Equity and Adequacy of Funding Schools 349---.-,nj •• Krils •• 'I. ' •.,0See also accountability; Asian Pacific Americans; Black edu-

cation; boards of education; cost-benefit analyses; criticalrace theory; desegregation, of schools; discrimination; eth-nocentrism; governance; individual differences, in children;multiculturalism; politics, of education; resource manage-ment; school improvement models; standardized testing;taxes, to support education;

Further Readings and References

Gooden, M., & Gregory, D. (2004). Equity and at-riskstudents. School Business Affairs, 70(2), 5-8.

Odden, A. (2003). Equity and adequacy in school financetoday. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(2), 120-125.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.(2004). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/aboutJoffices/listJosers/policy.html.

Owens, S., Smothers, B., & Love, F. (2003). Are girls victims ofgender bias in our nation's schools? Journal of InstructionalPsychology. Retrieved from http://findarticles.com.

Sadker, D. (2002). An educator's primer on the gender war. PhiDelta Kappan, 235-240, 244.

Shoho, A., Merchant, B., & Lugg, C. (2005). Social justice:Seeking a common language. In F. English (Ed.), TheSAGE handbook of educational leadership (pp. 47-67).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

WUJi I. Itr it S.II is, Ph.D

1iTrI EQUITY AND ADEQUACYOF FUNDING SCHOOLS

Equity in funding education in America has becomeone of if not the most critical issue over the pastdecade. Litigation based on state constitutionality offunding systems for education is prevalent in state andfederal courts across the nation. Both sides, propertypoor and rich public school districts, have bannedtogether, forming coalitions to challenge the legalityand constitutional appropriateness of state educationalfunding formulas and methods of financial resourcedistribution. In federal courts, litigation has been filedbased on the Fourteenth Amendment, equal protectionunder the law clause, resulting in little effect on fair-ness in funding education.

Over the past three decades, public school financecourt decisions have been predominantly in favor ofthe property poor plaintiffs. The initiative to reformschool finance in many states has fallen victim topolitical pressures, legislative manipulation and lobbyinterest. As a result, two camps of judicial theoryemerged in the 1990s: (1) those courts that ruled their

states' school finance systems invalid and called for aquality education and (2) those courts that upheld theirstates' school finance systems, thus validating theprovision of a minimal, basic education to their citizens.Case law once based on the issues of educational"equity," "equality," and/or "efficiency" has recentlyturned toward a more accountable standard known as"adequacy" of funding for education. After three dis-tinct waves of challenges and litigation on the issues,the attempt to equalize funding has resulted in mini-mal impact on schools in states that continue to relyon real property as a major source of tax base.

Beginning with Texas in 1989, state courts havebeen influential in establishing a new wave of decisionsbased on standards of inputs and outputs. Ground-breaking decisions in Kentucky, Montana, Ohio, andNew Jersey have opened the door for a higher standardfocusing on quality of education. This wave ofdecisions initiated and shaped advancements in con-stitutionally required standards for quality of educa-tion. In addition, court-established standards ofmeasurement for inputs and outcomes resulted fromthese cases. As a final point, adequacy over and aboveequity emerged as the expected measurement ofexcellence in school finance reform and the bench-mark test for the courts.

EQUITY

Equity refers to the fairness in funding of education.However, many definitions of equity have emergedthrough legal challenges and court decisions. Makingdeterminations about equity for school finance policyinvolves value judgments that are embodied in theequity concept employed. Decisions based on equity,without a doubt, have significant consequences, andthe definition is of stellar importance. Entrenchedbeliefs, mores, attitudes, and opinions playa vital rolein the development of valid definitions of equity,which ultimately creates the basis for debate of theissue.

