Are you ready to amplify your academic presence and connect with a global network of researchers? Join the Scholar Indexing Society and elevate your research to new heights!
From Equity to Adequacy: Evolving Legal Theories in School Finance Litigation: The Case of Connecticut
Article Number: SIS398240AI201222
20th December, 2022
Author(s):
Lesley A. DeNardis
Abstract:
Since the landmark school finance decision Serrano v. Priest (1971) ruled that California’s
reliance on the property tax to finance public schools violated equal protection provisions in
state and federal constitutions, a wave of school finance litigation swept the United States.
Connecticut followed with Horton v. Meskill (1977) and most recently with CCJEF v. Rell
(2005). The Connecticut State Supreme Court has been a key actor in the policy making
process concerning school finance reform in Connecticut. This study will trace the history of
school finance litigation in Connecticut and the evolving legal theories used to undergird
major court cases. The legal theories that have been developed in Connecticut school finance
litigation cases over a thirty year time period have mirrored national trends evolving from the
utilization of equity claims then turning to adequacy provisions based on state constitutions in
an attempt to redress spending inequities. This study will argue that despite the increasing
sophistication of legal strategies as well as a broadening coalition of participants and earlier
favorable court rulings in sister states, the plaintiffs now face a less hospitable environment
towards school finance reform making the outcome of this latest case uncertain. This study
will examine the major legal theories advanced in Horton I (1977), Horton III (1985) and
CCJEF v. Rell (2008) and conclude by offering some tentative explanations of the
jurisprudence of school finance litigation by providing a closer examination of
judicial-legislative dynamics and the prospects for reform in Connecticut.