Of 12 cases decided in 1994, seven funding systems (in Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Virginia) were found constitutional and five (in Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, New Jersey, Ohio, and Rhode Island) were declared unconstitutional. The most notable challenge occurred in Arizona, where the state supreme court’s decision hinged on unconstitutional inequities in school facilities. Faith Crampton believes this decision may mark a new litigation trend, as inequities worsen from districts’ efforts to accommodate growing enrollments and technology infrastructure.

In 1995, the most sweeping decision since the Kentucky case occurred in Wyoming, "where the state supreme court for the second time in 16 years overturned the education funding system" and mandated a replacement that "demonstrates a rational linkage between cost and level of education service provided" (Crampton). Another precedent-setting decision happened in Tennessee, where equity in teacher salaries is now required.

Finance litigation had a lackluster year in 1996, with decisions upholding current funding systems in New Mexico, Illinois, and Missouri (Crampton).

1997 to 1998: Banner Years and Legislative Aftermath

In 1997, six cases favoring plaintiffs were decided by state supreme courts (Alaska, Vermont, Ohio, New Jersey, Alabama, and West Virginia), and a Louisiana circuit court referred jurisdiction for school funding to the state legislature (Whitney and Verstegen 1997, Liebschutz 1997). In both Ohio and Vermont, the high courts declared state funding formulas unconstitutional, found conditions in districts with lowest spending unacceptable, but failed to recommend a minimum adequate funding level (Picus 1998). As Lawrence Picus sees it, the courts seemed "willing to let some districts spend more, provided the poorest districts had access to more resources."

Vermont’s Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1997 (Act 60) will transform the state’s entire tax system. Act 60 establishes a statewide property tax for a general state-support grant, includes income-sensitivity provisions, and allows districts to raise additional money through a guaranteed-yield provision (Whitney and Verstegen 1997). Although the legislature raised about $58 million in new taxes to fund education for FY 1998 and beyond, Picus (1998) believes Act 60 is destined to fail without additional funding for the system's guaranteed-yield tier.

1998 also proved a noteworthy year for school-finance litigation, according to Terry Whitney (1998). Suits were filed by districts in five states (Colorado, Connecticut, New Mexico, Texas, and Wyoming), fourteen cases are pending, and two longstanding cases (New Jersey and Arizona) were resolved (Whitney 1998, Schnaiberg 1998).

In 1999, new cases were filed against five states: Alaska, California, Florida, Kansas, and Rhode Island (Whitney 1999). By the end of that year, according to Whitney, no fewer than 43 suits were still pending, including multiple cases in Florida, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Vermont.

Colorado, New Mexico, and Idaho were still involved in capital-outlay suits that were similar to the 1997 Arizona suit, whose plaintiffs have just rechallenged the amount of the building-renewal funds appropriated by the legislature (its fourth equalization attempt). In September 1999, an Alaska trial judge invalidated the state’s capital funding of schools, calling the system "non-uniform, unconstitutional, and discriminatory against rural, native Alaskan schoolchildren" (Smith 2001).

New York began a unique suit (see January 2001 decision below) "attempting to show that the state’s funding system is inadequate and violates the civil rights [under Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964] of minority students who make up 73 percent of the children in New York City schools" (Whitney 1999).

The Florida case is somewhat similar, involving a group of civil-rights organizations claiming to represent thousands of children who are not receiving an adequate education (Sandham 1999). This case is notable for seeking improved educational outcomes, not merely increased state spending on education. In Kansas, the "Robinson" case is another civil-rights suit that also alleges that "special-education students have suffered a disparate impact due to the state’s funding formula" (Whitney 1999).

Another major 1999 action involved the South Carolina Supreme Court’s clarification of state constitution provisions mandating "a free and open education system for all, while setting out loose performance-based standards" (Blair 1999). The ruling dismisses part of the suit aiming to change the school funding laws, but "orders a lower-court trial on whether South Carolina is providing an ‘adequate’ education" to the state’s K-12 public-school students, particularly poor and rural students.

In California, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit on behalf of minority students lacking opportunity to enroll in advanced-placement courses required for college admission (Whitney 1999).

Finally, "Wisconsin plaintiffs re-challenged the funding formula that the legislature devised in June 1997, following an extensive state-sponsored study of costs and an unconstitutionality ruling in 1995" (Whitney 1999). The Wyoming Supreme Court, "in a rare show of judicial activism," gave the legislature some marching orders: to design the best educational system possible for each Wyoming student, determine the cost of that educational package, and take necessary action to fund it. The court explicitly stated that "lack of financial resources will not be an acceptable reason" for failing to provide Wyoming students with equal educational opportunities (Whitney).

2000 to Early 2001: Facilities, Vulnerable Students, and a Landmark Decision

The new millennium ushered in still more litigation, including a much-publicized May 2000 lawsuit brought by civil-rights groups against the state of California for failing to provide some students with the most basic physical and educational amenities (Sandham 2000). Interestingly, Governor Grey Davis has launched an aggressive counterattack that seeks to hold districts [not the state] responsible for poor school conditions (outdated texts, leaking roofs, rats in classrooms, and unqualified teachers) (Gewertz 2001); teacher unions have responded by bargaining for the right to file grievances over bad school conditions (Bacon 2001).

In October 2000, a North Carolina superior court judge issued two of three decisions (the third was in April 2001) that upheld the state’s funding formula while requiring the state to provide preschool education for all at-risk 4 year-olds (Manzo 2000).

Meanwhile, states such as Michigan, California, and Arizona were trying to settle disputes over provision of mandated special-education services. Other states, such as Ohio and New Hampshire, are still scrambling to meet court deadlines for establishing new funding systems, while Colorado, New Mexico, and New Jersey are making progress toward meeting facilities renovation and construction funding goals.

Colorado has agreed to provide $190 million over 10 years for capital construction (Smith), and New Mexico will provide nearly $400 million for such projects (Associated Press 2001). In New Jersey, "a state-run school construction crusade… is expected to shower local schools with $12 billion worth of new facilities and renovations over the next several years" (Johnston 2000).

In a partial setback for plaintiffs, a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in late August 2000 upheld the state financial system, but also outlined Wisconsin’s responsibilities for educating its children (Blair 2000).

In a landmark decision on January 10, 2001, Manhattan trial-court Justice Leland DeGrasse concluded that "the Empire State’s method of financing schools hobbles the 1.1 million New York City district’s capacity to give its students the opportunity for ‘a sound basic education’ as guaranteed by the state constitution" (Keller 2001). DeGrasse found that the state-finance system "violates federal civil rights law because it disproportionately harms [the state’s] minority students," three-quarters of whom attend New York City schools. This ruling adds New York to the nearly 20 states that have been forced by courts in the past decade to find more money to assure children in poor districts a constitutionally adequate education. The price-tag for satisfying the ruling without reducing existing payments to districts could amount to another $3 billion annually. Governor Pataki (who wants to revamp the entire funding system) and the legislature have until September 15 to develop an adequate funding scheme (Keller 2001a).