One of the most significant challenges relatedto school funding originated in Texas, where fivecourt challenges were litigated in federal and statecourts during the 1980s and 1990s. Originally filed infederal court and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court,San Antonio v.Rodriguez resulted in a verdict yieldingthe state of Texas public school funding system asconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment equalprotection standard. Though constitutional, the state

+ vtjJj.i.. K.r it ,. "is, Ph.D350 Equity and Adequacy of Funding Schools

was warned by the Supreme Court that the system wasmarginally sufficient. In subsequent litigation in 1989,the Mexican-American Legal Defense and EducationFund (MALDEF) filed the original EdgewoodIndependent School District v. Kirby case challengingthe constitutionality of the state of Texas public schoolfunding system. The Edgewood litigation resulted The shift to "adequacy" requires analysis of threein four sequential cases, known as Edgewood I-IV, functions in educational funding: inputs, processes,challenging the constitutionality of the legislature's and outcomes. Adequate financing may be definedattempts to find an efficient and equitable system for as having sufficient resources to ensure students anfunding Texas public schools. Fundamentally, the rea- effective opportunity to acquire appropriately speci-son for Edgewood I-IV was the issue of equal access fied levels of knowledge and skills. Establishingto financial resources for the states' more than 1,000 the standard of adequacy entails establishing specificpublic school districts. Wide variations in property inputs considered necessary to achieve educationalvalues across the state and the overdependence on acquisitions or processes resulting in defined out-local property taxes were the underlying justifications comes. Linkages or connections between the estab-for the challenges. As a result of this wave of legal lished specific inputs, processes, and outcomes presentactions against the state of Texas, Senate Bill 7, a whole new set of problems for state legislatures,widely referred to in the media as the "Robin Hood" court systems, and public schools to distinguish com-plan, emerged in an effort to redistribute or equalize ponents and standards of educational adequacy.funds among property wealthy and property poor Public school challenges based on educationalpublic school districts. adequacy have emerged as a new strand and perpetual

While effective in more equitably funding public wave of finance litigation. Conflicts between litigantsschools, Texas's Robin Hood plan has resulted in liti- predicated on adequacy have now charted a moregation alleging a state-mandated property tax, which dynamic course for challenging state finance systems.was found unconstitutional in September 2004 by a Adequacy debates may surface in light of the fact thatstate district court in the West Orange Cove v. Alanis equity litigation and equalization efforts have lessenedcase. District Court Judge John Dietz proclaimed that disproportionate funding. States are still faced with thethe current system was illegal and failed to adequately charge and responsibility to provide sufficient levelsfund poor school districts. Currently on appeal, this of funding aimed at delivery of an established standardcase is making a significant impact on the Texas leg- of educational adequacy. According to the Nationalislature's attempt to fund public schools in a more Center on Education Finance, many state educationadequate manner. Thus, we see a shift from "equity" clauses refer to the provision of a thorough and efficientto "adequacy" of funding in public schools in yet education, and plaintiffs have found fertile ground foranother state. litigation in these clauses.

More than 30 state systems for financing education As a result of the plethora of cases based on ade-have been challenged over the past 20 years. An over- quacy, states have developed rigorous standards forwhelming majority of states have been unwilling thus spending in education. One outcome of the last wavefar to abandon their dependence on property tax to of litigation is that education funding can no longer befund education. Progressive states such as Michigan a political product nor can it be based on politicallyand Wisconsin have emerged from the challenge to motivated appropriation or underlying legislativeovercome political pressure and now fund education agendas. In adequacy cases, courts have ruled that leg-with a more progressive approach. In light of surges of islatures must provide evidence that the amount oftaxpayer dissatisfaction with property taxes, the funding appropriated to education is enough to ensureMichigan legislature abolished dependency on local an adequate education, according to the National Centerschool property taxes in 1993. The abolishment of on Education Finance. As a result, states are saddledthe property tax system of school revenue generation with establishing consistent exemplars for appropria-was replaced by alternative sources of funding. tions of adequate educational funding.Michigan's new finance approach approved in 1994 Proponents of the adequacy movement boast thatobtains revenue for funding education from a variety the advantages are apparent. Arguments in favor of

Ill'.a K,it ~fHll.S, '''.0

of other innovative tax sources, leaving the door openfor debate targeted toward educational adequacy ofthe state's funding system.

