems testified for the plaintiffs. Their testimony was for the most part undisputed. The circuit court’s findings of *522fact are a searing indictment of the challenged system of financing K-12 public education in this state.
Plaintiffs’ evidence does show that the wide expenditure and tax effort disparities in Wisconsin school districts lead to a substantial lack of equality and uniformity in the program of instruction available to all the school children in low spending school districts, and as we have observed act as a drain on the regular program of instruction in districts with very high poverty concentrations, owing to the necessity of responding to various educational overburdens.
Circuit Court dec. at 22.
As indicated by the circuit court’s findings, the challenged school financing system falls far short of fulfilling this mandate:
1) Early childhood education. The circuit court found that districts with a high concentration of poverty students face special burdens in the area of early childhood education. Testimony was overwhelming as to the effectiveness of such programs for children with impaired readiness to learn. Yet great disparities exist across the state. Eighty-seven percent of the eligible four-year-olds in the Milwaukee School District are not served by any early childhood programs. The circuit court concluded that the evidence showed early childhood education programs overcome the problems of early deprivation to a large degree. Circuit Court dec. at 5-7.
2) Compensatory education. The circuit court also found that high poverty districts face an “extraordinary burden” in the area of compensatory education. The court noted that the need for compensatory education is the cumulative result of poverty. Poverty chil*523dren get off to a poor start at the beginning of their education and miss important elements of schooling. The circuit court concluded that “[cjompensatory education is a valuable and necessary strategy for remedying skill and attitude discontinuities which many children from poverty backgrounds bring to school. ... Compensatory services funded from the school districts’ budgets ... are not available in the school districts with the greatest need for them.” Circuit Court dec. at 9-10.
3) Supportive services. The circuit court found that the incidence of poverty in a school district greatly increases the need for supportive services — social workers, psychologists and nurses. Problems directly related in many instances to poverty — child abuse and neglect, feelings of inadequacy, fear of authority, broken homes and alcohol abuse — require poverty districts to provide an inordinate degree of supportive services. The circuit court found that the districts’ providing of supportive services does not match their burdens. Circuit Court dec. at 20.
4) Exceptional educational needs. The circuit court found that there is a relationship between the incidence of poverty and the need to provide exceptional educational services such as English language instruction and special programs for the handicapped. Circuit Court dec. at 20-21.
5) Dropout prevention programs. The circuit court found that “[i]t is a fact that the correlation between the incidence of poverty children and a need for dropout prevention programs for high-risk youth is found throughout Wisconsin.” The circuit court concluded that because drop out prevention programs are costly, districts which have a great need to provide these programs are not able to do so while districts *524which face a lesser educational task are able to provide such services to all their children. Circuit Court dec. at 13.
6) Voc-Tech programs. The circuit court found that the need for vocational education programs is high in districts where there are concentrations of poverty students. As with the other educational overburdens poverty entails, the court found that the disparities in the availability of voc-tech programs between high poverty districts and other districts was great. Circuit Court dec. at 13-14.
With respect to all of the above findings, the circuit court made a further finding regarding the impact these special needs have on regular programs in high poverty districts: “The result ... is that local revenues absorb much of the cost of these programs and this takes money away from regular programs. ...” Circuit Court dec. at 22.
h=H HH H-I
The vehicle devised by the legislature to fulfill its constitutional mandate is a statutorily created system of financing K-12 public education. The formula, which is detailed at great length in the majority opinion, consists of two basic components: 1) a local funding component which is the principal source of school funding and is wholly dependent on local tax initiatives; and 2) a state funding component which provides for the equalization of district property tax bases up to a specified level. It is a method designed not to meet the educational needs but to distribute dollars, and that is its fatal flaw. It does not address the needs of impoverished districts which are unable to raise sufficient revenues for school funding and must divert resources *525from regular programs of instruction to respond to various education overburdens. The result, as the circuit court noted, is substantial disparity in basic educational opportunity for children across Wisconsin.
The majority suggests that basic educational needs are being satisfied through this financing scheme. Majority opinion at pages 491-494. However, a close inspection of the record reveals that while some special needs of "exceptional" students are being met in overburdened school districts, such special needs programs are draining resources and staff from regular programs of instruction. For example, one school superintendent testified that because of the demand for special needs programs, his district was generally understaffed elsewhere and unable to provide the required instruction in art and music.
The majority asserts that “the rights at issue in the case before the court are premised upon spending disparities and not upon a complete denial of educational opportunity within the scope of art. X.” Majority at 498. The majority offers no sense of where it would consider “spending disparities” to stop, and “denial of equal opportunity” to begin. If this record does not offer a denial of equal opportunity of education, what record will? In today’s world, is the mere offering of a school house door with nothing more behind it than a basic education program sufficient to allow the state to wipe its hands of all other constitutional responsibility?
For a state which prides itself on its commitment to education, this cannot and should not be enough. For a state which historically has placed a high value on free public education to rich and poor alike, this record is a disgrace.
I would hold that the uniformity clause of art. X, sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution mandates that the *526state provide a character of instruction in the state schools such that each child is provided with a uniform opportunity to become an educated person. I would further hold that the school finance formula, which is the state’s only effort that is before us to fulfill its constitutional mandate, fails to do so.
Does this mean there must be absolute uniformity, absolute equality? Clearly not. The constitution does not require absolute uniformity of educational opportunity nor an equal expenditure per district. In Buse, this court correctly held that the state could not prohibit local school districts from providing educational opportunities over and above those required by the state: “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. ...’” Buse, 74 Wis. 2d at 572. (Emphasis added.) The focus in Buse was on the upper end of the spectrum, the relatively property rich districts. I agree with the plaintiffs that Buse does not compel the conclusion that wide disparities in educational opportunities cannot be reduced by raising the quality of educational opportunities for children at the lower end of the spectrum. To achieve reasonable equality in educational opportunity for those districts having disproportionately high concentrations of children with special needs (primarily the high poverty districts), there must be adequate funding allowing a district to provide not only basic courses of instruction but special needs programs to properly prepare these children for receiving such instruction, as well as other programs designed to give these children an equal opportunity to become educated citizens. The challenged school financing scheme is not designed to meet these objectives. As one school *527district superintendent testified, “[the financing formula is] not a system which is in any way directly cognizant of educational needs and tasks. It’s a system designed to create taxpayer equity, ... [the formula] doesn’t guarantee anything to school children. It’s not a mechanism designed to insure adequate levels of resources that are commensurate with the task districts face.”
