State High Court Ruling Cites Need For Quantifying Education Quality

By ARIELLE LEVIN BECKER | Hartfod Courant
March 23, 2010

A divided state Supreme Court on Monday opened the door to significant changes in the way the state funds public education, ruling that the Connecticut Constitution guarantees students not just a public education, but one that can prepare them for employment, higher education and civic responsibilities like voting and jury duty.

The 4-3 ruling did not prescribe changes or even say changes were necessary. In siding with the plaintiffs in an education funding lawsuit, the justices sent the case back to Superior Court for trial. Any changes it could bring are likely years away.

But the ruling established a significant new framework, for the first time explicitly declaring that students have the right to a certain level of education, and defining what it is.

"This is a huge win for Connecticut's schoolchildren," said Dianne Kaplan deVries, project director of the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, a group of municipal and education organizations that brought the lawsuit along with the parents of schoolchildren in Hartford, New Haven, East Hartford, New London, Plainfield, New Britain, Bridgeport, Danbury and Windham.

The lawsuit, filed in 2005, argued that the state fails to maintain a suitable and substantially equal education system. Instead, in many school districts, the state provides inadequate resources and conditions that set students up for failure, the lawsuit said. It cited a range of statistics — including gaps in test scores, graduation rates, teachers with advanced degrees, the number of books in school libraries — and argued that the way the state funds education fosters educational inequality and inadequacy.

The right to an equal education was established in the 1977 case of Horton v. Meskill. In this case, the plaintiffs claimed another right, to an "adequate" education.

A Superior Court judge struck down most of the plaintiffs' claims in 2007, saying that the state constitution does not require a certain standard of quality for public education and that the court could not address it.

Monday's ruling reversed that ruling.

"We conclude that [the state constitution] entitles Connecticut public school students to an education suitable to give them the opportunity to be responsible citizens able to participate fully in democratic institutions, such as jury service and voting," Justice Flemming L. Norcott wrote in an opinion joined by two other justices. A fourth justice sided with the plaintiffs in a separate opinion.

"A constitutionally adequate education also will leave Connecticut's students prepared to progress to institutions of higher education, or to attain productive employment and otherwise contribute to the state's economy," Norcott wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter T. Zarella called the ruling a "clear violation of the separation of powers" and warned that it would move control of education matters from boards of education to the courts.

"Moreover, it will require the legislature to appropriate at least $2 billion per year in additional funding to ensure that Connecticut schoolchildren will be provided with the resources allegedly required for an adequate education," Zarella wrote.

Lindsey Luebchow, a Yale law student who co-directs the legal advocacy clinic that is handling the case for the plaintiffs without charge, said that the ruling puts Connecticut in the center of a national effort to use state constitutions to close the achievement gap.

The plaintiffs hope to work with the state to make changes, Luebchow said. If not, they will be prepared to take the case to trial and show that Connecticut does not meet the adequacy requirement, she said.

Changing the education funding system, which relies on local property taxes to supplement state funding, will take "an awful lot of political courage," said state Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, a Meriden Democrat who is co-chairman of the education committee.

Gaffey said the income tax would be a fairer funding method than relying on property taxes. But he said that changing the system would require wide-ranging changes involving economic development, housing policy and reconsidering the merits of having more than 160 "fiefdoms" throughout the state.

What Is Guaranteed?
A key question in the case centered on what is meant by the Connecticut Constitution's guarantee to "free public elementary and secondary schools."

The plaintiffs argued that the wording implied a right to an adequate education. What would be the purpose of a right to education, a representative for the plaintiffs argued before the Supreme Court in 2008, if it did not provide students with the opportunity for employment or higher education?

"However you define it, the fundamental right to education has to have content," argued David Noah, then a Yale law student, one of more than a dozen handling the case under the supervision of Professor Robert Solomon.

The defense offered a different view, arguing that if the authors of the constitutional passage intended it to imply a level of education, they would have said so.

In the state constitution, the passage that immediately follows the public education clause says, "The state shall maintain a system of higher education, including The University of Connecticut, which shall be dedicated to excellence in higher education." The use of such "qualitative language" in that section suggests that the drafters meant to omit such a standard from the section on primary and secondary schools, the defense argued.

During the Supreme Court hearing, Assistant Attorney General Gregory D'Auria, representing the state, argued that the legislature, not the courts, should decide school matters, and that although equality in education is a right, quality is not.

"So as long as it's equally bad, it's OK?" Justice Joette Katz asked.

"If it's equally bad, the democratic process should and will correct that," D'Auria said.

"If it's equally bad," Norcott said, "then there's not much to the fundamental right."

Justices Split
Norcott's ruling drew on previous cases, particularly a series of education cases that included Horton v. Meskill.

The judges' opinions in Horton, Norcott wrote, "support the plaintiffs' position that the fundamental right to an education is not an empty linguistic shell, but has at least some minimal substantive content."