ADEQUACY

Wil.li .aK r" 'I Ii I •• b. 0Equity and Adequacy of Funding Schools 351

elevated levels of funding include more "highly qual-ified" teachers, reduced student-to-teacher ratios,improved facilities, and addition of programs targetedtoward improvement of at-risk and special needsstudent achievement. According to the opinion ofAlfred Lindseth, a senior partner with SutherlandAsbill & Brennan LLP, adequacy lawsuits have other,more disturbing ramifications that courts, policymak-ers, and the public should also be aware of and con-sider. Although court rulings on adequacy-based casesseem to yield positive results for adults associated witheducational entities, the ultimate determinant will bewhether these decisions provide utility for publicschool children. Until this question is addressed, thereis little hope that the future will be any different fromthe past, regardless of how much spending on educationis increased.

THE FUTURE OF FUNDING EDUCATION

Lawmakers have long faced the monumental task oflegally funding education to meet the requirements ofefficiency, equity, and adequacy. Even though it seemsto be a recurring debate, school funding issues willlikely continue to be in the forefront of every state'slegislative agenda for at least the foreseeable future.Futuristic approaches to funding schools that factorout continued reliance on the historic property tax willlikely emerge as a standard approach. State legislativebodies inevitably face tough decisions on the sensitiveissue of taxation to adequately and equitably fundtheir state's public school systems.

Currently, courts are tending toward assessment ofadequacy in educational funding in a context of dollaramounts. In some instances, state courts have chargedlegislators with the task of employing a team ofexperts to generate a cost figure for an "adequate edu-cation." Future litigation may follow this same path,with courts requiring not only an adequate educationbut also following up with the proper levels of fund-ing that is justly adequate.

Results of three decades of public school fundinglitigation and adoption of new standards have driventhe costs of providing an "adequate education" sub-stantially upward. With adoption of state standards forstudent assessment and mandated implementation ofNCLB, the trend of rising costs is likely to continuewell into the next decade. Grappling with innovativenew approaches for funding schools will likelybecome a way of life among the states for at least the

near future. Litigation, disputes, and challenges arealmost unavoidable in this process to fund the futureof schoolchildren. Even as the costs of an "adequateand equitable education" continue to rise, investing inthe education of America's next generation has a highpropensity for being fiscally sound.

FUTURE OF VOUCHERS

In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Cleveland, Ohio,school voucher case, the U.S. Supreme Court issuedits ruling allowing parents to use publicly fundedvouchers to pay tuition at private schools-includingreligious schools. In a 5-4 decision, the justicesruled that school vouchers do not violate the U.S.Constitution's prohibition on governmental establish-ment of religion. The Court majority held that the pro-gram was "neutral in all respects toward religion," thatany tax funds flowing to religious schools did sobecause of individual choice, and that the programprovided genuine secular schooling options (schoolvouchers). Historic and enduring conflicts have beeneliminated, while other debates are sure to emerge asa result of this groundbreaking decision. To a certainextent, the Supreme Court has reassigned issuesrelated to implementation of school choice togetherwith vouchers to the burden and digression of thestates.

Recent research focusing on vouchers fails toprovide succinct proof for predicting the outcome ofcomprehensive and across-the-board implementationof school vouchers. Experts along with researchers inthe field suggest that inventive, well-organizedvoucher programs that create competitive environ-ments could possibly transform public education.Patrick J. McEwan, school vouchers researcher andprofessor of economics at Wellesley. College, advo-cates exploration of four rri~in concerns in the evalua-tion of voucher programs: (1) whether private schoolsimprove voucher students' achievement, (2) whethervouchers stratify student population by ability,income, race, or other attributes, (3) whether this strat-ification of student populations impacts student out-comes, and (4) whether the competition fromvouchers improves public schooling. While facingwidespread deliberations along with legal challengesof school choice and adoption of voucher programs,public support of private as well as parochial schoolvoucher programs has a high probability of continueddevelopment throughout America. Hence, rigorous

\tWI." KrUII.is, ' •. 0

352 Esprit (School Climate)

empirical and statistically sound research is essentialto critically examine the effect of vouchers. Futurelegislators and other educational policymakers willneed to rely on strands of high-quality research resultsto formulate informed decisions related to educationalchoice and vouchers.

