Courts hearing school finance reform cases have recently begun to consider several issues related to standards-based accountability policies. This convergence of school finance reform litigation and standards-based accountability policies represents a chance for the courts to reallocate decision-making authority for each type of reform across the governmental branches. Using an institutional choice approach, this study analyzes how judges in two school finance cases reallocated governmental decision-making authority. This study further highlights the historical and legal factors underlying this reallocation and suggests that this reallocation may represent a desirable new approach for dealing with educational policy problems in an evenhanded way.
Abbeville County School District v. State, No. 31-0169 (S.C. Ct. Comm. Pl. Dec. 29, 2005).
2.
Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990).
3.
Almeida, T.A. (2004). Refocusing school finance litigation on at-risk children: Leandro v. State of North Carolina. Yale Law and Policy Review, 22, 525-569.
4.
Baker, B.D., Taylor, L., & Vedlitz, A. (2004). Measuring educational adequacy in public schools . College Station: Texas A&M University, The Texas School Finance Project.
5.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
6.
Buzbee, W.W. (1997). Brownfields, environmental federalism, and institutional determinism. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 21, 1-67.
7.
Buzbee, W.W. (2000). Sprawl's dynamics: A comparative institutional critique. Wake Forest Law Review, 35, 509-532.
8.
Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York, 744 N.E.2d 130 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003).
9.
Chemerinsky, E. (2003). The segregation and resegregation of American public education: The courts' role. North Carolina Law Review , 81, 1597-1622.
Claremont School District v. Governor, 703 A.2d 1353 (N.H. 1997).
12.
Claremont School District v. Governor, 794 A.2d 744 (N.H. 2002).
13.
Clune, W. (1993). Systemic educational policy: A conceptual framework . In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1-44.
15.
Columbia Falls Elementary School District No. 6 v. State, 109 P.3d 304 (Mt. 2005).
16.
Crawford v. Davy, (N.J. Super Ct. Ch. Div., filed July 13, 2006).
17.
Danson v. Casey, 299 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1979).
18.
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997).
19.
Duncombe, W., Lukenmeyer, A., & Yinger, J. (2004). Educational reform in New York: Calculating the cost of a "sound basic education."Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center for Policy Research, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
20.
Enrich, P. (1995). Leaving equality behind: New directions in school finance reform. Vanderbilt Law Review, 48, 101-194.
21.
Feeley, M.M., & Rubin, E.L. (1998). Judicial policy making and the modern state: How the courts reformed America's prisons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
General Accounting Office. (1998). School finance: State efforts to equalize funding between wealthy and poor school districts. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
23.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, P.L. 103-227 (1994).
24.
Griffith, M. (2005). School finance litigation and beyond: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved January 10, 2007, from www.://http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/60/26/6026.htm
25.
Hancock v. Driscoll, 2004 WL 877984 (Mass. Super. 2004).
26.
Hancock v. Driscoll, 822 N.E.2d 1134 (Mass. 2005).
27.
Heise, M. (2002). The courts, educational policy, and unintended consequences. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 11, 636-663.
28.
Heise, M. (2004). Litigated learning and the limits of law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 2417-2461.
29.
Hershkoff, H. (1996). Positive rights and state constitutions: The limits of federal rationality review. Harvard Law Review, 112, 1131-1196.
30.
Hoke County Board of Education v. State (Hoke County I), 95 CVS 1158 (N.C. Super. Ct., Oct. 12, 2000).
31.
Hoke County Board of Education v. State (Hoke County II), 95 CVS 1158 (N.C. Super. Ct., Oct. 26, 2000).
32.
Hoke County Board of Education v. State (Hoke County III), 95 CVS 1158 (N.C. Super. Ct., Mar. 26, 2001).
33.
Hoke County Board of Education v. State (Hoke County IV), 95 CVS 1158 (N.C. Super. Ct., Apr. 4, 2002).
34.
Hoke County Board of Education v. State of North Carolina, 599 S.E.2d 365 (N.C. 2004).
35.
Horowitz, D. (1977). The courts and social policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
36.
Hunter, M. (1999). All eyes forward: Public engagement and educational reform in Kentucky. Journal of Law and Education, 28, 485-516.
