Florida's Decision To Not Decide: Leaving the Neediest Students Without a Voice
Omar Perez
Every twenty years, the Florida Constitution
Revision Commission (“Revision Commission”) meets to examine the Florida
Constitution and explore the possibility of revisions.[i] In
the summer of 1997, the Revision Commission “held thirteen public hearings throughout
Florida” calling for any recommendations that citizens of Florida wanted to see
made to the Florida Constitution.[ii] Many of
the public’s proposals focused on the issue of education.[iii] As
a result of the Revision Commission’s negative response towards these
proposals, they were changed and effectively diluted.[iv]
In, San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez,[v] the Supreme Court of
the United States held that education is not a constitutionally protected
fundamental right and should be addressed by each state.[vi] All
of the fifty states’ constitutions contain an education provision, with each
provision containing varying levels of requirements, such as financing, as to
what must be provided to each student.[vii] Lawsuits
claiming that a state is providing an unconstitutional level of funding to
schools are assessed according to these provisions.[viii]
Citizens for Strong Schools, a small non-profit
organization, was formed in 2008 with the hope of improving education in Alachua
County, Florida.[ix] The organization filed the latest lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the level of
education provided by the state of Florida in Citizens for Strong
Schools v. Florida State Board of Education[x] in
2009.[xi]
On May 24, 2016, Judge Reynolds issued a
twenty-nine page opinion.[xii] Judge
Reynolds explained that Florida’s education system is structurally
complicated.[xiii] This is because each
county has its own school board, which sets its own policies and standards.[xiv] Thus, even among schools with
substantially similar levels of funding, it is easy to see how there are
variations in how districts allocate resources and see different results.[xv]
Judge Reynolds held that the plaintiffs had
failed to establish that Florida had breached any duty under Article IX,
section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution.[xvi] Judge
Reynolds found for the defendants for several reasons.[xvii] He
wrote that education funding had received the largest percentage of the state budget,[xviii] “there is
not a constitutional level lack of resources,”[xix] highly
qualified teachers are in schools across every district,[xx] “Florida students have substantially improved
their performance on the . . . NAEP,”[xxi] and
that Florida cannot possibly guarantee that every student will be successful.[xxii]
Interestingly, Judge Reynolds noted all of these
factors to rule in favor of the defendants, but goes on to say that there are
no judicially manageable standards under the Constitution to
determine the adequacy claim by the plaintiffs.[xxiii] Judge
Reynolds wrote that the 1998 amendment to Article IX, section 1(a) provides no
standards that clarify the meaning of adequate.[xxiv]
Citizens for Strong
Schools has appealed the decision by Judge Reynolds.[xxv]
If
the Supreme Court of Florida decides that it cannot adjudicate the issue of
adequacy, educational reformers need to be successful during the 2017 to 2018
Revision Commission.[xxvi] It would be
difficult for the Court to ignore claims concerning the infringement of a
constitutional right.[xxvii]
[i]. Fla. Const. of 1968, art. XI, §
2(a), (c); Gordon, supra note 8, at 288.
[ii]. Mills
& McLendon, supra note 7, at 359; see also Fla. Const. of 1968 art. XI, § 2(a)
(setting up the creation of the Revision Commission).
[iii]. See Mills
& McLendon, supra note 7, at 359–60. “Public
proposals submitted to the [Revision] Commission included requests both for
more education funding and to limit education funding, matters of education
vouchers and school choice, a return to the 1868 Constitution’s paramount
duty language, and a plea for free community college . . .
.” Mills & McLendon, supra note 39, at
32. The Revision Commission also “considered other public proposals,
including a proposal to make education a fundamental right . . .
.” Mills & McLendon, supra note 7, at 360.
[iv]. Id. at
297–98.
[v]. 411
U.S. 1 (1973).
[vi]. Carlee
Poston Escue et al., Some Perspectives on Recent School Finance
Litigation, 268 Educ. L. Rep. 601,
601–02 (2011); see also Areto A. Imoukhuede, The Fifth
Freedom: The Constitutional Duty to Provide Public Education,
22 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 45,
47 (2011) (discussing the fact that although education was considered by
President Lyndon B. Johnson to be the freedom from
ignorance, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that education
is not a fundamental right); Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., The Legacy and
Implications of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez,
17 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 515,
522 (2014) (discussing the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision to show
deference to the State Legislature, which had traditionally operated education
because these localities were in the best position to make such decisions);
Richard J. Stark, Education Reform: Judicial Interpretation
of State Constitutions’ Education Finance Provisions — Adequacy vs. Equality, Ann. Surv. Am. L. 609, 623 (1991).
[vii]. Karen
Swenson, School Finance Reform Litigation: Why Are Some
State Supreme Courts Activist and Others Restrained?, 63 Alb. L. Rev. 1147, 1156–57
(2000); see also Escue et al., supra note 2,
at 602–03.
[viii]. Swenson, supra note
3, at 1156.
[ix]. Eric
Barton, Florida Education on Trial: Lawsuit Makes Case That
System is Unfair to Poor, Miami
Herald (Mar. 12, 2016, 9:51 PM),
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/education/article65739822.html.
[x]. No.
09-CA-4534, slip op. (Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. May 24, 2016).
[xi]. Citizens
for Strong Sch., Inc., slip op. at 1–2.
[xii]. Brandon
Larrabee, Judge Rejects Broad Challenge to Florida’s Education System, Tallahassee Democrat (May 25, 2016,
12:14 AM),
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/local/state/2016/05/25/judge-rejects-broad-challenge-floridas-education-system/84892452/.
[xiii]. Citizens
for Strong Sch., Inc. v. Fla. State Bd. of Educ., No. 09-CA-4534, slip op. at 4
(Fla. 2d Cir. Ct. May 24, 2016).
[xiv]. Id.
[xv]. Id.
[xvi]. Id. at
15; see also Fla. Const. of
1968, art. IX, § 1(a).
[xvii]. Citizens
for Strong Sch., Inc., slip op. at 15.
[xviii]. Id. at
7.
[xix]. Id.
[xx]. Id. at
9.
[xxi]. Id. at
11.
[xxii]. Citizens
for Strong Sch., Inc., slip op. at 10 (quoting Fla. Stat. § 1000.03(5)(f) (2015)). “The
goals of Florida’s K-20 education system are not guarantees that each
individual student will succeed or that each individual school will perform at
the level indicated in the goals.” Fla.
Stat. § 1000.03(5)(f) (2015).
[xxiii]. Citizens
for Strong Sch., Inc., slip op. at 18–19.
[xxiv]. Id. at
18; see also Fla. Const. of
1968, art. IX, § 1(a); Mills & McLendon, supra note 39, at
30.
[xxv]. Jessica
Bakeman, Education Activists Want Quick Supreme Court Review of Funding
Suit, Politico (July
12, 2016, 2:11 PM),
http://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/07/education-activists-hope-to-appeal-adequacy-case-directly-to-supreme-court-103719.
[xxvi]. See Gordon, supra note
8, at 288; supra Part VI.
[xxvii]. See Gordon, supra note
8, at 280, 296, 298; supra Part VI.
