Historical Background
The struggle over school finance in Wyoming is a battle that has waged on since the 1970s and has been greatly influenced by school funding lawsuits. In 1980, the Wyoming Supreme Court found the funding system unconstitutional in Washakie County School District v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 310. In 1995, in Campbell County School District v. State (Campbell I), 907 P.2d 1238, the court again declared the state school funding system unconstitutional, on equity and adequacy grounds. The Campbell court provided remedial guidelines to the legislature based on the need to prepare high school graduates to become equipped for their future roles as citizens, participants in the political system, and competitors both economically and intellectually. The court also indicated that the opportunity for a quality education should include small class sizes; ample, appropriate provision for at-risk students; and meaningful standards and assessments. Finding that the state constitution established education as the legislature’s “paramount priority,” the court directed the legislature to determine the cost of a quality education and fund it.
Since the Campbell I decision, the legislature has labored diligently to establish a constitutional system of education finance, even in the face of revenue shortfalls.
On February 23, 2001, the Wyoming Supreme Court, in its second Campbell decision, found the state’s new cost-based education finance system capable of fulfilling the Wyoming constitution’s guarantee of an education “appropriate for the times.” The court concluded that the methodology used to develop the costs on which the new system is based was sound, and it reviewed the challenged components of the funding system in detail. Most elements of the system, including class size and teacher salaries, passed constitutional muster, but a few items, the most noteworthy of which is capital funding, were sent back to the legislature for further consideration. The court also emphasized the need for a review of all of the cost-based factors every five years and inflation adjustments at least every two years.
Finding that some school districts’ unfunded capital construction needs “continue to mount,” the court judged the capital portion of the new system inadequate. It also rejected certain adjustments in the system that were not cost-based and directed the legislature to revise them. For example, the court recognized the difficulty of determining the actual costs of educating at-risk students, but held that, until the state develops a way of assessing these costs, it must fully fund the “actual and necessary costs” associated with these students.
On January 8, 2008, the Wyoming Supreme Court found that the State was fully in compliance with the constitutional mandate to provide a “thorough and efficient education structure,” and it terminated its jurisdiction of the litigation. Specifically, the Court upheld legislative changes regarding at-risk students, small schools and other items, clarified aspects of its prior decision dealing with the calculation of cost of living adjustments, and upheld the new capital construction system the legislature had adopted since Campbell II. The State had created a School Facilities Commission (“SFC”) responsible of adopting standards and determining, in consultation with school districts, what facilities should be constructed. (Since 2002, the legislature had earmarked about $990 million for capital school construction). The District court had been concerned that as of the time of trial in 2005, little actual construction had been approved, but the Supreme Court concluded that the remaining capital construction issues should be determined on a case-by-case basis through the school district’s right to appeal decisions of the SFC.
Recent Events
Wyoming Teachers Association v. State
In August, 2022, the Wyoming Teachers Association(WEA) filed a 71-page complaint alleging that the state had in recent years failed to follow through and update the “cost-based model” for funding education established by the state Supreme Court in the Campbell cases. They alleged that the current funding model allocates $7,000 per teacher below the actual costs districts must pay to fill teaching positions. As a result, the state is increasingly unable to recruit and retain qualified candidates to fill certified and classified staff positions. The lawsuit also cites “increased class sizes, aging buildings and infrastructure” and “insufficient school security measures” as problems resulting from inadequate school funding.
In December 2022, Laramie County District Court Judge Peter H. Froelicher denied the State’s motion to dismiss and upheld the WEA’s standing to pursue the suit. He also stated that at the trial, the plaintiffs must prove that the state has been underfunding the schools. If the plaintiffs meet that burden, the court held that the state will have to come up with a “compelling reason” for the inadequate funding because he reads the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in the Campbell case to mean that education is a fundamental right under the Wyoming constitution. Eight school districts then joined the Wyoming Education Association as plaintiffs in the case.
In a blistering 186-page decision issued on February 26, 2025, Judge Froelicher held that “ the State has failed to maintain a constitutionally compliant school finance system by not properly funding the actual costs of school districts to provide the basket of quality educational goods and services” required by the state constitution in Wyoming Teachers Association v. State.
The court closely examined the current “basket of quality educational goods and services” being provided to Wyoming students and determined that because “ [a] quality education is dynamic and evolving,” and must be “appropriate for the times,” the current basket of required goods and services must include funding for elementary level mental health counselors, security officers , nutritional programs, and computers for every student. In addition, Judge Froelicher found that the State failed to:
- properly adjust for the effects of inflation in recent years
- provide salaries adequate for the school districts to recruit and retain personnel
- maintain a constitutionally compliant school finance system by not adequately and evenly assessing school facilities for educational suitability and allowing unequal and inadequate school facilities to exist for too long of a period.
The court held that it will maintain jurisdiction over this case until such time as the constitutional violations have been fully remedied.
In an extensive decision issued in September, 2026, the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that the legislature violated students’ rights to equal protection by failing to fund the estimated true cost of teacher salaries, and in failing to require yearly evaluations of, and appropriate action to address, the effects of inflation on school funding. State of Wyoming v. Wyoming Teachers Association.
The Court re-iterated its strong holdings from the Campbell litigations that “The critical question in determining the constitutionality of a funding model is whether “the state’s chosen method of funding represent[s], as close as reasonably possible, the cost of education….Given that the most expensive component of any education system is personnel, primarily classroom teachers, the legislature’s “estimate of this component cost deserves the closest scrutiny….If it cannot be concluded that the estimate of teacher costs reflects the actual cost of the teachers necessary to deliver the basket, the system cannot be constitutional.”
However, the Court reversed the lower court’s ruling that certain local enhancements and innovations like school resource officers or nutrition programs must be funded because “The role of the courts is to “protect against a failure of the state to fund a system capable of meeting state standards,” and “as educational needs evolve, the legislature must evaluate whether innovations developed by local school districts have become components necessary to meet state educational standards.”
The state did not appeal the trial court’s holding that legislature failed to adequately fund school capital construction and maintenance needs, but it did contest its ruling that the administrative process the state used to determine to identify educational suitability issues in school buildings. The Court upheld the state’s position on this issue.
The Court also reversed the trial court’s decision to retain jurisdiction to monitor compliance with the court’s order because “ [W]e assume the legislature will act in good faith to fulfill its constitutional obligations as outlined in this opinion and our prior precedent by making required changes” and “As in the past, if stakeholders believe the legislature has not enacted school funding laws that comply with constitutional and statutory dictates, we are certain they will bring legal action to obtain judicial review.”