The New York Appellate Division has upheld a previous ruling regarding the state's school funding formula, which affects small city school districts across New York. This decision, made on October 29, 2026, comes after a lengthy legal battle that has lasted for over 18 years. The court ruled that the state's approach to remedying funding deficiencies is rational and meets constitutional obligations. This ruling is significant as it impacts the educational opportunities available to at-risk students in these districts.
The case, Maisto v. State of New York (CV-25-0484), involves appellants Larry J. Maisto and others against the State of New York. The dispute centers around whether the state has adequately funded small city school districts to provide students with a sound basic education, as mandated by the state constitution. The court's decision is crucial for the future of educational funding in New York, particularly for districts that have historically faced financial challenges.
The legal saga began with the Campaign for Fiscal Equity cases, which highlighted the state's failure to provide adequate funding for New York City schools. Following these rulings, plaintiffs in the current case argued that similar funding inadequacies existed in small city school districts. The court had previously determined that the state violated its constitutional obligations regarding funding for at-risk students during specific academic years and ordered the state to develop a rational remedy.
The Appellate Division's ruling confirms that the state's remedial actions, particularly through the Foundation Aid program, are rational. Foundation Aid was established in 2007 to address funding disparities and is designed to provide additional resources based on student needs, including poverty and English-language proficiency. The court noted that the state had resumed full funding of this program after delays due to budget constraints and the COVID-19 pandemic, which had interrupted its implementation.
In the opinion, the court stated, "Defendant's actions were rationally directed toward remedying the deficiencies underlying our prior determination." The judges emphasized that the state has made significant progress in increasing funding for the affected districts and that these increases have led to educational improvements. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' remaining claims, stating that further judicial intervention was unwarranted.
The ruling also addressed the concerns raised by the plaintiffs regarding the adequacy of the Foundation Aid formula itself. They argued that despite increased funding, many districts still lacked sufficient resources to meet the needs of their at-risk students. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the state's remedial response was irrational or that it failed to provide a sound basic education.
Moving forward, this ruling has significant implications for school funding in New York. It affirms the state's current approach to funding small city school districts and suggests that while challenges remain, the state is making strides to address these issues. The decision may set a precedent for future cases involving educational funding and the state's constitutional obligations.
As for what comes next, it is unclear whether the plaintiffs will appeal this ruling. The court did not specify any further related cases pending at this time. However, the ongoing evaluation of the Foundation Aid formula and its effectiveness will likely continue to be a topic of discussion among educators, policymakers, and advocates for children's rights.