Norcott noted in the ruling that there are limits to the state's responsibilities in education. The state is not required to take measures to maximize the potential of specific students, he wrote, or to counteract every negative factor for which it is not responsible.

But the state must provide students with "an objectively measured 'meaningful opportunity' to receive the benefits of this constitutional right," he wrote.

Joined by Katz and Justice Barry R. Schaller, Norcott wrote that the justices endorsed a view, offered by the New York Court of Appeals, that constitutionally adequate education requires: minimally adequate facilities and classrooms; minimally adequate instruments of learning, such as desks, chairs, pencils and "reasonably current textbooks;" minimally adequate teaching of reasonably up-to-date curriculum in subjects such as reading, writing, math, science and social studies; and enough teachers, adequately trained to teach those subjects.

There are limits to what that might achieve, Norcott wrote, noting that students might struggle because of factors beyond the control of the state, and that the education clause of the constitution will not cure them all.

"A constitutionally adequate education is not necessarily a perfect one," he wrote.

Justice Richard N. Palmer also sided with the plaintiffs but wrote a separate opinion and said the executive and legislative branches are entitled to "considerable deference" in determining what constitutes an adequate education.

In a dissent, Justice Christine S. Vertefeuille wrote that the framers of the education clause seemed to be aware of the option of including a qualitative standard for education, and chose not to do so.

"This deliberate choice weighs very heavily with me, and I therefore would conclude that the text of [the state constitution] reasonably cannot be read as mandating that the instruction in our public schools be 'suitable' or effective for some specific end," she wrote.

Vertefeuille warned that the course taken in Norcott's opinion "can only create unrealistic expectations and divert scarce public resources from supporting schools to defending endless litigation."

'Landmark' Decision
Plaintiffs and their supporters celebrated the ruling during a press conference Monday afternoon, calling it a "landmark" decision. Stephen T. Cassano, the coalition's executive director and a former Manchester mayor, called the ruling one of the greatest economic development decisions the court will ever make.

The group included municipal and school officials, teachers' unions, parents, a handful of state lawmakers and the Yale law students.

Bristol Superintendent Philip Streifer said the ruling represented the beginning of a way to overcome failed education funding policies.

"Schools haven't failed — policy has failed," he said in an interview. "This is the first time in my Connecticut education career that I see a reasonable chance of light at the end of the tunnel for education funding — and I've been doing this for 38 years."

State Department of Education spokesman Tom Murphy called the ruling "a major decision" and said it has implications for both finances and the way schools are structured.

The department has proposed a package of high school reforms aimed at increasing standards and graduation rates, as well as adding support services for students and individualized plans for students built around their goals and strengths and weaknesses. Murphy said those proposals, which are now before the legislature, are consistent with the court's definition of adequacy.

"We are looking at how to reduce the gaps, how to improve graduation rates and how to help more students to achieve success," he said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said in a written statement that she will maintain current education funding levels — nearly $1.9 billion a year — while the case returns to court.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office will review the decision.

"Lacking a majority for a clear result, this ruling will require the legislature and the executive branch to closely consider the meaning of 'minimally adequate education.' The lower court judge who hears the case enabled by this decision faces a similar challenge," Blumenthal said in a written statement. "I am committed to working with the legislature and the govern
or to ensure that the state complies with the court's decision. I will continue to defend this case at the lower court in consultation with other state officials."

Courant staff writer Don Stacom contributed to this story.

"This is a huge win for Connecticut's schoolchildren." — Dianne Kaplan deVries, Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding

Survey finds state's Latinos see quality of life slipping away

Check out the full Latino Socio-Economic Study -Patricia

Staff Report | The Stamford Times
April 1, 2008

As Connecticut's largest minority group and the fastest-growing segment of the population here and nationwide, Latinos are an important barometer of the state of the state.

According to a comprehensive study released Wednesday, pessimism and concern permeate a population that sees itself as unable to afford the cost of living and are underrepresented in positions of power that lead to change.

The fourth Latino Socio-Economic Study in 10 years was presented by the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission in conjunction with the Center for Research and Public Policy. The study included a survey of 800 adults, 50 students between 13 and 18 years of age, 200 people identified by the LPRAC as leaders in the Latino community, and three focus-group interviews in the state's three largest cities.

Nearly 23 percent of the respondents were from Fairfield County.

"It's very important that we're releasing this study," said LPRAC executive director Fernando Betancourt. "Perhaps even more important is what we're going to do with it."

Another apt question might be where to begin addressing the many aspects of inadequacy highlighted by Connecticut's Latinos. The biggest concerns among adults were taxes, health insurance, poor public education, and the cost of living.

Only 33.4 percent of participants said their quality of life was better now than two years ago, a significant fall-off from the 56.4 percent who said the same in 2002, the last time the study was conducted.

