AccessMyLibrary provides FREE access to over 30 million articles from top publications available through your library.
Create a link to this page
Copy and paste this link tag into your Web page or blog:
Many states are currently locked in court battles in which they are being sued to provide "adequate" funding for their schools. These adequacy suits, which have spilled over into legislatures, represent yet another example of a situation where words and slogans do not match reality.
For three decades state school funding has been driven by a series of court cases concerned with fiscal equity. These cases have a common argument: the individual state constitutions require a greater parity in spending between rich and poor school districts than is typically observed under mixed state and local funding.
But the supporters of the lawsuits were dismayed by the end results. In fact, some state legislatures that were required by the courts to equalize spending across districts did not come up to the highest-spending districts but instead kept the overall level constant. The proponents of these suits were unhappy because their desire had been to pry more school spending out of the states.
In reaction to this apparently unfortunate outcome, a new kind of lawsuit and argument developed--the need for adequate spending. Under this new legal strategy, a system could be equalized but could still be inadequate to provide an appropriate education. For example, one group claimed that New York State was not providing the constitutionally required adequate spending to New York City, even though New York City schools were spending more than the average being spent in forty-two states.
For the proponents of greater school spending, adopting the word "adequate" was a great coup, similar to adopting the word "equity" many years before. Surely we all want both equitable and adequate spending.
The crucial ingredient to these arguments is an implicit presumption that ...