In recent years, state legislatures, state education departments, and advocacy groups in over 30 states have sponsored education adequacy studies, which aim to determine objectively the amount of funding needed to provide all students a meaningful opportunity for an adequate education. Not surprisingly, because of their growing influence on funding decisions, these studies have now become the subject of critical commentary and judicial scrutiny, and serious questions have arisen about the validity of the methodologies used in some of the studies. By setting out to determine objectively the resource levels needed to provide all students with an adequate education—and by doing so through relatively open and transparent processes— the contemporary adequacy cost studies are vast improvements over the ad-hoc political deal-making processes of the past. Nevertheless, the validity and the reliability of these methodologies can be improved.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
This article provides the first detailed analysis of judicial critiques of the state of the art of “costing out” studies in order to recommend improvements to the current practice of costing-out educational adequacy.
Research Design
The article engages in an extensive review of judicial critiques of adequacy cost studies, literature critiquing adequacy cost studies, and the adequacy cost studies themselves, in order to identify the best and worst practices in the field.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Based on these critiques, the article recommends explicit articulation of the premises behind the adoption of particular outcome standards, more precise means for identifying the extent to which students with special needs require extra resources, specific mechanisms to minimize political bias and political manipulations, and the use of “quality education models” to integrate efficiency and accountability considerations within the basic cost analysis. In addition, more extensive public engagement and continuing judicial oversight will be necessary to ensure the credibility and the legitimacy of the ultimate judgments that result from these studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott v. Burke. (1998). 710 A.2d 450 (New Jersey Supreme Court).
2.
Abbott v. Burke. (1997). 693 A.2d 417 (New Jersey Supreme Court).
3.
AlexanderKern, AugenblickJohn, DriscollWilliam, GuthrieJames, and LevinRichard. “Proposals for the Elimination of Wealth-Based Disparities in Public Education.” Columbus, OH: Report to the Ohio Legislature, 1995.
4.
AlterJoel, PattersonJohn, and HowardAdrienne. Evaluation Report: No Child Left Behind. St. Paul, MN: Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, 2004.
5.
Alternative Approaches to Measuring Adequacy in K-12 School Finance: A Comparison. American Education Finance Association Workshop, Louisville, KY, March 17, 2005.
6.
American Institutes for Research & Management Planning Inc. New York Adequacy Study: Providing All Children With Full Opportunity to Meet the Regents Learning Standards. Washington, DC and Davis, CA: American Institutes for Research and Management Analysis and Planning, Inc, 2004.
7.
An Act to Implement School Funding Based on Essential Programs and Services. Maine Public Law Chapter 504, L.D. 1623, 2003.
8.
AugenblickJohn. Recommendations for a Base Figure and Pupil-Weighted Adjustments to the Base Figure for Use in a New School Finance System in Ohio. Columbus, OH: Report to the Ohio Department of Education, 1997.
9.
AugenblickJohn, MyersJohn, SilversteinJustin, and BarkisAnne. Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Kansas in 2000–2001 Using Two Different Analytical Approaches. Denver: Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2002.
10.
Augenblick, and Myers. Projected Costs Associated with Implementing the English Language Arts and Math Curriculum Frameworks in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Denver: Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2003.
11.
Augenblick, and MyersInc. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Nebraska in 2002–2003 Using the Professional Judgment Approach. Denver: Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2003.
12.
Augenblick, and Myers. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Maryland in 1999–2000 Using Two Different Analytic Approaches. Denver: Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2001.
13.
Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in North Dakota in 2002–2003 Using the Professional Judgment Approach. Denver: Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, 2003.
14.
Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates. Calculation of the Cost of an Adequate Education in Tennessee in 2001–02 Using the Professional Judgment Approach and the Successful School District Approach. Denver: Augenblick, Palaich, and Associates, 2003.
15.
BaileyThomas R.Implications for the Future Workforce. Paper prepared for symposium on “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education,” Teachers College, Columbia University, October 24, 2005.
16.
BakerBruce D., and ThomasScott L.. Review of Hawai'i's Weighted Student Formula 2006–07. Paper prepared for the Hawai'i Board of Education, 2006.
17.
BakerBruce D., TaylorLori L., and VedlitzArnold. “Measuring Educational Adequacy in Public Schools.” Report Prepared for the Texas Legislature Joint Committee on Public School Finance. College Station, TX: The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, 2005.
18.
BarberBenjamin. Strong Democracy: Participatory Democracy for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
19.