Betancourt said the LPRAC was surprised by the "dramatic drop in the overall quality-of-life perception that is reflected on every single page of that report."

He said health care and the cost of living, especially for housing, were his top priorities.

Just 51.5 percent of those surveyed said they thought housing was affordable, down from 74.5 percent in 2002.

Coming at the onset of talk of economic recession and the subprime mortgage crisis (the study was conducted in October and November of 2007), some of the feelings reflected in the survey might be a measure of discontent in the overall population. The 11.3 percent of the state population that considers itself Latino is more than enough to make it a statistically-significant sample, and Betancourt estimated that there is a further five percent that goes uncounted.

But LPRAC Commissioner Ed Rodríguez said the Latino experience is complicated by many issues, including the group's exclusion from decision-making positions, a phenomenon confirmed by a study released earlier this month by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, that showed severe under-representation of Latinos and other minorities on state boards and commissions.

"The implication of the exclusion is an inequality of life and standard of living. What happens when a community starts experiencing a decline in its standard of living and quality of life?" Rodríguez asked rhetorically. "They become more dependent on the state. Health care costs go up, they can't afford insurance, kids experience higher dropout rates from high school."

Rodríguez said the study was only as good as the action taken in its wake. Considering a more than 50-percent high school dropout rate among Latinos, immediate action is imperative, he said.

"We urge our legislators and our governor to please embrace this study," he said. "It lays the foundation to help our community. I know that we in the Latino and Puerto Rican Affairs Commission will be using this as our foundation."

The dropout rate provides a curious juxtaposition with one of the positive results of the study — 88 percent of the middle- and high-school students interviewed said they were somewhat or very likely to attend college. Ninety percent said they were at least somewhat likely to get into the college of their choice.

Of course, getting in and being able to pay are two distinct barriers of tertiary education. Thirty percent of the youth respondents said college would not be affordable for them.

Though immigration status was not a qualifying factor for any of the surveys conducted, 16.7 percent of the youth participants and 23 percent of the adults said they were not U.S. citizens. This does not necessarily mean that they are undocumented, but Betancourt made mention Wednesday of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow students who attend and graduate from Connecticut high schools to receive in-state tuition at public universities regardless of their immigration status.

The bill, with LPRAC support, passed the General Assembly in 2007 but was vetoed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

In general, Latino leaders were more pessimistic in their analyses of the Latino community's perspective than the community was itself.

Regarding the state HUSKY health care program, for example, 85.5 percent of the adult respondents offered a positive rating while only 48.5 percent of the leaders said Latinos were satisfied with the program.

The complexity of the health care conundrum was demonstrated repeatedly in the study. The 85.1 percent of respondents who reported having health care coverage was an increase from the 78.2 percent who said the same in 2002. However, it was a decrease from the 87 percent who reported coverage in 1997, the first year of the study.

Respondents also said costs were prohibitive. Nearly 16 percent said there was a time in the past 12 months in which they needed to see a doctor but could not because of the cost, perhaps in part because the 57.9 percent that said they receive employer-based coverage was down from 68.3 percent in 2002.

"This is not hearsay," Rodríguez said. "This is not wishful thinking; this is not agenda-driven; this is not what we as the commission would want you to believe is important based on our understanding of the needs of our community. This is what 95 out of 100 Hispanics in the state are telling you is important to them," he added, in reference to the 95-percent confidence rating of the study sample.

On a positive note, Center for Research and Public Policy president Jerry Lindsley offered improved statistics on mammogram, blood pressure and cholesterol screenings as evidence that education programs on preventive care were working. Smoking was also down significantly, from 23.1 percent in 2002 to 15.9 percent last year.

The most cynical perspectives in the study were directed at the state's judicial court system. Just 41.5 percent of adult respondents offered a "positive trust rating" of the courts. Up from 22.4 percent in 2002, Betancourt said the survey showed there was work to do but also that LPRAC efforts to reach out to the judicial system were slowly taking effect. An increase in the number of trained court interpreters, though still insufficient, was one area of partial improvement, he said.

In reference to the courts, one of the focus group participants said, "I guess they are not fair with everybody, not just Hispanic [sic]," suggesting that the perception was more one of general mistrust than suspected discrimination.

Linguistic confidence was on the rise as well, with 65.5 percent saying they were equally comfortable speaking Spanish as English. Just 49.1 percent said the same in 2002.

Sixty-eight percent said they were registered to vote, a statistic of particular significance in an election year in which the Latino vote has been heavily courted. Almost half - 48 percent - were registered Democrats. The slight increase in unaffiliated voters from 27 percent in 2002 to 28.6 percent 2007 owed in part to a precipitous drop in the number of registered Republicans, from 16.1 percent in 2002 to ten percent in 2007.

There was a 3.5-percent margin for error.

Max Hadler can be reached at mhadler@thehour.com