Further compounding its error, the majority holds that the “preservation of local control over education” provides a rational basis justifying any disparities in per pupil expenditures and, thus, equal educational opportunity. As the majority states, “(t)o the extent that district per pupil expenditures may differ as a consequence of the operation of ch. 121, Stats., this difference is a result of decisions made at the local level — a variation whose legitimacy is grounded in the constitutional requirement that control be retained by localities." Majority at 498-499. The majority is simply wrong.
While the concept of local control over education is constitutionally-based, it has been recognized by this court in a very limited context. The dichotomy between state-local control over education in part derives from art. X, sec. 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution. This provision requires that each town and city raise tax revenues “for the support of common schools therein.” Thus, while the remainder of Article X establishes the state’s extensive power over education, consisting of the control over the establishment and operation of school districts, there remains some measure of local control. Buse, 74 Wis. 2d at 571.
However, this measure of local control has been correctly circumscribed by this court. The framers of our constitution never intended that art. X, sec. 4 *528compromise the educational powers and responsibilities of the state. The framers were concerned that unless the local citizens were compelled to provide some measure of financial support for their schools, they would lose interest in them. See Comment, supra note 1, at 1329. In Buse we stated that local control consists of two aspects: the power to raise funds for education, and the power to spend those funds for educational purposes “over and above those required by the state. ...” Buse, 74 Wis. 2d at 572. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the majority is simply wrong when it states that the “legitimacy [of the variation of per pupil expenditures] is grounded in the constitutional requirement that control be retained by localities.” Majority at 499. There is no such constitutional requirement. The only requirement discernible in sec. 4, and the only requirement supported by constitutional history, is the requirement that local government fund in part the cost of education. (Inasmuch as the local share in sec. 4 is tied to the amount received from the school fund, which today is of miniscule proportions, the amount constitutionally required from the local citizens is small indeed.)
There can be no question that sec. 4 does not prohibit local school districts from providing greater than equal educational opportunities for their school children through the expenditure of local revenue. Section 4 does not empower the localities to determine whether the basic educational opportunities afforded by their schools pass constitutional muster. It is this court’s constitutional responsibility to decide this question, and it is the legislature’s constitutional responsibility to prescribe remedies for deficiencies. Nor does sec. 4 require an impoverished school district *529to live with an underfunded and therefore inadequate school system simply because they do not have the funds to provide an equal opportunity for education in their schools. If equal educational opportunity is not provided at the local school district level, the state must see that it is provided.
The concept of local control over education is at best illusory and at worst a cruel hoax for those low tax base communities which lack the local revendes necessary to provide even basic educational opportunities in their schools. Just as the rich and the poor are equally free to sleep overnight on a park bench in the dead of winter, so too the rich and the poor school districts under the guise of local control are free to decide how much concern they really have toward education. Unfortunately for the district with municipal overburden and/or a small tax base, concern for educational opportunities must end when its tax rolls can absorb no more.
IV.
The conclusion I would reach here in invalidating the Wisconsin school finance formula is not without precedent. A review of the cases to come out of other state courts shows that a number of them, by resting their decisions on provisions of their own state constitutions, have invalidated public school financing for-mulae. The constitutional touchstone has sometimes been the state equivalent of the equal protection clause. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241, cert. denied, 432 U.S. 907 (1971); Washakie Co. Sch. Dist. No. One v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310 (Wyo.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 (1980). In other cases, the state’s responsibility for providing uniform basic *530educational opportunities has come from special state constitutional provisions relating to education. Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 376 A.2d 359 (1977) (finding education to be a fundamental right under Conn. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1 (1818), 20 (1965); Id. Art. VIII, Sec. 1 (1965); Robinson v. Cahill, 62 N.J. 473 (invoking N.J. Const. Art. IV, para. 1 (1875), granting the right to a “thorough and efficient” system of public schooling); Seattle Sch. Dist, 90 Wash. 2d 476; Dupree v. Alma School Dist. No. 30; 651 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Ark. 1983). (citing the principle that local control in actuality can be strengthened when equal protection violations are remedied).
V.
In addressing the constitutionality of the school financing formula, the majority improperly considers legislation which was not in effect at the time of the circuit court’s findings. Not one member of this court has the faintest notion the effect this legislation will have, fiscally or educationally. Does it, to any meaningful degree, alleviate the noted disparities in educational opportunity?
While I do not dismiss the legislature’s recent effort to address the deficiencies in the school financing formula, this court is simply unable to conclude, absent specific findings of fact, what effect, if any, this legislation has on the problems noted.
HH >
Absent this newly enacted legislation, I would hold unconstitutional the school financing formula, and direct the legislature to address anew its constitutional mandate to provide a system of education throughout *531the state that gives an equal opportunity to every child in this state to become an educated person. It is the role of this court to subject law to constitutional analysis. It is not the role of this court to promulgate specific remedies. The fashioning of a constitutional system of public education is not only the legislature’s constitutional prerogative, it is far better equipped than any court to do it. I am not unaware of the terrible political complexities involved in fashioning such legislation, but I have full confidence in the legislature’s ability to resolve it. My conclusion does not compel a result which precludes the use of local property taxes to support education. Any number of financing formulae can be hypothesized that provide for both a state and local funding component. Whether or not the legislature chooses to do so is up to the legislature.
However, inasmuch as the legislature has enacted certain legislation referred to at pages 505-508 in the majority opinion, I would remand this case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the new legislation, for which there has not been a fact finding by the trial court, has corrected the constitutional deficiencies of the present formula. The findings of the trial court would then be returned to this court for review, and, if necessary, for farther orders from this court. During the pendency of this procedure, the legislature would be allowed to continue to fund K-12 public education as the statutes presently provide or as the legislature should amend them.
I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE NATHAN S. HEFFERNAN and JUSTICE SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON join in this dissent.