BelfieldClive R., and LevinHenry M.. “The Economics of Education on Judgment Day.” Occasional Paper No. 28. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2001.
20.
BellahRobert N., MadsenRichard, SullivanWilliam M., SwidlerAnn, and TiptonSteven M.. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985.
21.
BerryJeffrey M., PortneyKent E., and ThomsonKen. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press, 1993.
22.
Bridge to Excellence in Public Schools Act of 2002. Maryland Senate Bill 856.
23.
BrownGeorge D.. “Binding Advisory Opinions: A Federal Court's Perspective on State Court School Finance Decisions.” Boston College Law Review, 35 (1994): 543—568.
24.
BurkeThomas F.Lawyers, Lawsuits and Legal Rights: The Battle over Litigation in American Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
25.
California Assembly Bill 2217. Chapter 1026, sec. 64201 (c) (4) (2002).
26.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2006). 814 N.Y.S.2d 1 (Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division).
27.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2005). Index 111070/93. Order confirming the report of the judicial referees (Supreme Court of New York County).
28.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2004). No. 111070/93. Order appointing the judicial referees (Supreme Court of New York County).
29.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2003). 801 N.E. 2d 326. (New York Court of Appeals).
30.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2001). 719 N.Y.S. 2d 475 (Supreme Court of New York County). Affirmed, 801 N.E. 2d 326 (New York Court of Appeals 2003).
31.
Campbell County School District v. State. (2001). 19 P3d 518 (Wyoming Supreme Court).
32.
Campbell County School District v. State. (1995). 907 P.2d 1238 (Wyoming Supreme Court).
33.
ChambersJay G., LevinJesse D., and ParrishThomas B.. “Examining the Relationship Between Educational Outcomes and Gaps in Funding: An Extension of the New York Adequacy Study” Peabody Journal of Education, 81 (2006): 1—32.
34.
ChambersJay, and ParrishTomas. “State-Level Education Finance.” In Advances in Educational Productivity. and and Steven BarnettW., ed. Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 1994. Vol. 4: 45—74.
35.
CipolloneDiane W.Defining a “Basic Education”: Equity and Adequacy Litigation in the State of Washington. New York: CFE Studies in Judicial Remedies and Public Engagement, 1998.
36.
CluneWilliam H.. “The Shift from Equity to Adequacy in School Finance” Education Policy, 8 (1994): 376—395.
37.
Columbia Falls v. State. (2004). No. BDV-2002-528 (Montana 1st District Court).
38.
Connecticut State Department of Education. Cost of Implementing the Federal No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut. Hartford: Connecticut State Department of Education, 2005.
39.
CubberleyEllwood P.Public Education in the United States (2nd ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1934.
40.
DeRolph v. State. (2000). 728 N.E. 2d 993 (Ohio Supreme Court).
41.
DeRolph v. State. (1999). 712 N.E. 2d 125 (Ohio Court of Common Pleas). Affirmed 728 N.E. 2d 993 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000).
42.
DeRolph v. State. (1997). 667 N.E. 2d 733 (Ohio Supreme Court).
43.
DeRolph v. State. (1994). No. 22043, 94-CA-477 (Perry County Court of Appeals). “Developments in the Law–The Interpretation of State Constitutional Rights.” Harvard
44.
Law Review, 95 (1982): 1324–1502.
45.
Devins, Neal. “Congressional Fact Finding” Duke Law Journal, 50 (2001): 1169–1214.
46.
Douglas County School District v. Johanns. (2003). No. S-04-874 (Douglas County District Court, filed June 30).
47.
DriscollWilliam, and FleeterHoward. Projected Costs of Implementing the Federal ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ In Ohio. Independent paper prepared for the Ohio Department of Education, 2003.
48.
DuncombeWilliam. “Responding to the charge of alchemy: Strategies for evaluating the reliability and validity of costing-out research.” Journal of Education Finance, 32 (2006): 137—169.
49.
DuncombeWilliam D., and YingerJohn M.. “Performance Standards and Educational Cost Indexes: You Can't Have One without the Other.” In Equity and Adequacy in School Finance: Issues and Perspectives, LaddHelen F., ClarkRosemary, and HansenJanet S., eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; 260—297.
50.
The Education Equity and Property Tax Relief Act. Rhode Island Statutes, Title 16 §16-7.2-2, 2004. Education Reform Act of 1993. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 71.
51.
EtzioniAmitai. The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American Society. New York: Touchstone, 1993.
52.
FermanichMark. Remarks from AEFA Workshop. “Alternative Approaches to Measuring Adequacy in K-12 School Finance: A Comparison.” American Education Finance Association Workshop, Louisville, KY, March 17, 2005.
