A shift is occurring in school finance from equity to adequacy, and from emphasis on inputs to emphasis on high minimum outcomes as the goal of both educational policy and finance. A true adequacy model is emerging, a system of school finance that links resources to outcomes to ensure all students receive an adequate level of education. Implementing true adequacy would require each district to adopt a set of high minimum goals, identify resources necessary for attaining those goals, and have a long-range investment plan for deploying the resources and developing the corresponding instructional program. The money needed to implement true adequacy would be roughly $5,000 per pupil. Given the number of students in high-poverty districts across the country, the total package would come to $25 billion nationwide.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359, 400 (New Jersey, 1990).
2.
Adams, J. E., Jr. (1992). Policy implementation through teacher professional networks: The case of Math A in California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
3.
Alexander, K.
(1991). The common school ideal and the limits of legislative authority: The Kentucky case.Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 341.
4.
Beme, R.
(1992). Educational input and outcome inequities in New York State. Draft paper prepared for Commissioner Thomas Sobol's Equity Study Group for Elementary, Middle and Secondary Education, 1-28.
5.
Clune, W. H.
(1990). Educational policy in a situation of uncertainty; or, how to put eggs in different baskets. In S. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), 7he Politics of Education Association yearbook (1990 Yearbook of the Politics and Education Association, pp. 125-138). London: Taylor & Francis.
6.
Clune, W. H.
(1992). New answers to hard questions posed by Rodriguez: Ending the separation of school finance and educational policy by bridging the gap between wrong and remedy.Connecticut Law Review, 24(3), 721-755.
7.
Clune, W. H.
(1993a). The best path to systemic educational policy: Standard/centralized or differentiated/decentralized?Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 15(3), 233-254.
8.
Clune, W. H.
(1993b). School finance reform: The role of the courts (CPRE-Finance Center Policy Brief). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9.
Clune, W. H.
, & White, P. A. (1988, September). School-based management: Institutional variation, implementation, and issues for further research (CPRE Research Report RR-008). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Center for Policy Research in Education.
10.
Cohen, D. K.
, & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. I D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. Talbert,? (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207-239). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Coleman, J. S.
, & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
12.
College Board.
(1991). [Newsletter of the Equity 2000 project.]Equity 2000, 1(1), 1-6.
13.
Commission on Chapter 1.
(1992). Making schools work for children in poverty: A new framework prepared by the Commission on Chapter 1. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
14.
Committee for Economic Development.
(1993). The use of resources in education. Unpublished manuscript.
15.
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
(1993). School-based management: Strategies for success (CPRE finance briefs FB-02-1/93). New Brunswick, NJ: Author.
16.
Darling-Hammond, L.
(1992). Reframing the school reform agenda: New paradigms must restore discourse with local educators.School Administrator, 49, 22-27.
17.
Debra P. v. Turlington, 730 F.2d 1405 (Florida, 11th Cir. 1985).
18.
Edgewood Independent School Dist. v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Texas, 1989).
19.
Goertz, M.
(1992, March). School finance reform in New Jersey: 7he saga continues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, New Orleans, LA.
20.
Goertz, M.
(1993, March). Local impact of school finance reform in New Jersey. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM.
21.
Goertz, R.
, & Goertz, M. (1990). The Quality Education Act of 1990: New Jersey responds to Abbott v. Burke.Journal of Education Finance, 16, 104, 113-114, 197.
22.
Harp, L.
(1992). School-finance suits look beyond money to issues of quality.Network News & Views, 11(8), 67-69.
23.
Helena v. Elementary School Dist. No. I v. State, 769 P.2d 684 (Montana, 1989).
24.
Huberman, A. M.
, & Miles, M. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.
25.
Jaeger, R. M.
, & Tittle, C. K. (Eds.). (1980). Minimum competency achievement testing: Motives, models, measures, and consequences. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
26.
Kirp, D.
, Buss, W., & Kuriloff, P. (1974). Legal reform of special education: Empirical studies and procedural proposals. California Law Review, 62, 40, 41-45.
27.
Kirst, M. W.
