The Attorney General's office says that the state can’t — and shouldn’t have to — comply with a recent court ruling that the state’s school funding method is inadequate and unconstitutional.
In that ruling, the judge said the state has been significantly underfunding its public schools and set a new minimum for per-pupil base adequacy aid, based on evidence presented by school districts about their expenditures. That proposed minimum amount — $7,356.01 — represents a 75% increase from the state’s current per-pupil funding levels.
But in a motion for reconsideration filed this week, the Attorney General’s office says the court overstepped its authority. Its main argument echoes the state’s responses in past court rulings on school funding, namely that school funding decisions are the domain of the Legislature, not the courts.
State attorneys say if the order goes into effect, the state will be unable to fund schools. Even if lawmakers adhere to the new ruling and come up with a way of sending more money to schools, the state argues, they wouldn’t be able to do so in time to pay schools next year.
The state is asking for a pause so that lawmakers have a chance to meet and potentially come up with a way to boost funding, but it also says it will appeal the entire lower court ruling.
John Tobin, a lawyer who has represented school districts in funding lawsuits for three decades, said the state’s response was as predicted.
“They’re just looking for way to avoid doing their constitutional duty,” he said.
An attorney representing ConVal School District, which led the funding lawsuit, says they plan to file an objection to the state’s motion next week. It is unclear how long the fight over this lawsuit, which began in 2019, will continue.