53.
Flores v. Arizona. (2002). U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23178 (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona).
54.
Flores v. Arizona. (2000). 160 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona).
55.
FriedmanThomas L.The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
56.
Gittell, Marilyn, ed. Strategies for School Equity: Creating Productive Schools in a Just Society. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998.
57.
Governor's Education Finance Task Force. “Investing in Educational Excellence.” www.ie2.org (accessed August 2, 2006).
58.
GronbergTimothy J., JansenDennis W., TaylorLori L., and BookerKevin. School Outcomes and School Costs: The Cost Function Approach. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University, 2004.
59.
GuthrieJames W., and RothsteinRichard. “Enabling ‘Adequacy’ to Achieve Reality: Translating Adequacy Into State School Finance Distribution Arrangements.” In Equity and Adequacy in School Finance: Issues and Perspectives, LaddHelen F., ClarkRosemary, and HansenJanet S., eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; 209—259.
60.
GuthrieJames W., GarmsWalter I., and PierceLawrence C.. School Finance and Education Policy: Enhancing Educational Efficiency, Equality and Choice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1988.
61.
Hancock v. Commissioner of Education. (2005). 822 N.E. 2d 1134. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
62.
Hancock v. Driscoll. (2004). Mass. Super. LEXIS 118 (Massachusetts Superior Court). Reversed on appeal, 822 N.E. 2d 1134 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2004).
63.
HanushekEric A. “Science Violated: The Reality of ‘Costing Out’ an Adequate Education.” In Courting Failure: How School Adequacy Lawsuits Pervert Judges’ Good Intentions and Harm Our Children. and and HanushekEric, ed. Stanford, CA: Education Next Press, 2006.
64.
HanushekEric A.The Alchemy of ‘Costing Out’ an Adequate Education. Draft paper prepared for the conference on “Adequacy Lawsuits: Their Growing Impact on American Education,” Kennedy School, Harvard University, October 13, 2005. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/events/Adequacy/PEPGi-05-28hanushek.pdf (accessed July 27, 2006).
65.
HanushekEric A.. “Pseudo-Science and a Sound Basic Education.” Education Next, 5 (2005): 67—73.
66.
HawkinsKeith, and ThomasesJohn M., eds. Making Regulatory Policy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1990.
67.
“High Court Open to Public's ABC Comments.” Concord, NH: Union Leader, May 22, 1998.
68.
HershkoffHelen. “Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review.” Harvard Law Review, 112 (1999): 1131—1196.
69.
HorowitzDonald. The Courts and Social Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1977.
70.
ImazekiJennifer, and ReschovskyAndrew. “Assessing the Use of Econometric Analysis in Estimating the Costs of Meeting State Education Accountability Standards: Lessons from Texas.” Peabody Journal of Education, 80 (2005): 96—125.
71.
ImazekiJennifer, and ReschovskyAndrew. Estimating the Costs of Meeting Texas Education Accountability Standards. Unpublished paper, 2004.
72.
KahnPaul D.. “State Constitutionalism and the Problems of Fairness.” Valparaiso Law Review, 30 (1996): 459—474.
73.
Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit. Elementary and Secondary Education in Kansas: Estimating the Costs of K-12 Education Using Two Approaches. Topeka, KS: Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit, 2006.
74.
KomesarNeil K.. “A Job For the Judges: The Judiciary and the Constitution in a Massive and Complex Society.” Michigan Law Review, 86 (1988): 657—721.
75.
KomesarNeil K.. “Taking Institutions Seriously: Introduction to a Strategy for Constitutional Analysis.” University of Chicago Law Review, 51 (1984): 366—446.
76.
Lake View School District v. Huckabee. (2005). Ark. LEXIS 776 (Supreme Court of Arkansas).
77.
Lake View School District v. Huckabee. (2004). 189 S.W3d 1 (Supreme Court of Arkansas).
78.
Lake View School District v. Huckabee. (2001). No. 1992-5318 (Pulaski County Chancery Court).
79.
Legislative Council on the Oregon Quality Education Model. The Oregon Quality Education Model: Relating Funding and Performance. Salem: Oregon Legislative Assembly, 1999.
80.
Maryland Commission on Education Finance, Equity, and Excellence. “Final Report.” Annapolis, MD: Report to the Maryland Legislature and Governor, 2002.
81.
Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education. Every Child a Winner. Boston: Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education, 1991.
82.
