Judge rules $6bn more for pupils

New York pupils can look towards a huge spending increase

A judge in the United States has ordered a $5.6bn (£3bn) annual increase in school spending in New York.

The landmark ruling supports a pressure group which claimed children's right to a decent education was being undermined by a lack of funding.

The New York state supreme court also ruled that an additional $9.6bn must be provided to improve school facilities.

The decision threatens to cause turmoil for politicians setting education budgets.

Implementing the court ruling would mean adding more than 40% to the existing New York school annual budget, which provides places for more than a million pupils.

'Sound basic education'

Political commentators in the United States have talked about the far-reaching practical and constitutional implications of such a decision.

To comply with the judge's order could mean a tax hike for both city and state authorities. And it raises the prospect of further legal battles over who should determine public spending - the courts or the political decision-makers.

Justice Leland DeGrasse's ruling, the latest step in a 12-year legal battle, supports the case of the Campaign for Fiscal Equality - and sets out a specific financial requirement.

This non-profit campaign group has successfully pursued the constitutional right to an adequate funding level for state school pupils through the court system.

And the state supreme court has now spelt out how much extra funding should be provided.

It has ordered an increase of at least an additional $5.63bn phased in over a four-year period, plus $9.179bn for capital expenditure on equipment and buildings over five years.

There is also a stipulation for subsequent reviews of what spending is required to provide a "basic sound education".

Michael Rebell of the Campaign for Fiscal Equality says the campaigners expect the state to comply with the decision within 90 days.

The case has already been heard by the court of appeal, but the state authorities are expected to further contest the decision. There have also been questions raised about whether New York state and city authorities will both be liable to pay for the funding increase.