Push for school funding shouldn’t include courts
SOME Oklahoma education groups, upset that their political preferences haven’t been embraced by the greater public, indicate they make seek to have those priorities imposed by judicial fiat. That strategy is legally dubious and would be bad public policy, regardless.
Last week, officials with a teachers’ union and associated groups called on legislators to abide by an Oklahoma law requiring approval of school appropriations by April 1. We don’t disagree that politicians should obey the laws they pass.
But officials went further. Elizabeth Smith, a professor of educational policy at the University of Tulsa, complained voters aren’t electing people who agree with her funding preferences, noting, “I don’t blame them (members of the Legislature) in some part because they keep getting elected.” Thus, she suggested school-funding lawsuits should be filed, saying, “it seems like the court system could be a much quicker alternative.”
Alicia Priest, president of the Oklahoma Education Association, echoed that sentiment. Lawsuits in Kansas, which resulted in that state’s courts dictating school appropriation decisions, were cited as an example.
This isn’t the first time this tactic has been tried, and one wonders why the OEA and its allies don’t learn from experience.
In 2006, the OEA and three school districts filed a lawsuit asking the courts to order the Legislature to increase school appropriations by $1 billion per year and provide another $3 billion for infrastructure needs (at the time, total legislative appropriations were around $7 billion for all government agencies). The lawsuit alleged lawmakers had violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s requirement to provide a uniform and adequate education.
A district judge tossed the lawsuit, and the state Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2007. The Supreme Court opinion noted the constitution gives the Legislature great discretion in carrying out the mandate for an adequate education and “the exclusive authority to declare the fiscal policy of Oklahoma limited only by constitutional prohibitions.”
“The plaintiffs are attempting to circumvent the legislative process by having this Court interfere with and control the Legislature’s domain of making fiscalpolicy decisions and of setting educational policy by imposing mandates on the Legislature and by continuing to monitor and oversee the Legislature,” the court ruled. “To do as the plaintiffs ask would require this Court to invade the Legislature’s power to determine policy. This we are constitutionally prohibited from doing.”
Nothing has changed since then. The state Supreme Court made clear the Legislature has the power to set state spending on schools. Comparisons with Kansas don’t matter because Oklahoma has a different constitution.
Whether specific spending levels are wise is a political decision — and therefore should be addressed in the political arena. Since 2007, Oklahoma voters have rejected two well-funded (although flawed) state questions to significantly boost school funding. Voters also rejected most legislative candidates who aligned with those efforts.
If associated education groups want to achieve different outcomes in the future, they need to persuade Oklahoma voters to support their cause instead of trying to remove voters from the process.