Issue: Education
Topic: School Finance
Status: Inactive
Project Date: January 1, 1968
Serrano v. Priest refers to three cases decided by the California Supreme Court: Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal.3d 584 (1971) (Serrano I); Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal.3d 728 (1976) (Serrano II); and Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25 (1977) (Serrano III).
Serrano I (1971)
Initiated in 1968 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Serrano v. Priest (John Serrano was a parent of one of several Los Angeles public school students; Ivy Baker Priest was the California State Treasurer at the time) set forth three causes of action (quotes from the decision).
- California’s method of funding public education, because of district-to-district disparities, “fails to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution.”
- “[As] a direct result of the financing scheme they are required to pay a higher tax rate than [taxpayers] in many other school districts in order to obtain for their children the same or lesser educational opportunities afforded children in those other districts.”
- “[That] an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the validity and constitutionality of the financing scheme under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and under the California Constitution.”
The Court agreed with the plaintiffs, largely on equal-protection grounds, and returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Read the decision here.
Serrano II (1976)
In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), the Supreme Court of the United States reversed a similar decision by a Texas District Court, which like Serrano I had been decided on Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection grounds. In Serrano I, however, the California Supreme Court had relied in addition on California’s constitution, and in Serrano II they affirmed that basis, protecting the Serrano decisions from Rodriguez.
The Serrano II decision also held that the legislative response to Serrano I was insufficient, and affirmed the trial court’s order requiring that wealth-based funding disparities between district be reduced to less than $100 by 1980.
Read the decision here.
Serrano III (1977)
Serrano III dealt primarily with attorneys’ fees, but in passing affirmed the trial court’s response to the Serrano II decision, including a six-year timetable for bringing the funding system into compliance.
Read the decision here.
Proposition 13
The legislative response to Serrano I and Serrano II was significantly constrained by California Proposition 13 (1978), and an initial property-tax-based solution was replaced by a funding scheme that relied more heavily on state (as opposed to district) revenue, which has remained in effect, with occasional adjustments, ever since.
