Thesis advisor: Dennis Hale / This project traces the use of litigation and judicial intervention as a remedy to the enduring problem of intrastate, interdistrict variations in education funding from the US Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education to the present. Reformers contend that these nested inequalities directly correlate to the achievement gap between students in property-poor districts and their wealthier peers, and frequently appeal to the judiciary to compel states to redistribute funds for public schools to disadvantaged districts. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of education finance reform processes in Rhode Island and New Jersey offers evidence that judicial remedies are ineffective in improving at-risk students’ learning outcomes because they lack the political will to implement and sustain reform. The Rhode Island Supreme Court chose to respect the state legislature’s primacy in determining allocations. As a result, the state undertook a years-long, scientifically guided process to develop a nationally acclaimed formula that enjoys enduring support in the political branches. In contrast, New Jersey has been embroiled in litigation since 1973, a costly process that has produced mixed results. Rulings favorable to disadvantaged students continually falter during implementation, when the political branches lack the resources to enact a sweeping judicial policy. As the Rhode Island and New Jersey experiences demonstrate, action by the political branches produces longer-lasting, more efficient state funding mechanisms that further the goal of equalization. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2016. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Departmental Honors. / Discipline: Political Science.

This study analyzes the legal decisions that emerged across the nearly 45-year spectrum of Texas public school finance court cases, culminating in the judicial opinions and legislative actions that rather than bringing fundamental reform to the system has seen the enactment of temporary stopgap measures in 2006 that threw the system into further incertitude and undermined its basic tenets of constitutionality, eliciting the eighth round of lawsuits filed in 2011 and 2012 against the State, which charge that the school finance system is inequitable, inadequate, and inefficient. This is not to say that the decades-long litigation has not produced some beneficial results. In the intervening years since the initial filing in 1968 of the Rodriguez case, Texas has seen the development of a more equitable and adequate school finance system. Following Rodriguez, the Texas Supreme Court opinions in Edgewood I (1989) and Edgewood II (1991) were instrumental in spurring the legislative reforms that increased the overall funding of the system as well as provided the larger allocations that went to low-wealth school districts. Although the litigation strengthened the gains in equity in this initial period, the subsequent Texas Supreme Court opinions produced judicial ambiguities and redefinitions that left the Texas school finance system in a continual state of constitutional uncertainty with respect to its fundamental mandate to provide an equitable and adequate education. The decisions in Edgewood IIa (1991), Edgewood III (1992), Edgewood IV (1995), West Orange-Cove I (2003), and West Orange-Cove II (2005) have nonetheless been instructive in demonstrating how the Texas school finance court cases have altered the dynamic of equality and adequacy and the basic assumptions and ideals that have defined the fundamental right to an education, with the implications that these altered policy approaches have on the distribution of educational resources for all children. Importantly, the state’s trajectory in school finance litigation offers an illustrative example of the tenuous but often contentious partisan interrelationship between the different levels of the judiciary and the legislative and executive branches of government that too often has deprived Texas public school students of an equitable and adequate education. / text

Doctor of Education / Department of Educational Leadership / David C. Thompson / The purpose of this study was to examine selected financial implications of various mandates in the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. #107-110 popularly known as NCLB) of 2001 on Kansas public school districts. Specific mandates included accountability for student achievement, more educational choices for parents, teaching methods that produce results, emphasis on reading, emphasis on math, hiring highly qualified teachers, and teaching English to all students. Expenditures for these mandates were identified and analyzed to estimate which mandates were perceived as having the greatest financial impact on Kansas school districts’ budgets during FY 2006—the fiscal year of record for this study. A survey research design was utilized for this study. The survey instrument sought opinions about expenditure items categorized according to the selected mandates. A seven-point one-directional intensity scale was used to determine school superintendents’ attitudes toward the financial impact of selected mandates on their school districts’ budget. Data were analyzed and reported using measures of central tendency, range, inter-quartile analysis, and standard deviation. Narrative responses from respondents were also presented. Analysis of data revealed that many Kansas public schools are presently experiencing economic and political conditions that could interfere with the state’s ability to provide a quality education for all students under NCLB. Such conditions often include: (1) decreasing student enrollment, resulting in consolidation of some school districts; (2) difficulty hiring and retaining highly qualified teachers and administrators: (3) increasing numbers of superintendents with less experience in a position that has become more demanding and complex; (4) increased need to use existing funds to improve the academic performance of economically disadvantaged and special education students; and (5) having to rely on the singular standard of annual assessment of student performance in math and reading to determine accreditation success or failure.

This study examines and evaluates the effectiveness of the Federal Government's commitment to provide increased support to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in the academic areas of science and engineering technology programs. It focuses on the implementation and results of Executive Order 12320, signed on September 15, 1981, by President Ronald Reagan, which mandates Federal Government Agencies and Departments to eliminate known barriers to HBCU participation in areas of research and development. The study considers the influences of the Federal Government's impact and historical relationships with HBCUs for the period 1981-1988. Additionally, it examines the level of efforts made to eliminate the underrepresentation of minorities in science and technology programs. Data evaluated for the study was acquired from Federal Government Agencies and Departments, HBCUs, private sector businesses and corporations, organizations, and other sources. It was analyzed to determine levels of science and non-science funding support for HBCUs and served as the historical framework for the study. The primary institutional sources of information and data collection for this study were from a number of HBCUs selected based upon identified and stated factors which contributed to various participation levels in Federally-sponsored science and technology programs. The target population was the universe of the HBCUs (two-year, four-year, and graduate level institutions), with the sample population chosen to represent all HBCUs on the basis of levels of participation in research and development, science and technology programs. Archival data was collected from major Federal reports, supplemented by personal interviews with educational experts and institutional officials. Several important factors emerged from this study. Foremost, the data suggest that HBCUs which received the greatest amount of Federal funding and support in the science areas were more likely to receive the greatest amount of funding in non-science academic areas. The findings also suggest that Federal Government support in the non-science academic science engineering programs served as factors which enhance the potential and competitiveness of HBCUs. Regarding the successfulness and effectiveness of the Federal Government and private sector commitment to HBCUs, there have been extensive efforts to support active participation of HBCUs in science and non-science programs.