Massachusetts Senate Bill 299. 2005.
83.
MathisWilliam J.“Estimating the Costs of Adequacy: Correlations and Observations from 46 Recent State Adequacy Studies.” Paper presented at “Schools for Our Future” Conference, Washington, DC, June 13, 2005.
84.
MathisWilliam J.“Two Very Different Questions.” Bethesda, MD: Education Week, April 21, 2004.
85.
MathewsDavid. Politics for People: Finding a Responsible Public Voice. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1994.
86.
McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education. (1993). 615 N.E.2d 516 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court).
87.
MeyersTheodore, ValeskyThomas C., and HirthMarilyn A.. “K-12 Education Funding in Tennessee: Equity Now–Adequacy Coming.” Journal of Education Finance, 20 (1995): 394—409.
88.
MinoriniPaul A., and SugarmanStephen D.. “Educational Adequacy and the Courts: The Promise and Problem of Moving to a New Paradigm.” In Equity and Adequacy in School Finance: Issues and Perspectives. LaddHelen F., ClarkRosemary, and HansenJanet S., eds. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999; 175—208.
89.
Montoy v. State of Kansas. (2006). Kan. LEXIS 479 (Supreme Court of Kansas).
90.
Montoy v. State of Kansas. (2005). 112 P.3d 923 (Supreme Court of Kansas).
91.
Montoy v. State of Kansas. (2005). 102 P.3d 1160; (Supreme Court of Kansas).
92.
Montoy v. State of Kansas. (2003). 2003 WL 22902963 (Kansas District Court).
93.
MorettiEnrico. “Does Education Reduce Participation in Criminal Activities?” Paper prepared for symposium on “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education,” Teachers College, Columbia University, October 24, 2005.
94.
MuennigPeter. “The economic value of health gains associated with education interventions.” Paper prepared for symposium on “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education,” Teachers College, Columbia University, October 24, 2005.
95.
MyersJohn, and SilversteinJustin. Calculation of the Cost of a Suitable Education in Montana in 2001–2002 Using the Professional Judgment Approach. Denver: Augenblick & Myers, Inc., 2002.
96.
The National Access Project, Teachers College, Columbia University. “Access website.” www.schoolfunding.info (accessed August 2, 2006).
97.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Arizona English Language Learner Cost Study. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2005.
98.
National Conference of State Legislatures. Vermont Education Finance Study. Denver: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2004.
99.
Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy v. Johanns. (2004). No. CI-04-3346 (Lancaster County District Court, filed August 27).
100.
Neeley v. West Orange Cove Consolidated Independent School District. (2005). 176 S.W.3d 746 (Supreme Court of Texas).
101.
NeuborneBert. “State Constitutions and the Evolution of Positive Rights.” Rutgers Law Journal, 20 (1989): 881—902.
102.
New Jersey Department of Education. “Comprehensive Plan for Improvement and Financing.” Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Education, 1996.
103.
New Mexico Public School Funding Formula Study Task Force. Request for Proposals For An Independent Comprehensive Study of the New Mexico Public School Funding Formula. Santa Fe: State of New Mexico, 2006.
104.
New York State Education Department. Estimating the Additional Cost of Providing an Adequate Education. Albany: New York State Education Department, 2004.
105.
New York State Education Department. “The State of Learning, A Report to The Governor and the Legislature on the Educational Status of the State's Schools.” Albany: New York State Education Department, 2000.
106.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 20 USC 6301 et seq.
107.
OddenAllen, PicusLawrence O., GoetzMichael, FermanichMark, SederRichard C., GlennWilliam, and NelliRobert. An Evidence-Based Approach to Recalibrating Wyoming's Block Grant School Funding Formula. Cheyenne, WY: Final report prepared for the Wyoming Legislative Committee on Recalibration, 2005.
108.
OddenAllan, PicusLawrence O., and FermanichMark. A State-of-the-Art Approach to School Finance Adequacy in Kentucky. North Hollywood, CA: Lawrence O. Picus and Associates, 2003.
109.
OddenAllan. “Costs of Sustaining Educational Change via Comprehensive School Reform” Phi Delta Kappan, 81 (2000): 433—438
110.
OddenAllan. “Recommendations for Resolving Abbott v. Burke IV, after the November and December 1997 Hearings.” Abbott v. Burke. (1998). 153 N.J. 480; 710 A.2d 450 (New Jersey Supreme Court): Appendix II; 527—541.
111.
OrfieldGary, and EatonSusan E.. Dismantling Desegregation: The Quiet Reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The New Press, 1997.
