Constitutional Law - State Financing of Public Schools - Violation of Equal Protection Clause. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584, 487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971)

The California Court of Appeals upheld a demurrer to the plaintiff's alleganon that the California system of school financing, based on property tax revenues, was unconstitutional.-TheSupreme Court of California reversed, holding that plaintiff school children had "alleged facts showing that the public school financing system denies them equal protection of the laws because it produces substantial disparities among school districts in the amount of revenue available for education."2The California decision is the first judicial recognition of a duty to finance schools in such a manner so as not to create wide disparities in funds available to individual districts.3 A constitutional provision placing a duty on the state legislature to provide essentially free public education 4 is found in every state but 1. Serrano v. Priest, 10 Cal.App.3d 1110, 89 Cal.Rptr.345 (2d Dist.1971).2. Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584, 618, 487 P.2d 1241, 1265, 96 Cal.Rptr.601, 625 (1971).3. The original equal protection attack came in Board of Educ.v. Michigan, General Civil No. 103342 (filed Feb. 2, 1968).See also Burruss v. Wilkerson, 310 F Supp. 572 (W.D. Va.1969), aff'd, 397 U.S. 44 (1970); McInnis v. Shapiro, 293 F Supp. 327 (N.D. I1. 1968), aff'd.mem.sub nora.Mclnms v. Ogilvie, 394 U.S. 322 (1969).In Mclnnis the court held that "individual needs" was such a "nebulous concept" that the issue was nonjusticiable for lack of a manageable standard.Id. at 335.For an article arguing that school districts have a constitutional duty to participate in national compensatory programs when "reasonably feasible" see Comment, Equality of Educational Opportunity: Are "Compensatory Programs" Constitutionally Required?, 42 S. CAL.L. Rnv.146 (1968).4. The following are state consututional provisions calling for establishment of public schools: ALA.CoNsr.