 See Journal And Debates Constitutional Convention (1847-48) 335; Comment, State Constitutional Restrictions On School Finance Reform: Buse v. Smith, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1528, 1538; Buse v. School Finance Reform: A Case Study of the Doctrinal, Social and Ideological Determinants of Judicial Decisionmaking, 1978 Wis. L. Rev. 1071, 1121-23, 1148-50. For an informative discussion and analysis of Wisconsin Constitution, Art. X, see Comment, The Egalitarian Roots of the Education Article of the Wisconsin Constitution: Old History, New Interpretation, Buse v. Smith Criticized, 1981 Wis. L. Rev. 1325.

 Wisconsin Constitution, art. X, sec. 1 provides:
*519The supervision of public instruction shall be vested in a state superintendent and such other officers as the legislature shall direct; and their qualifications, powers, duties and compensation shall be prescribed by law.

 Wisconsin Constitution, art. X, sec. 2 provides:
The proceeds of all lands that have been or hereafter may be granted by the United States to this state for educational purposes ... shall be set apart as a separate fund to be called “the school fund,” the interest of which ... shall be exclusively applied to the following objects, to wit:
(1) To the support and maintenance of common schools. ...

 Wisconsin Constitution, art. X, sec. 3 provides:
The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable....

 Wisconsin Constitution, art. X., sec. 4 provides:
Each town and city shall be required to raise [a tax] ... for the support of common schools. ...