Woonsocket Challenges State's Education Funding Formula

The Woonsocket Education Department believes the state's new system for funding education is flawed and has filed a lawsuit to challenge the formula in Superior Court.

Rhode Island passed the funding formula last year in hopes to establish a more equitable distribution of state aid for schools. Prior to its passage, Rhode Island was the only state in the nation without such a formula and annual funding was based on the previous year's figures, without accounting for changes in enrollment or cost of instruction.

"We had a flat system that was abused," said Superintendent Robert Gerardi. "They chose to cut and add money arbitrarily."

Although Woonsocket is slated to receive an additional $8 million as result of the new formula, Gerardi believes the system does not go far enough towards addressing the challenges faced by urban communities. School officials in Pawtucket agree and have signed on to the lawsuit, filed last Thursday.

The school committee approved the challenge last year, with plans to claim the city needs roughly $16 million more for education, but waited to see how much Woonsocket would receive under the new formula before moving forward. 

"Last year, we filled an adequacy lawsuit, much like the McDuffy case in Massachusetts over 25 years ago," said Gerardi.

In the 1993 lawsuit McDuffy v. Secretary, Massachusetts students claimed that their own less affluent school districts were unable to provide them with adequate education. Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state had an obligation to educate all of its children. Further, they concluded the students in less affluent communities were being denied their constitutional right to education.

"Students in poverty have a higher cost of education," Gerardi said.

Districts facing similar financial obstacles in poorer communities across the nation have levied successful lawsuits against public education financing in 18 states. Funding plans for education were rejected by courts and found unconstitutional in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In Rhode Island, the national consulting firm Public Impact was tasked in 2009 with recommending how the state could improve its education funding system. The firm recommended need-based funding stating, "Across the nation, other states have provided extra funding based on eligibility for free or reduced price lunch, special education services, or gifted programs, or for certain types of students such as English language learners, homeless or transient students."

The state ultimately dismissed portions of the study and instead chose the "market basket" approach devised by experts from the Department of Education and Brown University professors. The system includes only limited costs to determine funding and leaves the rest for local communities.

"The market basket approach does not take into account the needs of English language learners," said Gerardi. "It is based on poverty but not special needs."

City Council President John Ward directly about the issue during her visit to the city last month.  "I don't believe the formula is sufficient," Ward told Gist, emphasizing the cost associated with special education.

Steven Robinson of Robinson and Clapham is the lead attorney in the Superior Court case.

"Our attorneys will continue to fight the new formula," said Gerardi. "We do not believe they are providing proper funding the state's core urban communities."