SUMMARY

As a result of the adequacy and accountability movement,a wealth of new issues are likely to surface. Questionsrelated to how educational inputs and outputs will bemeasured will require considerable attention. In addi-tion, new paradigms reflecting changes to fundingpolicies will be required. Clearly, the improvement ofeducational achievement and performance standardsfor students should be the primary objective amongstates establishing the standard of adequacy alongwith equity in public school funding reforms. Themost crucial task facing the states will be the estab-lishment of a system that allocates funding while rec-ognizing diversity and differences among schoolswithin the state's boundaries. Consistency in researchliterature has established a basis for the appropriatelevels of inputs and outputs in discussions foradequacy of education. States' lawmakers and policydevelopers should also be mindful of the differencesin educational institutional capacities to meet variousspecified benchmarks and standards.

Finally, policymakers should be proactive in estab-lishing periodic reviews and evaluations of the effectsof adequacy funding formulas to account for variationin student performance.

-Robert L. Marshall and William A. Kritsonis

See also accountability; economics, theories of; efficiency

~~ __ ~;mf.~~fr:nff~ Act; No

Further Readings and References

Guthrie, J., & Rothstein, R. (2001). A new millennium and alikely new era of education finance. In S. Chaikind & W. J.Fowler (Eds.), Education finance in the new millennium(pp. 99-120). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Hill, P., & Guthrie, J. (1999). A new research paradigm forunderstanding (and improving) twenty-first century school-ing. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of researchon educational administration (2nd ed., pp. 511-523). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lindseth, A. (2004). Adequacy lawsuits: The wrong answer forour kids. Education Week, 23. Retrieved March 27, 2005,

from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articlesI2004/06/09/391indseth.h23.html.

McEwan, P. (2004). The potential impact of vouchers. PeabodyJournal of Education, 79(3), 57-80.

National Center on Education Finance. (n.d.). Education financelitigation: History, issues, and current status. RetrievedMarch 27, 2005, from http://www.ncsl. org/programs/ educ/LitigationCon.htm.

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. (n.d.). School vouchers.Retrieved March, 29, 2005, from http://pewforum.org/school- vouchers.

Poston, W (2005). Finance, planning, and budgeting. InF. English (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of educational leader-ship (pp. 550-560).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rodriguez, G. M. (2004). Vertical equity in school financeand the potential for increasing school responsiveness tostudent and staff needs. Peabody Journal of Education,79(3), 7-30.

West Orange-Cove Consolidated l.S.D. et al., Petitioners v.Felipe Alanis, 107 S.W3d 558; 2003 Tex. LEXIS 71; 46Tex. Sup. J. 724. Retrieved March 29, 2005, from Lexis-Nexis Academic database.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 00-1751, Supreme Court of theUnited States, 534 U.S. 1077; 122 S. Ct. 805; 151 L. Ed. 2d691; 2002 U.S. Lexis 204; 70 U.S.L.W 3427. Retrievedfrom Lexis-Nexis Academic database.

111tr ESPRIT (SCHOOL CLIMATE)

Esprit or school climate can be defined as a set of inter-nal organizational characteristics that captures the dis-tinctive tone or atmosphere of a school. School climateis unique within each school district and building andcan influence the behavior of organizational members.Climate has been described as a relatively enduringquality that is experienced by participants and describesand affects their collective perceptions of behavior.Educational researchers believe that school climateinfluences member behavior and attitudes and makes adifference in the learning environment of schools andthe achievement of students. However, despite theseeming importance of school climate, the influence ofschool climate is typically loosely defined and conse-quently is often merely a slogan rather than a carefullydefined and meaningful construct. School culture andschool climate have often been topics with overlappingdefinitions; however, some describe culture as a set ofshared assumptions, values, or norms, and climateas shared perceptions of behavior. Shared assumptions(culture) and shared perceptions (climate) are similarto one another and are linked, but they are subtly

, '; ,"-

Fenwick W. English

Volume