Campaign for Quality Educ. v. State

In these consolidated appeals, appellants ask us to reinstate their claims in which they seek declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that respondents are allegedly violating sections 1 and *892 5 of article IX of the California Constitution. 1 Appellants' claims are general in nature. They allege the constitutional sections provide for a judicially-enforceable right to an education of "some quality" for all public school children, and, alternatively, that the Legislature is currently violating its constitutional obligations to "provide for" and "keep up and support" the "system of common schools" by its current educational financing system. However, we find no support for finding implied constitutional rights to an education of "some quality" for public school children or a minimum level of expenditures for education, as appellants urge us to read into sections 1 and 5 of article IX. To the contrary, the language of these constitutional sections do not include qualitative or funding elements that may be judicially enforced by the courts. Rather, the constitutional sections leave the difficult and policy-laden questions associated with educational adequacy and funding to…

I join fully in the majority opinion authored by Justice Jenkins. I am writing separately to address my particular impressions and observations of the nature of the plaintiffs' claim.

There is no question that this case is largely about the adequacy of state financial support for California public schools. The defendants are the State of California, *904 the Governor, State Controller and the Director of the State Department of Finance. The Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education are not parties. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief to require the state to "set apart the revenues" to "provide and support an education finance system" that will provide students "the opportunity to obtain a meaningful education and to learn the academic content standards."

The plaintiffs allege that our state's constitutionally recognized right to education brings with it an obligation of the state to fund education at a qualitative level-an obligation that arises organically and by implication from a reading of article IX sections 1 and 5 of our state constitution together. They say, "Taken as a whole, the language and history of article IX make clear…

Of the numerous issues presented by this difficult case, two are fundamental: Do sections 1 and 5 of article IX of the California Constitution compel the state to maintain an elementary school system for grades kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) that meets some minimal qualitative standard and, if so, is the claim that the present school system fails to meet that standard justiciable-that is, may the courts entertain that claim and seek to compel the appropriate state agencies to correct the deficiency? Neither question is susceptible to a facile response. The same issues have been considered at length under similar provisions of other state constitutions by the highest courts of numerous states-with different outcomes. Most state supreme courts addressing the question have read their state constitution implicitly to mandate a minimum qualitative educational system which they have struggled to enforce, 1 while a lesser number *906 have either held the mandate lacking or the courts unsuited to articulate and enforce any such qualitative standard. 2 Although the parties here attempt to distinguish many of these out-of-state cases based on differences in the terminology of the…