Another year, another school lawsuit

The Montana Quality Education Coalition has returned, predictably, with another lawsuit aimed at compelling the state to provide funding for an ever-elusive "quality" education.

It should be plain as day that quality-education litigation is something that taxpayers could potentially face every few years, the problem being that "quality" is a term subject to evolving definitions. And there is the persistent, underlying presumption that quality education comes about through increased funding - the coalition's bottom-line objective.

The coalition is backed by a 2004 court ruling on a similar lawsuit that found the state's school funding system is unconstitutional because it failed to determine the costs of providing a quality education, and it failed to establish a funding formula based on those costs. The 2005 Legislature attempted to address the issue - mainly with an 8 percent statewide funding increase.

Soon after, Gov. Brian Schweitzer declared that the state had satisfied terms of the court ruling.

The coalition didn't see things that way, but Schweitzer bluntly warned members in a face-to-face meeting against pursuing further litigation.

"The bottom line that I tried to address to them, is that they are losing a public-relations battle," the governor said in January 2006. "The folks across Montana have had it with taxpayers suing taxpayers and taxpayers picking up the bill on both sides."

Once again, the coalition maintains that schools are being inadequately funded, and in many districts and situations those claims may be justified. But suing Montana taxpayers on claims they have not hit the perpetually moving target of "quality education" shouldn't be a repetitive pursuit.

It's telling that one of the coalition's original partners - the Montana Rural Education Association - didn't appreciate the coalition's tactics. The association, which represents small districts across the state, left the coalition largely because it had attempted to strong-arm legislators with a study calling for an outlandish $700 million in increased education funding at a time when that kind of money was nowhere to be found.

"MREA argued vigorously, to no avail, against the release of the study, which we believe was riddled with errors," a recent association members' briefing stated. "The $700 million study placed education groups in a very difficult position as the 2007 Special Legislative Session convened.

"Many of our members have continued to voice objections and strong concern over the unrealistic and unreasonable projections of over $700 million included in the study. We believe that these projections have created barriers to building a productive relationship with legislators and policy-makers."

Riddled with errors. Unrealistic. Unreasonable.

Those aren't exactly glowing descriptions of what was one of the main weapons in the coalition's legal attack.

Pursuing productive relationships with legislators and policy-makers should be the preferred route for the education establishment. Some legislators and policy-makers are interested in accountability, seeing actual improvements in test scores and other measures of educational quality.

Suing taxpayers for more funding doesn't necessarily deliver it.