School finance litigation has often prompted funding reforms, but what happens as a result is the subject of considerable dispute.
Purpose
This article explores design problems encountered in studies examining the nature and effects of those reforms.
Analysis
After describing the development and current status of school finance litigation, the authors explore methodological complexities associated with estimating the effects of state school finance reforms. Then, following a review of the research literature that provides the most direct and empirically rigorous evaluations of the achievement effects of these reforms, the authors critique a growing body of weaker but nonetheless influential literature focused on attacking school finance reform and more generally on discrediting judicial involvement in public schooling and finance litigation. In the article's final section, the authors review school finance reform in the four states analyzed in an influential recent book by Hanushek and Lindseth, taking a second look at what the book's authors concluded were disappointing outcomes.
Conclusions
Methodological complexities and design problems plague finance impact studies. Although there are high-quality studies covering these issues, the research appearing to have the greatest influence in media coverage and policymaking is often advocacy-oriented and of lesser quality.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott v. Burke, 100 N.J. 269, 495 A.2d 376 (1985).
2.
Abbott v. Burke, 199 N.J. 140; 971 A.2d 989 (2009).
3.
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).
4.
BakerB. D. (2008). Doing more harm than good? A commentary on the politics of cost adjustments for wage variation in state school finance formulas. Journal of Education Finance, 33(4), 406–440.
5.
BakerB. D., & ImberM. (1999). “Rational Educational Explanation” or Politics as Usual? Evaluating the Outcome of Educational Finance Litigation in Kansas. Journal of Education Finance, 25(1), 121–139.
6.
BakerB. D., & WelnerK. G. (2010). Premature celebrations: The persistence of inter-district funding disparities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(9).
7.
Bezdicheck v. State, Case No. CIV 91-209 (South Dakota Circuit Court, 1995, unpublished decision).
8.
BifulcoR., DuncombeW., & YingerJ. (2005). Does Whole School Reform Boost Student Performance? Evidence from New York. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 47–72.
9.
BormanG. D., HewesG. M., OvermanL. T., & BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230.
10.
Brigham v. State, 166 Vt. 246, 692 A.2d 384 (1997).
11.
CardD., & PayneA. A. (2002). School Finance Reform, the Distribution of School Spending, and the Distribution of Student Test Scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1), 49–82.
12.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York, 100 N.Y.2d 893; 801 N.E.2d 326; 769 N.Y.S.2d 106 (2003).
13.
ChoudharyL. (2009). Education Inputs, Student Performance and School Finance Reform in Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(1), 90–98. Ciotti, P. (1998). Money and School Performance: Lessons from the Kansas City Desegregations Experience. Cato Policy Analysis #298.
14.
Claremont School District v. Governor, 635 A.2d 1375 (1993).
15.
Claremont School District v. Governor, 744 A.2d 1107 (1999).
16.
CoateD., & VanDerHoffJ. (1999). Public School Spending and Student Achievement: The Case of New Jersey. Cato Journal, 19(1), 85–99.
17.
Columbia Falls Elem. Sch. Dist. 6 v. State, 326 Mont. 304, 109 P.3d 257 (2005).
18.
Committee for Educational Equality v. State of Missouri, 294 S.W.3d 477 (Missouri, 2009).
DatnowA. (2005). The Sustainability of Comprehensive School Reform Models in Changing District and State Contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 121–153.
21.
DekeJ. (2003). A study of the impact of public school spending on postsecondary educational attainment using statewide school district refinancing in Kansas, Economics of Education Review, 22(3), 275–284.
DeRolph v. State, 780 N.E.2d 529 (2002) (DeRolph III.
25.
DownesT. A. (2004). School Finance Reform and School Quality: Lessons from Vermont. In YingerJ. (Ed.), Helping Children Left Behind: State Aid and the Pursuit of Educational Equity. (pp. 283-313). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26.
DownesT. A., & FiglioD. N. (1998). School Finance Reforms, Tax Limits and Student Performance: Do reforms level up or level down? Discussion Paper 98-05. Department of Economics. Tufts UniversityMedford, MA.
27.
DownesT. A., ZabelJ., & AnselD. (2009). Incomplete Grade: Massachusetts Education Reform at 15.Boston, MA.: MassINC.
