Georgia officials continue to fight a lawsuit by 51 mostly rural school districts, including Murray County, that claims a lack of state money prevents them from providing an “adequate” education for students.
A Fulton County Superior Court judge is considering the state attorney general’s motion for summary judgment that was filed May 30.
If that motion is denied, the case is still set for trial Oct. 21.
Citing months of research and depositions of dozens of witnesses, the motion claims the the school districts failed to present proof students weren’t receiving an “adequate” education as defined by state law or that a lack of state funding caused poor student performance.
A summary judgment is made in a case where one side can prove to a judge none of the facts are in dispute, leaving only the judge to decide what the legal consequences are, if any.
However, school districts are preparing a response to dispute the state’s claims within the required month, said Joe Martin, executive director of the Consortium for Adequate School Funding, which is heading up the lawsuit on behalf of the districts.
“A motion for summary judgment will not succeed unless there is agreement on the facts, and in this case, there clearly isn’t,” Mr. Martin said last week, adding he couldn’t comment on details until the response is finished.
However, Mr. Martin said the summary judgment motion was expected, and the consortium still plans for the trial to begin Oct. 21.
Both the Attorney General Thurbert Baker’s office and the office of Gov. Sonny Perdue, who is listed as a defendant, declined to comment on the pending lawsuit.
The suit, which was filed in 2004, asserts the state’s Quality Basic Education formula doesn’t allocate enough money for all counties to provide an “adequate” education, especially in more rural, poorer areas where low property values make it impossible for some counties to supplement the state education funds with local tax dollars to offer quality public education.
The consortium’s goal is to prompt lawmakers to rethink and redo how it distributes the state’s money, more than half of which goes toward funding schools, Mr. Martin said.
In its motion for summary judgment, the state uses information provided by six “focus districts,” with Murray County being one of them, to try to show the districts have close to the average per-student funding, and if not, have been provided with higher than average grants from the state to equalize that funding.
Also, the state shows that only one of the districts have raised millage rates on local property taxes to the maximum and states several of the districts suing have lowered their property tax rates since filing the suit.
The districts also are able to provide all state-mandated programs and admit they can’t prove more money and resources cause increases in student performance, according to the state’s brief.
But in an e-mail to consortium members this month, Mr. Martin wrote the revelation of mass failure of students on mandatory state standardized tests bolsters the schools’ claims that lack of funding hurts education.
“The recent scores on the CRCT (Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests) underscore the cumulative effect of the reduction in state funding for staff development, which was cut by one-third in (fiscal year 2002) and has remained at only 1 percent of the base salaries in the QBE Formula, even though a new curriculum was being introduced,” he stated in the e-mail.
Effects so far
Although the suit has dragged on for years without resolution, it has had an effect on state officials and furthered school funding discussions, said Rep. Tom Dickson, R-Cohutta.
Rep. Dickson not only represents part of Murray County, but also is a member of the Governor’s Task Force on Education Funding, which was formed in 2004, before the suit was filed, to reevaluate the state’s education funding and standards.
“As the (task force) has deliberated, we have been cognizant of the lawsuit and the basis of the lawsuit,” Rep. Dickson said. “The issues the lawsuit is based on are important to” the task force.
He has said he has been disappointed the group has been unable to produce a revised school funding formula yet, but it did produce legislation this session that allows districts to enter into contracts with the state to exchange more flexibility in spending state dollars for producing higher student achievement.
Also this year, legislators protested Gov. Perdue’s suggested $141 million in “austerity cuts,” or not fully funding the QBE formula, and voted to restore $50 million of the reductions. Since fiscal year 2003, the formula has fallen short of being funded by more than $1 billion.
Dean Donehoo, director of administrative services for Murray County Schools, said there’s “a lot of conversation going on” among state officials, but it’s too soon to tell whether it will produce results.
“It’s not really far enough along to see if anything gives me a positive feeling,” he said.
Win not needed
The schools probably don’t need to even win the case to have the intended effect of challenging the QBE formula, Sen. Don Thomas, R-Dalton, said.
“Just the fact they filed suit, there’s discussion on it,” he said.
The current QBE formula came about after a 1981 lawsuit filed by school districts, including Whitfield County, of which Sen. Thomas was the board chairman. The suit claimed a funding system based solely on a county’s tax base was unconstitutional.
The state Supreme Court ruled against the districts, but urged the state Legislature to find a more equal way to distribute state money to schools.
“I don’t think they’d have to win the suit to change things,” he said. “We didn’t win our suit, and it changed. I think the legislature and leadership want to improve education. The formula probably does need to be changed.”
