This article applies the logic of the “improved” school finance, arguing the need to understand how resources are used at the school and classroom levels. While California policies and most court cases have been seriously inadequate from this perspective, the recent case of Williams v. California provides new opportunities for equity since it follows the logic of the “improved” school finance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AncessJ. (1996). Outside/inside, inside/outside: Developing and implementing the school quality review.New York: National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching.
CallahanH. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency: A study of the social forces that have shaped the administration of the public schools.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
CluneW. H. (1994). The shift from equity to adequacy in school finance. Educational Policy, 8(4), 376–394.
5.
CohenD., RaudenbuschS., & BallD. (1999). Educational resources, instruction, and research. Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, University of Michigan.
6.
CohenD., RaudenbuschS., & BallD. (2003). Educational resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.
7.
DuncombeW. D., & YingerJ. M. (1999). Performance standards and educational cost indexes: You can't have one without the other. In LaddH. F., ChalkR., & HansenJ. S. (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 260–297). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8.
EdSource (1998). A primer on school finance.Palo Alto, CA: Author.
9.
ElliottM. (1998). School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance students’ achievement?Sociology of Education, 71, 223–245.
10.
FergusonR. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465–497.
11.
FinkelsteinN., FurryW., & HuertaL. (2000). School finance in California: Does history provide a sufficient policy standard? In BurrE., HaywardG. C., FullerB., & KirstM. W. (Eds.), Crucial issues in California education 2000: Are the reform pieces fitting together.Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, University of California.
12.
GoeL. (2001, April). Implementation of California's immediate intervention/under-performing school program: Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the meeting of the AERA Berkeley, CA.
13.
GoeL. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42).
14.
GoeL. (2003). An evaluation of California's immediate internention/underperforming schools program (II/USP) in middle schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
15.
GrubbW. N. (2000). Opening classrooms and improving teaching: Lessons from school inspections in England. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 696–723.
16.
GrubbW. N., HuertaL., & GoeL. (2003). Straw into gold, resources into results: Spinning out the implications of the “improved” school finance. Unpublished paper.
17.
GrubbW. N., & LazersonM. (2004). The education gospel: The power of schooling.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
GrubbW. N., & MichelsonS. (1974). States and schools: The political economy of public school finance.Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
19.
GuthrieJ. W., & RothsteinR. (1999). Enabling “adequacy” to achieve reality: Translating adequacy into state school finance distribution arrangements. In LaddH. F., ChalkR., & HansenJ. S. (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 209–259). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
20.
HanushekE. A. (1989). The impact of differential expenditures on school performance. Educational Researcher, 18, 45–62.
21.
HedgesL. V., LaineR. D., & GreenwaldR. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 5–14.
22.
LaddH., ChalkR., & HansenJ. (1999). Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
LaineR. D., GreenwaldR., & HedgesL. V. (1996). Money does matter: A research synthesis of a new universe of education production function studies. In PicusL. O., & WattenbergJ. L. (Eds.), Where does the money go? Resource allocation in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 44–70). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
24.
Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Education Model (1999). The Oregon Quality Education Model.Salem: Oregon Legislative Assembly, Policy and Research.
25.
McDonnellL., & ElmoreR. (1987). Getting the job done: Alternative policy instruments. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133–152.
26.
MilesK. H. (1995). Freeing resources for improving schools: A case study of teacher allocation in Boston public schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 476–493.
27.
MilesK. H., & Darling-HammondL. (1998). Rethinking the allocation of teaching resources: Some lessons from high-performing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(1), 9–29.
28.
MinoriniP. A., & SugarmanS. D. (1999a). Educational adequacy and the courts: The promise and problems of moving to a new paradigm. In LaddH. F., ChalkR., & HansenJ. S. (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 175–208). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29.
MinoriniP. A., & SugarmanS. D. (1999b). School finance litigation in the name of educational equity: Its evolution, impact, and future. In LaddH. F., ChalkR., & HansenJ. S. (Eds.), Equity and adequacy in education finance: Issues and perspectives (pp. 34–71). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
MostellerF. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5(2), 113–127.
31.
National Research Council. (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’ motivation to learn.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
32.
OddenA. (2001). The new school finance. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 85–91.
33.
OddenA., & BuschC. (1998). Financing schools for high performance: Strategies for improving the use of educational resources.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
PoleJ. R. (1978). The pursuit of equality in American history.Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
RaudenbushS. W., FotiuR. P., & CheongY. F. (1999). Inequality of access to educational resources: A national report card for eighth-grade math. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 253–267.
36.
StecherB., & BohrnstedtG. (2000). Class size reduction in California: Summary of the 1998–99 evaluation findings.Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
37.
WilsonT. (1996). Reaching for a better standard: English school inspection and the dilemma of accountability for American schools.New York: Teachers College Press.
38.
WilsonT. (1999). Foundations of the Catalpa school visit (3rd ed.). Providence, RI: Catalpa.