EversW. M., & CloptonP. (2006). High-Spending, Low-Performing School Districts. In HanushekE. A. (Ed.), Courting Failure: How School Finance Lawsuits Exploit Judges’ Good Intentions and Harm our Children. (pp. 103–194). Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Press.
GoertzM., & WeissM. (2009). Assessing Success in School Finance Litigation: The Case of New Jersey.New York City: The Campaign for Educational Equity, Teachers College, Columbia University.
34.
Gould v. Orr, 506 N.W.2d 349 (1993).
35.
GreenP. C., & BakerB. D. (2005). History of School Finance Reform and Litigation in Kansas. Kansas Policy Review, 27(2), 2–6.
36.
GreenP. C., & BakerB. D. (2006). Urban Legends, Desegregation and School Finance: Did Kansas City really prove that money doesn't matter?Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 12(1), 57–105.
37.
GreeneJ. P., & TrivittJ.R. (2008). Can Judges Improve Academic Achievement?Peabody Journal of Education, 83(2), 224–237.
38.
GuryanJ. (2003). Does Money Matter? Estimates from Education Finance Reform in Massachusetts. Working Paper No. 8269.Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
HanushekE. A., & LindsethA. (2009). Schoolhouses, Courthouses and Statehouses.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
42.
Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State, 769 P.2d 684 (1989).
43.
Horne v. Flores, 129 S. Ct. 2579 (2009).
44.
LeuvenE., LindahlM., OosterbeekH., & WebbinkD. (2007). The Effect of Extra Funding for Disadvantaged Pupils on Achievement. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(4), 721–736.
45.
Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358 (Colo., 2009).
46.
Lujan v. Colorado State Board of Education, 649 P.2d 1005 (Colo., 1982).
47.
McCaslinM., & GoodT. L. (2008). A Study of Comprehensive School Reform Programs in Arizona. Teachers College Record, 110(11), 2319–2340.
48.
McCleary v. State, Case no. 07-2-02323-2 SEA (Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, 2010 [February 4], unpublished decision). Retrieved March 19, 2010 from http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/McCleary.pdf
49.
McLaughlinM. W., ShepardL. A., & O'DayJ. A. (1995). Improving Education Through Standards-Based Reform. Report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Education Reform (Deborah Fife ed.), Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
50.
Montoy v. Kansas, 278 Kan. 769 (2005a).
51.
Montoy v. Kansas, 279 Kan. 817 (2005b).
52.
MurrayS. E., EvansW. N., & SchwabR. M. (1998). Education Finance Reform and the Distribution of Education Resources. American Economic Review, 88(4), 789–812.
53.
Nebraska Coalition for Educational Equity and Adequacy v. Heineman, 731 N.W.2d 164 (Neb., 2007).
Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.W.2d 186 (1989).
62.
RowanB. (1990). Commitment and Control: Alternative Strategies for the Organizational Design of Schools.
63.
RoyJ. (2003). Impact of School Finance Reform on Resource Equalization and Academic Performance: Evidence from Michigan.Princeton University, Education Research Section Working Paper No. 8. Retrieved October 23, 2009 from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=630121 (Forthcoming in Education Finance and Policy.)
Sheff v. O'Neill, 238 Conn. 1, 678 A.2d 1267 (1996).
66.
SpringerM. G., LiuK., & GuthrieJ. (2009). The Impact of School Finance Litigation on Resource Distribution: A Comparison of Court Mandated Equity and Adequacy Reforms. Education Economics, 17(4), 421–444.
67.
State of Wyoming v. Campbell County School District, 19 P.3d 518 (Wyo. 2001).
68.
The Economist (1993, August 28). “The Cash Street Kids.”The Economist. pp. 23–24.
Unified School District No. 229 v. State, 885 P.2d 1170 (Kansas, 1994).
71.
VernezG., KaramR., MarianoL.T., DeMartiniC. (2006) Evaluating Comprehensive School Reform Models at Scale: Focus on Implementation. RAND Mongraph Report. Santa Monica, CA. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG546/
72.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely-Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
73.
WelnerK. G., & GebhardtK. (forthcoming). “School Finance: When State Courts Refuse To Engage,” in FirstP. (Ed.), Policy for American Schools. (pp. xx–xx). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
74.
West Orange-Cove Consolidated ISD v. Nelson, 107 S.W.3d 558 (2005).
