Measuring+Adequacy

outputs (Rob)

In a few attempts adequacy litigation in education has been tied to educational outcomes mostly focusing on reducing the gap between high and low achieving schools. The basic idea is that if you increase the input at a low achieving school, then you would expect increased outcomes in terms of improved scores on state student achievement assessments. One such attempt occurred in New Jersey where a major adequacy school finance reform was instituted that involved the wealthier school bearing the burden of supporting poorer schools, nevertheless student achievement continued to show a major achievement gap between wealthy and poor schools (Ritter and Lauver, 2003). Another approach is to look at the achievement gap between races of students. Although adequacy litigation has shown promise in reducing the “Black-White” achievement gap, it alone cannot provide a solution as other variable independent of the adequacy litigation had an impact on achievement such as integration of schools (Glenn 2006). In the New York school system, adequacy litigation didn’t necessarily improve student achievement outcomes but did expand the number of school program such as preschools and also served as an incentive for teacher retention (Chambers, Levine, and Perrish 2006).

Inputs

According to Verstegen (1998), true adequacy would be achieved when the inputs needed for student achievement are balanced and the gap between what the wealthy districts are able to offer students is equal in quality to the poor districts’ offerings to students. There have been a series of legal findings and decisions that reflect its importance. The fourth “wave” of school finance litigation is can be called the “new” wave and it began in 1989. In Rose v. Council for Better Education the Kentucky Supreme Court defined adequacy as the ability to “provide students with sufficient oral and written communication skills as well as academic and vocational skills.” Verstegen (1998), indicated this new wave provides three approaches to meet this new definition of educational adequacy: include input, output, and defined standards. Adequacy inputs have been identified in school finance as current dollars used to implement the educational programs for students. These monies are many times further categorized into (1) general operating expenses and (2) capital expenditures. General operating expenses included as inputs are: teachers, texts, programs and other necessary items for the basic functioning of a school and district. Three states, Wyoming, Vermont, and Massachusett’s court cases, have defined that adequate inputs have to be redefined to a much more contemporary outcome. These inputs include such things as: course offerings that support cultural and community opportunities, quality teachers, materials curriculum and facilities. Versetegen (1998), used Abbott II to define the Input Standard as the following,

(1) the same level of education funding in poor urban districts as in property-rich districts, (2) funding to be independent of the ability of the local school districts to tax, (3) the state to guarantee and mandate such fuuding, and (4) the level of funding to be adequate to provide for the special education needs found in poorer urban districts”.

In a 2003 State Supreme Court Decision, //Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State//, the Court decided the State is responsible to offer all children the opportunity for a "sound basic education," defined as a meaningful high school education that prepares students for competitive employment and civic participation. Likewise, a Massachusetts Court found that wealthy inputs were in contrast to poor districts. The wealthy districts had multifaceted reading programs, extensive writing programs and resources, computer instruction, active curriculum development, extensive teacher training, comprehensive student support services, and a wide variety of the visual and performing arts. (McDuff v.Secretary of Exectutive Office, 1993).

Tennessee found inadequacy in their state’s school financing. Wealthy districts set the standard of inputs to include: advanced placement courses, several foreign language offerings, art and music classes, drama instruction, extra-curricular offerings including; athletics, adequate science laboratiores, professional teachers with equivalent salaries, trainings, and benefits. Other states including Montana, New Jersey, Texas and Arizona have all encountered legal cases regarding the stark differences between the wealthy and poor schools and districts, as they relate to funding, adequacy inputs and quality education. In all the findings, the wealthier schools were able to provide more and better inputs than their poor counterparts. Verstegen’s work has clarified the necessity for the definitions of adequacy to be updated in light of current legislation. Verstegen, D. (1998). Judicial analysis during the new waveof school fincance litigation: A long view. //Journal of Education Finance,// 24, 51-68.

Research Articles
 * Alexander, N. (2004). Exploring the Changing Face of Adequacy (**this is a great read** - Spence)
 * [[file:Alexander.2004.ExploringAdequacy.pdf]]
 * Arsen, D. & Davis, T. (2006). Taj Mahals or Decaying Shacks: Patterns in Local School Capital Stock and Unmet Capital Need
 * [[file:Arsen.2006.TajMahals.pdf]]
 * Knoeppel, R. C. (2007). Resource Adequacy, Equity, and the Right to Learn: Access to High-Quality Teachers in Kentucky
 * [[file:Knoeppel.2007.AdequacyEquity..pdf]]
 * Reschovsky, A. & Imazeki, J. (2001). Achieving Educational Adequacy through School Finance Reform
 * [[file:Reschovsky.2004.AchievingEdAdequacy.pdf]]
 * Roelke, C. (2004). School Fianance Litigation: The Promises and Limitations of the Third Wave
 * [[file:Roelke.2004.SchFinanceLit.pdf]]
 * Verstegen, D. (1998). Judicial Analysis During the New Wave of School Finance Litigation: The New Adequacy in Education.
 * [[file:Verstegen.1998.JudicialAnalysisNewAdequacy.pdf]]
 * Briffault, R (2006). Adding Adequacy to Equity: The Evolving Legal Theory of School Finance Reform
 * [[file:SSRN-id906145.pdf]]
 * Hoffman, J and Hayden F.G. Using the Social Fabric Matrix to Analyze Instrutional Rules Relative to Adquacy in Educaiton Funding
 * [[file:Adequacy Formula Nebraska.pdf]]