(1991). Improving children's services: Overcoming barriers, creating new opportunities. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 615-618.
28.
Kirst, M. W.
(1992). Financing school-linked services. Policy Brief (No. 7). Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Research in Education Finance.
29.
Kozol, J.
(1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York: Crown.
30.
Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
31.
Learning Research and Development Center.
(1992). New Standards Project. Proposal to the Pew Charitable Trusts and John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, 1-29.
32.
Levin, H.
(1991). The economics of justice in education. In D. Verstegen & J. Ward (Eds.), Spheres of justice in American schools (1990 Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, pp. 129-145). New York: Harper & Row.
33.
Levin, H. M.
(1988). Cost-effectiveness and educational policy.Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 10(l), 51-69.
34.
Levin, H. M.
(1989). Financing the education of at-risk students.Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 11(1), 47-60.
35.
Levin, H. M.
(1990). The theory of choice applied to education. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: Volume I (pp. 247-284). Philadelphia: Falmer.
36.
Lieberman, A.
, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic.Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673-677.
37.
Liebman, J.
(1991). Voice, not choice.Yale Law Journal, 101, 259.
38.
Liebman, J. A.
(1990). Implementing Brown in the nineties: Political reconstruction, liberal recollection, and litigatively enforced reform.Virginia Law Review, 76(3), 349435.
39.
Linn, R. L.
(1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges.Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 15(1), 1-16.
40.
Linn, R. L.
, & Dunbar, S. B. (1990). The nation's report card goes home: Good news and bad about trends in achievementPhi Delta Kappan, 72(2), 127-133.
41.
Madden, N. A.
, Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L, & Wasik, B. A. (1991). Success for all.Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 593-599.
42.
Marsh, D. D.
, & Odden, A. R. (1991). Implementation of the California mathematics and science curriculum frameworks. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
43.
McCarthy, M.
, & Deignan, P. (1977). What legally constitutes an adequate public education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.
44.
McDaniel v. Thomas, 285 S.E.2d 156-168 (Georgia, 1991).
45.
Mitchell, G. A.
(1993). Educational choice in Wisconsin (Vol. 5, No. 5). Milwaukee: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
46.
Moorman, H.
(1992). Competency in the core subjects. Draft paper prepared for the Office of Educational Research & Improvement, Washington, DC.
47.
Murnane, R. J.
, Singer, J. D., Willett, J. B., Kemple, J., & Olsen, R. (1991). Who will teach? Policies that matter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
(1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
49.
National Governors' Association.
(1993, January). Strategic investment: Tough choices for America A future. Washington, DC: Author.
50.
Odden, A. R.
, & Conley, S. (1992). Restructuring teacher compensation systems. In A. R. Odden (Ed.), Rethinking school finance: An agenda for the 1990s (pp. 41-96). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
51.
Picus, L.
(1993, March). Local impact of school finance reform in Texas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, Albuquerque, NM.
52.
Porter, A. C.
(1993). Defining and measuring opportunity to learn. In S. L. Traiman (Ed.), The debate on opportunity to learn standards: Supporting works (pp. 33-72). Washington, DC: National Governors' Association.
53.
Purkey, S. C.
, & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review.Elementary School Journal, 83(4), 427-452.
54.
Rose v. Council for Better Educ., Inc., 790 S.W.2d 186, 212-213 (Kentucky, 1989).
55.
Rutherford, F. J.
, & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
56.
Rutter, M.
, Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57.
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
(1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, 1-31, 33-46, 59-68.
58.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 Cal. 3d 584,487 P.2d 1241, 96 Cal. Rptr. 601 (1971) (Serrano I); 18 Cal. 3d 728, 557 P.2d 929, 135 Cal. Rptr. 345 (1976) (Serrano II).
59.
Underwood, J. K.
(1991). Choice Wisconsin style (Education Issues paper). Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Educational Policy.
60.
University of Southern California Center for Research in Education Finance.
(1991). A new teacher compensation system to promote productivity (No. 2). Los Angeles: Author.
61.
Wilson, W. J.
(1990). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
