Bonner v. Daniels, No. 49A02-0702-CV-188 (Ind. App. May 2, 2008)
The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that a suit brought against the executive branch of the state government challenging the adequacy of state’s formula for funding public schools is justiciable and that the education clause of the state constitution provides a judicially enforceable right to a public education. A group of parents brought a class action on behalf of children similarly situated either because: (1) they attend, or will attend, public school in the same school corporations; or (2) on account of their poverty, race or ethnicity, physical or mental disabilities, or limited English proficiency, they are not receiving an education that equips them with the knowledge and skills they need to compete for productive employment, to pursue higher education, and to become responsible and informed citizens. The suit alleged “that significant numbers of students in this class are failing to meet State academic standards and are not acquiring the minimum knowledge and skills mandated by the Education Clause of the Indiana Constitution.” The trial court dismissed the suit, ruling that school funding is a political question that is not appropriate for the courts. It found that the named defendants, Governor Mitch Daniels and Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen K. Reed, are not responsible for the funding formula and thus were not valid defendants. Regarding the claim against the remaining defendant, the Indiana Board of Education, the trial court noted that it “seems to be, in reality, dissatisfaction with how the formula is weighed and implemented by the State Board of Education, not the formula itself.” As a result, it concluded such decisions were political and did not lend themselves to a likely judicial remedy, and ruled that it could not order a remedy out of deference to the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Indiana Court of Appeals focused on two issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in dismissing Bonner’s cause finding that the justiciability standard precluded judicial review; and (2) whether the trial court erred in finding that the Education Clause, encapsulated in Article VIII, §1 of the Indiana Constitution, does not provide judicially enforceable guidelines. The appellate court concluded the governor and superintendent were properly named as defendants because they are responsible for implementing the funding and the educational systems developed and funded by the legislature. It also found that the cause of action satisfied the requirement of redressibility. Based on its review of the legislative history of the education clause and case law from sister states with similar constitutional provisions, the appellate court asserted that courts have the authority to determine whether the executive and legislative branches are adequately fulfilling the constitution’s education clause, which requires the legislature to provide a general and uniform system of schools “by all suitable means.” It reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded the case to that court to determine whether Indiana’s current public school system “through its funding provides our students with an education, as envisioned by the framers of our Constitution.”
Bonner v. Daniels, No. 49A02-0702-CV-188 (Ind. App. May 2, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: For background on the trial court’s dismissal of suit, see below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Indiana school finance suit