State courts and school funding: a fifty-state analysis.

• Author: Lundberg, Paula J.

1. INTRODUCTION

   School funding became an issue of state law after the Supreme Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez(1) refused to declare education a fundamental right, and declined to find that school children in poorly-funded districts represent a suspect class.(2) High courts in forty-one states have considered the issue--seventeen courts finding state school funding systems unconstitutional, and twenty-four courts declining to make this ruling.(3) The purpose of this Article is to examine potential factors affecting these court rulings, and to develop a model that analyzes these factors to determine whether they are predictive of judicial decision making on the constitutionality of state school funding systems across the country.

   The models constructed to evaluate these state school funding cases will be based on the findings of prior research conducted in the judicial process field. Part II introduces various theoretical approaches that have analyzed judicial decision making and sets forth the framework and methodology upon which the instant school funding models will be created and tested. Based on these theories, Parts III through VII construct models utilizing factors relevant to each approach in anticipation of determining if any factors are predictive of judicial outcomes in school funding cases. Part VIII concludes with the empirical findings for each model, and then incorporates the independent models into a final integrated model--which predicts that a traditionalistic state which is less urban, has a higher per capita income, and a constitution with greater protection for education, will be the most likely to enter a decision for the plaintiffs in a school funding challenge.

2. THE JUDICIAL DECISION LITERATURE

   The complicated nature of judicial decision research has generated multiple theoretical approaches. Until recently, each of the various theories has focused on the effects of only one set of influences on the judicial decision. Some researchers, for example, have argued that case facts and legal rules determine judicial votes.(4) Others conceptualize case outcomes as resulting from influences on the judicial perspective, such as the personality characteristics or political values of the jurists.(5) A third approach holds that influences on the judicial environment--like the actions of the other governmental branches, the economy, or social trends--sway the judicial decision.(6) Institutional features such as length of judicial term and selection method are a fourth source of potential influences on a judge's vote.(7)

   Recent scholarship, however, suggests that models dealing with only one set of explanatory variables fail to capture the complexities of the many influences on judicial decisions, and thus are underspecified.(8) These authors propose a fifth approach to the analysis of judicial decision making that integrates the previously described theories of judicial behavior into one model.(9) This type of integrated model would also take into account interactions among variables that might condition relationships among legal, personal, and environmental perspectives. As noted by one commentator, it is important for a fully specified model of judicial decision making to include these interactive terms, because they offer "an explanation of appellate court decision making that sufficiently reflects the complexity of the judicial calculus."(10)

   All of these theories will be discussed in greater detail below. In each of the models to be tested, the dependent variable will be the decision reached by the highest court in each state that has considered the constitutionality of the state's school funding system. Supreme courts in two states, Arizona and Ohio, originally declined to overturn their school funding systems,(11) but later overruled these decisions and found their systems unconstitutional.(12) As these two state decisions address the constitutional meaning of equal protection and education, both cases will be included in the models. Other states, such as California, New Jersey, Texas, and Wyoming, have rendered numerous decisions regarding the implementation of their initial declaration of unconstitutionality of the school funding systems.(13) For states such as these, only the original case is included in the model because the court determination of the constitutional meaning of the state's education and equal protection clauses is contained in the original decision, while subsequent cases are generally concerned With judicial enforcement of various aspects of the previously rendered decision.(14)

   For the following models, a court finding of unconstitutionality is coded 1, while a decision for the state and the status quo is coded 0. The dichotomous nature of the independent variable is inappropriate for least squares regression;(15) therefore, the parameters of the model will be estimated by logistic regression, a maximum-likelihood estimation technique. Logistic regression produces estimates for the parameters of a model's independent variables in terms of the contribution each makes to the probability that the dependent variable falls into one of the designated categories (a court decision for or against school finance reform).(16) For each independent variable, a maximum-likelihood estimate (MLE) is calculated along with its standard error (SE). The MLEs represent the change in the logistic function that results from a one-unit change in the independent variable.(17)

   The number of cases analyzed in the model (forty-one) is somewhat small in terms of the general dictates of analysis. However, the aim of this project is to frame a model for judicial decision making regarding school funding across state courts. While this focus somewhat restricts the analysis because of the number of cases examined, it should be noted that these cases make up the entire existing population of state high court decisions on the constitutionality of school funding.(18)

3. THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

   Traditional legal theory views judicial decisionmaking as limited to applying the law to the facts with judicial discretion constrained by legal precedent.(19) This principle is commonly known as the legal perspective to decision making. Those championing the legal perspective as the explanatory model of judicial decision making contend that, since judges are trained and experienced in the law, all judges will use the same legal methods to identify similar fact patterns.(20)

   This view of judicial decision making "sees judges as removed and detached from the everyday world around them .... cloistered in their courts or chambers ... [having] little contact with others."(21) Because judges have such a special role in society, the legal perspective requires that they disregard the influence of any previous political or social experiences.(22) Personal opinions and world views must be separated from the legal obligation to decide cases objectively, and on the basis of the law and the facts only.(23)

   Judicial research regarding the efficacy of the legal perspective as an empirical model has demonstrated that case characteristics or facts can sometimes be important determinants of outcomes at both the United States Supreme Court(24) and at the state supreme court level.(25) There is mixed evidence, however, as to the degree of importance that can be assigned to case characteristics. Some researchers have found that the importance of case facts may be a function of the type of issue being decided by the court,(26) while others have found the evidence proving courts are bound by the facts and existing precedent "only slightly stronger than the case for the proposition that we inhabit a flat earth."(27)

   Despite the perceived shortcomings of case facts, precedent, and existing laws in explaining judicial decisions, researchers agree that "law has a profound impact on courts."(28) According to Henry R. Glick, law is crucial in shaping the role of courts and policy making because statutes, constitutions, case facts, and existing precedent act as a limit on innovative decision making.(29) It is important, therefore, that the legal model be included in any attempt to explain the components of the judicial decision.

   1. Education Clauses

      Every state court that considered the issue of school funding made at least some reference to the constitutional language of theft state's education clause.(30) Forty-eight state constitutions include some provision regarding the state's duty to educate,(31) and some state courts, especially those rendering decisions in the "third wave,"(32) entered into lengthy discussions of the political and legal history of those provisions.(33)

      Professor Gershon Ratner has arrayed state levels of constitutional protection for education into a four-point scale.(34) A level one constitution contains language committing the state to education but uses only very general language.(35) Constitutions falling into the second category impose a greater obligation on the state towards education by emphasizing the quality of education that must be provided.(36) The third set of constitutions is somewhat like the second, but uses additional language and preambles to strengthen the legislative commitment to education.(37) The last group mandates the highest level of educational opportunity by setting out specific duties and using terms such as the "paramount duty of the state."(38) On a scale of 1 to 4, level 1 specifies the least legislative obligation towards education, while level 4 mandates that the legislature provide the highest level of educational opportunity. According to the legal model, a court's decision on the merits of an educational finance challenge should be influenced by the specific wording of the educational clause in the state constitution.(39) It would be expected, therefore, that the higher the level of explicit constitutional obligation towards the public...