The Human Right to Education: Moving U.S. Schools from Adequacy to Excellence
Co-editor Mariah McGill, Assistant Director of Northeastern Law School’s Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, comments on the recent state constitutional decision of the Kansas Supreme Court requiring that the state legislature address education inequities.
She writes:
On Friday March, 7th, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that funding disparities between school districts violated the Kansas Constitution and ordered the Legislature to address the gap in school
funding. http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/SupCt/2014/20140307/109335.pdf
As in many other states, Kansas schools are funded with a combination of state and federal aid and local property taxes. The Kansas Constitution requires that the state legislature make “suitable provision” for financing public education. Prior litigation had resulted in increased funding, but in the wake of the 2009 recession, the Legislature began reducing the levels of state school aid and in 2012 passed tax cuts to reduce state revenues by approximately $3.9 billion over the next six years. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/08/us/kansas-school-spending-ruling.html?_r=0 At the same time, the Legislature has reduced school spending in a variety of areas, leading to increased class sizes, teacher and staff layoffs and ending services for at-risk students. http://www.khi.org/news/2014/mar/07/kansas-supreme-court-rules-school-finance-case/
In response, four Kansas school districts and 31 individuals sued the state alleging that the Legislature was failing to meet its constitutional duty to provide suitable funding for Kansas schools. After the plaintiffs won in the trial court, Governor Sam Brownback appealed to the Kansas Supreme Court which ruled that funding disparities between districts violate the state’s Constitution and ordered the Legislature to come up with a plan to address the inequities either by restoring $129 million in school funding or to craft an alternative solution by July 1. At the same time, the Supreme Court ordered the lower court to re-examine the question of what constitutes adequate school spending.
The Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling is welcome in that it will likely reduce funding disparities and increase overall school funding in Kansas from current levels. The court’s ruling focused on the principles of adequacy and equity. According to the court, the adequacy requirement is met “ when the public education financing system provided by the legislature for grades K-12 through structure and implementation is reasonably calculated to have all Kansas public education students meet or exceed” certain minimal standards set forth under Kansas law. The equity requirement is met when school districts have “reasonably equal access to substantially similar educational opportunity through similar tax effort. Simply put, equity need not meet precise equality standards.”
In determining what constitutes an “adequate” education under the Kansas Constitution, Kansas courts may find human rights principles instructive. While the equity and adequacy standards articulated by the Kansas Supreme Court lay out a minimum standard for educational quality, the human right to education articulated under international law is much more expansive. The right to education is recognized in a variety of international documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on all forms of Racial Discrimination. The human right to education doesn’t merely require an adequate or appropriate education but one that is “directed at the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.” Under international law, every child has the right to a quality education adapted to meet his or her needs and it is the responsibility of states to ensure the equitable distribution of these resources to ensure the right to education is fulfilled.
Editor’s Note (MDavis): In contrast to the Kansas decision, international human rights law did play a role in the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision in King v. State, 818 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2012), addressing the right to education under the Iowa state constitution. There, the plaintiffs sued the state of Iowa and certain educational officers and agencies alleging a failure to establish and enforce standards, effective educator pay systems, and “an adequate education delivery system.”
The majority rejected these claims. However, the dissent argued for use of human rights norms as a tool for interpreting the Iowa constitution. The dissent cited the UDHR for the proposition that education is essential to the development of an autonomous individual with dignity. While acknowledging that the UDHR is not binding, the dissent noted that Eleanor Roosevelt chaired the drafting committee, and that the United States Senate endorsed it; as such, the dissent argued, the Declaration reinforces the notion that education “is broadly regarded as a basic human right.”