112.
Oregon Quality Education Commission. “Quality Education Model, Final Report.” Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Education, 2004.
113.
ParrishThomas. Statement before the judicial referees. Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York. (2004). Index 111070/93 Record of hearing before Judicial Referees, Plaintiff Examination (Supreme Court of New York County)
114.
Pendleton School District 16R v. State of Oregon. (2006). No 0603-02980. First Amended Complaint (Circuit Court, County of Multnomah).
115.
The Rainier Institute. “What Will It Take?” Seattle: The Rainier Institute, 2003.
116.
RebellMichael A. “Poverty, Meaningful Educational Opportunity and the Necessary Role of the Courts,” North Carolina Law Review (2007): 102—179. Forthcoming.
117.
RebellMichael A. “Adequacy Litigations: A New Path to Equity.” In Bringing Equity Back. PetrovichJanice, and Stuart WellsAmy, eds. New York: Teachers College Press, 2005.
118.
RebellMichael A. “Education Adequacy, Democracy and the Courts.” In Achieving High Educational Standards for All. T. ReadyC. Edley, and SnowC., eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2002; 218—268.
119.
RebellMichael A., and HughesRobert L.. “Efficacy and Engagement: The Remedies Problem Posed by Sheff v. O'Neill–and a Proposed Solution.” Connecticut Law Review, 29 (1997): 1115—1186.
120.
RebellMichael A., and BlockArthur R.. Equality and Education: Federal Civil Rights Enforcement in the New York City School System. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
121.
RebellMichael A., and BlockArthur R.. Educational Policymaking and the Courts: An Empirical Study of Judicial Activism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982.
122.
“Report and Recommendations of the Judicial Referees.” CFE v. State of New York. (2004). Index 111070/93 (Supreme Court of New York County).
123.
ReschovskyAndrew, and ImazekiJennifer. Achieving Educational Adequacy through School Finance Reform. Philadelphia: CPRE Research Report, 2000.
124.
Rose v. Council. (1989). 790 S.W. 2d 186 (Supreme Court of Kentucky).
125.
RoseHeather. “The Concept of Adequacy and School Finance.” In School Finance and California's Master Plan for Education. SonstelieJon, and RichardsonPeter, eds. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California, 2001.
126.
RouseCecilia Elena. “The Labor Market Consequences of an Inadequate Education.” Paper prepared for symposium on “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education,” Teachers College, Columbia University, October 24, 2005.
127.
SaksMichael J.The Use of Scientific Evidence in Litigation. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts, 1983.
128.
SaundersThomas. “Settling without ‘Settling:’ School Finance Litigation and Governance Reform in Maryland.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 22 (2004): 571—615.
129.
SchuckPeter H.. “Public Law Litigation and Social Reform.” Yale Law Journal, 102 (1993): 1763—1786.
130.
SchuckPeter H.Agent Orange on Trial: Mass Toxic Disasters in the Courts. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1987.
131.
“Special Masters’ Report to the Supreme Court of Arkansas.” Lake View School District v. Huckabee. (2004). No. 01-836 (Supreme Court of Arkansas).
132.
Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services. Resource Adequacy Study for the New York State Commission on Education Reform. New York: Standard & Poor's, 2004.
State v. Campbell County School District. (2001). 19 P.3d 518 (Wyoming Supreme Court).
135.
State Board of Education and Maine Department of Education. Essential Programs and Services: Equity and Adequacy in Funding to Improve Learning for All Children. Augusta, ME: Maine State Board of Education and Maine Department of Education, 1999.
136.
StrayerGeorge D., and HaigRobert M.. Financing of Education in the State of New York. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1923.
137.
Washington Senate Bill 5441. Chapter 496, Laws of 2005.
138.
West Orange Cove v. Neeley. (2004). No. GV-100528 (Travis County District Court) Reversed on Appeal, 176 S.W3d 746 (Supreme Court of Texas 2005).
139.
WinterGreg. “Decent Education, Figured in Dollars.” New York: New York Times, October 2, 2002.
140.
WiseCharles R.The Dynamics of Legislation: Leadership and Policy Change in the Congressional Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1991.
141.
YoungbloodJ. Craig, and FoiseParker C. “Can Courts Govern? An Inquiry into Capacity and Purpose.” In Governing Through Courts. GambittaR.A.L., MayMarlynn L., and FosterJames C., eds. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1981.
142.
YudofMark. “School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration, and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court.” Law & Contemporary Problems, 42 (1978): 57—110.
