This research examines three decades of school finance litigation while highlighting emerging judicial constructs of equity and adequacy. The authors find that in large part these decisions turn on whether a finance system is adequate. A bifurcated judicial theory of adequacy has emerged in recent judicial opinions. In states where education finance systems have been upheld, a minimalist, basic skills notion of adequacy is employed. Conversely, in states where public education finance systems have been invalidated, constructs of equity could not be severed from constructs of adequacy as the courts call for a quality education for all children. The authors conclude that the groundswell of school finance litigation indicates that there is a broad movement under way to secure in law and in practice the rights of poor children to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination, which is similar to past civil rights activities on behalf of linguistic minorities and children with disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott v. Burke, 495 A.2d 376 (N.J. 1985).
2.
Abbott v. Burke, 575 A.2d 359 (N.J. 1990).
3.
Abbott v. Burke, A. 140, 141 (N.J. 1994).
4.
Abbottv. Burke, A.149-145 (N.J. 1997).
5.
Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. Hunt, 624 So.2d 107 (Ala. 1993).
6.
Benson, C. S.
(1991). Definitions of equity in school finance in Texas, New Jersey, and Kentucky. Harvard Journal on Legislation,28(2), 401-422.
7.
Bismarck Public School #1 v. State, 511 N.W.2d 247 (N.D. 1994).
8.
Brigham v. State, 96-502 (Vt. 1996), slip copy.
9.
Campbell County School District, State of Wyoming, et al. v. State of Wyoming, 907 P.2d 1238 (Wy. 1995).
10.
Chambers, J.
, & Parrish, T. (1982). The issue of adequacy in the financing of public education: How much is enough? (Project Report No. 82-A19). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Educational Finance and Governance.
11.
Cincinnati School District Board of Education v. Walter, 58 Ohio St.2d 368, 12 0.0.3d 327,390 N.E.2d 813 (Oh. 1979).
12.
(Reprinted from Educational Policy,1994, 8(4), 376-394).
13.
Committee for Educational Quality v. Missouri, CV 190-137CC (Cole City, Mo. 1993).
14.
Committee for Educational Rights v. Edgar, WL 599287 (Ill. 1996), slip copy.
15.
Coons, J.
(1983). A Kappan interview, a decade after Rodriguez: An interview with John Coons. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(7), 479-480.
16.
Crampton, F E.
, & Whitney, T. N. (1995). Equity and funding of school facilities: Are states at risk? State Legislative Report, 20(1), 1-7.
17.
DeRolph v. State, Ohio St.3d (Oh. 1997), slip copy.
18.
Edgewood Independent School District v. Kirby, 777 S.W.2d 391 (Tex. 1989).
19.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Public Law No. 103-227 (1994).
20.
Flygare, T. J.
(1983). School finance a decade after Rodriguez. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(7), 477-479.
21.
Harper v. Hunt, CV 91-0117-R (1993).
22.
Helena Elementary School District No. 1 v. State, 769 P.2d 684 (Mont. 1989).
23.
Horton v. Meskill, 376 A.2d 359 (Conn. 1977).
24.
Kukor v. Grover, 443 N.W.2d 314 (Wisc. 1989).
25.
LaMort, M.
(1989). Courts continue to address the wealth disparity issue. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 3-15.
26.
Long, D. C.
(1983). Rodriguez: The state courts respond. Phi Delta Kappan,64(7), 481-484.
27.
McDuffy v. Secretary of the Executive Office of Education, 615 N.E.2d 516 (Mass. 1993).
28.
Parrish, T. B.
, & Verstegen, D. A. (1994). Fiscal provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Policy issues and alternatives (Policy Paper No. 3). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, Center for Special Education Finance.
29.
Pauley v. Bailey, 255 S.E.2d 859 (W.Va. 1979).
30.
Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I. 1994).
31.
Reid Scott et al. v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 138 (Va. 1994).
32.
Robinson v. Cahill, 303 A2d. 273 (N.J. 1973).
33.
Roosevelt Elementary School District v. Bishop, 877 P.2d 806 (Ariz. 1994).
34.
Rose v. Council for Better Education, 790 S.W.2d 186 (Ky. 1989).
35.
San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 45 (1972).
36.
School Administrative District No. 1 et al. v. Commissioner, Department of Education, 659 A.2d 854 (Me. 1995).
37.
Seattle School District No. 1 v. State, 585 P.2d 71 (Wash. 1978).
38.
Serrano v. Priest, 5 C.3d 617 (Ca. 1971).
39.
Skeen v. Minnesota, 505 N.W.2d 299 (Minn. 1993).
40.
Sparkman, W.
(1990). School finance challenges in state courts. In J. K. Underwood & D. A. Verstegen (Eds.), The impacts of litigation and legislation on public school finance (pp. 193-224). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
41.
Tennessee Small School Systems v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn. 1993).
42.
Thro, W. E.
(1990). The third wave: The impact of the Montana, Kentucky and Texas decisions on the future of public school finance reform litigation. Journal of Law & Education, 19(2), 219-250.
43.
Underwood, J. K.
, & Verstegen, D. A. (1990). School finance challenges in federal courts: Changing equal protection analysis. In J. K. Underwood & D. A. Verstegen (Eds.), The impacts of litigation and legislation on public school finance (pp. 177-192). San Francisco: Harper & Row.
44.
Unified School District 229 et al. v. State of Kansas, 885 P.2d 1170 (Kan. 1994).
45.
Verstegen, D. A.
(1987). Equity in state education finance: A response to Rodriguez. Journal of Education Finance, 14(2), 30-56.
46.
Verstegen, D. A.
(1994). The new wave of school finance litigation. Phi Delta Kappan,76(3), 243-250.
47.
Verstegen, D. A.
(1996). Reforming American education policy for the twenty-first century. In J. Cibulka & W. J. Kritek (Eds.), Coordination among school, families and communities: Prospects for educational reform (pp. 269-296). Albany: SUNY Press.
48.
Verstegen, D. A.
(in press). New directions in special education finance litigation. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research, Special Education Finance Center.
49.
Washakie Co. v. Herschler, 606 P.2d 320 (Wy. 1980).
50.
Whitney, T. N.
, & Crampton, F. E. (1995). State school finance litigation: A summary and analysis. Denver, CO: National Association of State Legislatures.
