The Washington Supreme Court ruled that an Act establishing and funding charter schools as common schools was unconstitutional. The Court held that charter schools are not ‘common schools’ under Article IX of Washington’s Constitution. Thus, the use of funds restricted by the Washington Constitution to support common schools under the Act was unconstitutional. Also, because the funding provisions were integral to, and not severable from, the Act, the Court held the Act to be unconstitutional in its entirety.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that Louisiana’s ‘Minimum Foundation Program’, which allocates educational funding to schools, could not be used to provide funding to privates schools by way of a voucher programme. It ruled that to do so violated article VIII, section 13 of the Louisiana Constitution, which establishes how monies are to be allocated to public schools based on a formula adopted by the state board of education. The Court recognised that public resources constitutionally reserved for public schools cannot be allocated to private school, either directly or indirectly through a voucher programme. The Court avoided addressing the issue of whether the school voucher programme itself violated the right to education provisions of the Louisiana Constitution.

In this decision, the Florida Supreme Court held that a voucher program providing public funds to students to obtain private education failed to comply with article IX, section 1 of the Florida Constitution, which requires the state government to make adequate provision for education through a uniform system of free public schools. This decision confirms Florida’s constitutional obligation to provide high quality, free public education – a duty that cannot be discharged by funding unregulated private schools through a voucher or scholarship program. The decision is consistent with the principle that the State has the primary responsibility for ensuring that the right to education is upheld regardless of whether the provider is public or private, and that the State must ensure that private providers meet minimum educational standards. 

 

In this case,  ISER successfully petitioned the High Court seeking declarations to the effect that the government policy on public financing of secondary education in Uganda infringes on the rights to; equality and non – discrimination; and quality education as guaranteed under Articles 21; and 30 and 34(2) of the Constitution respectively. The court directed that; government must ensure equity for all children in the design and implementation of education programs; and that government should take its lead position in regulating private involvement in education to ensure adherence to minimum standards – in doing so, it should make good use of the Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of states to provide public education and regulate private involvement in education to offer the necessary guidance. ISER successfully petitioned the High Court seeking declarations to the effect that the government policy on public financing of secondary education in Uganda infringes on the rights to; equality and non – discrimination; and quality education as guaranteed under Articles 21; and 30 and 34(2) of the Constitution respectively. The court directed that; government must ensure equity for all children in the design and implementation of education programs; and that government should take its lead position in regulating private involvement in education to ensure adherence to minimum standards – in doing so, it should make good use of the Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of states to provide public education and regulate private involvement in education to offer the necessary guidance.