As the Pennsylvania school funding case in Commonwealth Court moves closer to its conclusion, petitioners in the case replied Friday to arguments in a July 1 brief filed by legislative leaders and concluded that “Petitioners have proven the Commonwealth’s school funding system violates the Education Clause, and discriminates against Petitioners and children in other low-wealth districts in violation of their rights to equal protection under law.”
Spelling out the stark difference in views between the opposing parties on the legal issues, including whether or not a high-quality public education is guaranteed by the state Constitution, petitioners’ reply brief is the final scheduled filing in the case.
The arguments raised in the series of legal briefs filed over the past month and a half – including the back-and forth between petitioners and legislative leaders Sen. Jake Corman and House Speaker Bryan Cutler – will be the focus of oral argument by all the parties in Commonwealth Court in Harrisburg next Tuesday, July 26. Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer continues to preside in the case, and her decision in the case could come several months after oral argument.
The legal arguments in this post-trial phase have focused on fleshing out the meaning of Pennsylvania’s constitutional language mandating that “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth” and on the Constitution’s equal protection provisions.
Petitioners argue that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to an equal opportunity to a high-quality public education for all children. Legislative respondents argue there is no constitutional right to an education at all.
In their latest brief, attorneys for the petitioner school districts, parents, and organizations that filed suit against state officials reiterate that legislators are not meeting the constitutional standard for providing a thorough and efficient system of public education: “The evidence Petitioners presented at trial demonstrates that Pennsylvania school districts cannot provide wide swaths of students with the education they need to fulfill their potential and become college and career ready without additional funding.”
In contrast, petitioners argue, “Respondents’ reasoning is circular – they claim that because only the General Assembly represents the people, only the General Assembly can determine the needs of the Commonwealth, and therefore “thorough and efficient” is whatever the General Assembly says it is – and they say it is “basic.”
The briefs submitted by the parties that will be addressed at oral argument on July 26 present two contrasting visions of Pennsylvania’s system of public education:
Petitioners argue that the state Constitution requires “a high-quality contemporary education that prepares children for self-sufficiency and civic participation.” Legislative respondents propose a constitutional standard requiring only a “standard basic” or “minimum basic” education, the parameters of which are determined by the General Assembly alone.
Petitioners argue that the Constitution provides a fundamental right to an equal opportunity to a high-quality public education for all children. Legislative respondents argue there is no constitutional right to an education at all.
Petitioners argue that local control “does not excuse the deprivations suffered by children in Pennsylvania’s low-wealth districts,” and these deprivations violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. Legislative respondents argue that local control justifies the vast disparities in the system.
Petitioners are represented by attorneys from the Public Interest Law Center, Education Law Center, and O’Melveny.
Oral argument on July 26 will start at 9:30 am in Courtroom 3001 of the Pennsylvania Judicial Center in Harrisburg and is expected to last much of the day. The argument will be livestreamed by Commonwealth Court on their YouTube page.
Here are the post-trial legal briefs that have been filed in the case since June 1:
Petitioners’ principal legal brief
Brief from executive respondents, including Gov. Wolf