Joondeph, B.W. (1995). The good, the bad and the ugly: An empirical analysis of litigation prompted school finance reform. Santa Clara Law Review, 35, 763-824.
39.
Kaufman, M. (2005). Rhetorical questions concerning justice and equality in educational opportunities. Loyola University of Chicago Law Journal, 36, 495-511.
Komesar, N. (1994). Imperfect alternatives: Choosing institutions in law, economics, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
Koski, W.S. (2003). Of fuzzy standards and institutional constraints: A re-examination of the jurisprudential history of educational finance reform litigation. Santa Clara Law Review, 43, 1185-1298.
43.
Koski, W.S. (2004). The politics of judicial decision-making in educational policy reform litigation. Hastings Law Journal, 55, 1077-1233.
44.
Lake View School District No. 25 v. Huckabee, 2005 WL 1358308 (Ark. 2005).
45.
Leandro v. State, 488 S.E.2d 249 (N.C. 1997).
46.
Levine, G.F. (1991). Meeting the third wave: Legislative approaches to recent judicial school finance rulings. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 507-542.
47.
Levittown Union Free School District v. Nyquist, 439 N.E.2d 359 (N.Y. 1982).
48.
Liebman, J.S., & Sabel, C.F. (2003). Changing schools: A public laboratory Dewey barely imagined: The emerging model of school governance and legal reform. New York University School of Law Review of Law and Social Change , 28, 183-304.
49.
Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A.B. (1979). Implementation as evolution . In J. L. Pressman & A. B. Wildavsky (Eds.), Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland (pp. 163-180). Berkeley: University of California Press.
50.
McDaniel v. Thomas, 248 S.E.2d 632 (Ga. 1981).
51.
McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education, 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993).
52.
McUsic, M.S. (1999). The law's role in the distribution of education: The promises and pitfalls of school finance litigation. In J. P. Heubert (Ed.), Law and school reform (pp. 88-159). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110 (2002).
54.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2004). The state of state standards: Research investigating proficiency levels in fourteen states. Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
55.
O'Day, J.A., & Smith, M.S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56.
Ogletree, C.J. (2004). All deliberate speed: Reflections on the first half century of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
57.
Olsen v. State, 55 P.2d 139 (Or. 1976).
58.
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King's dream or Plessy's nightmare?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project.
59.
Pierce, R. (1990). Political control versus impermissible bias in agency decisionmaking: lessons from Chevron and Mistretta. University of Chicago Law Review, 57, 481-519.
60.
Rebell, M.A., & Block, A.R. (1982). Educational policy making and the courts: An empirical study of judicial activism. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
61.
Rebell, M.A., & Hughes, R.L. (1997). Efficacy and engagement: The remedies problem posed by Sheff v. O'Neill. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 1115-1186.
62.
Rechovsky, A., & Imazeki, J. (2000). Achieving adequacy through school finance reform . Philadelphia, PA: Center for Policy Research in Education.
63.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.E.2d 186 (Ky. 1989).
64.
Rosenberg, G.N. (1991). The hollow hope: Can courts bring about social change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
Rubin, E.L. (1996). The new legal process, the synthesis of discourse, and the microanalysis of institutions. Harvard Law Review , 109, 1393-1438.
66.
Sabel, C.F., & Simon, W.H. (2004) Destabilization rights: How public law litigation succeeds. Harvard Law Review, 117, 1015-1101.
67.
Saiger, A.J. (2005). Legislating accountability: Standards, sanctions, and school district reform. William and Mary Law Review, 46, 1655-1732.
68.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
69.
Schepsle, K.A., & Weingast, B.R. (1984). Political solutions to market problems. American Political Science Review, 78(2), 417-434.
70.
Spence, D.B., & Cross, F. (2000). A public choice case for the administrative state . Georgetown Law Journal, 97, 106-142.
71.
Stephenson, M.C. (2006). Legislative allocation of delegated power: Uncertainty, risk, and the choice between agencies and courts. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1035-1070.
72.
Welner, K.G., & Kupermintz, H. (2004). Rethinking expert testimony in education rights litigation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 127-142.