The purpose of this study was to present an historical analysis of the function of the Literary Fund of Virginia as it pertained to public school funding. The major questions central to this study were: (a) How has the Literary Fund addressed the funding needs of the Virginia public schools? (b) What significant changes have occurred in the apportionment of Literary Fund revenue? and (c) What are the future trends of the Literary Fund? The political and social circumstances that prevailed in Virginia, prior to this funding initiative, were examined to determine what effects they had on its development. Primary documents also were examined to ascertain pertinent information for completion of this study. These included: House and Senate Journals; The Acts of the General Assembly; Virginia School Reports; Virginia Second Auditor Reports of the Literary Fund; Annual Reports of the Superintendent of Public Instruction; and the Code of Virginia. Secondary sources were used to provide background information about the historical events that helped shape the development and perpetuation of the Literary Fund. Various government officials and a former Superintendent of Public Instruction were interviewed through use of a protocol. The purpose of these interviews was to gain insight on the likely future of the Literary Fund. Their answers to questions were analyzed to determine if consistent themes could be identified. These interviews, along with historical data collected, were examined in order to provide recommendations for future consideration by the Commonwealth of Virginia relative to the use of Literary Fund revenue. / Ed. D.

No description available.

Abbeville v. the State of South Carolina (2005) is the latest lawsuit in a long line of cases addressing school finance issues that originated with Brown v. the Board of Education (1954), Serrano v. Priest (1971), and the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez (1973). Unlike many of the other school finance cases that have been adjudicated, Abbeville has not been the subject of much academic scrutiny. This case study documented Abbeville's origins in an effort to begin the process of academic examination and understanding. To document the inception of this case, five research questions were developed to guide the efforts. These five research questions were: 1) What political and economic conditions were present in South Carolina in the early 1990s that led to the decision to file the lawsuit?; 2) How were the eight lead school districts selected to be a part of the plaintiffs' case?; 3) What legal arguments did both the plaintiffs and defendants use in Abbeville?; 4) Why did the state choose to contest the lawsuit?; and 5) What was the 2005 ruling in the Abbeville case and how did people closely associated with the case react to the decision? The data used to answer these research questions included analysis of primary documents and eighteen qualitative interviews. The primary documents included the state constitution, current legislation in South Carolina affecting public education, previous school finance oriented court cases in South Carolina, and student achievement data. The eighteen participants in this study all shared a high degree of familiarity with Abbeville. Eleven were directly involved in the case (testified, heard and/or made legal arguments), four were deposed, and the remaining three followed the case closely. The credibility of this study increased through the use of triangulation, or the use of multiple data sources related to an issue of uncertainty, which produced the conclusions to the study found at the end of this document. As a result of the data collected, conclusions related to Abbeville are presented along with a discussion on the implications of this study. There are also suggestions for future studies. / Ph. D.

The purpose of this study is to attempt to determine a sound source of public school revenue in the state of Texas.

A three-district case study was conducted to determine the effects of the 50-cent debt test on fast-growth Texas school districts. The 50-cent debt test for Texas schools came into existence as part of Senate Bill 351 in 1991. Prior to the passing of Senate Bill 351, districts in Texas were limited to issuing 10% of their assessed valuation. Of the 75 school districts that currently meet the criteria to be considered a fast-growth district, 15 of the districts had an Interest and Sinking tax rate of $0.50 in 2014. Also, 33 of the 75 districts had an Interest and Sinking tax rate of $0.40 or higher in 2014. The 50-cent cap on the interest and sinking fund tax rate for districts is arbitrary and inefficient. The limit does not take into account a district's enrollment growth or the wishes of local taxpayers who might vote to authorize debt to build additional facilities or a higher tax rate to pay down debt sooner. Over the past 20 years, Texas voters have approved $96.7 billion of the $118.4 billion resulting in over 81% of funding sought for facilities being approved. The issuance of the approved bond authorization by these voters is governed by the Texas Attorney General's Office, and local districts must pass the 50-cent test by statute. This study examined the impact the 50-cent test has had on three districts through interviews with district staff, and by analyzing and comparing enrollment and various financial data. Specifically, property values, bond types and terms, as well as project delays and operating budgets were assessed.

abstract: ABSTRACT In Roosevelt v. Bishop (1994), Arizona public school districts and parents challenged Arizona's school financing system arguing that it was not "general and uniform" as required by the Arizona Constitution. The purpose of this study was to analyze Arizona's Students Fair and Immediate Resources for Students Today (Students FIRST) legislation, the remedy that resulted from the Roosevelt decision, empirically, and longitudinally. Three types of statistical analyses were conducted on a sample of 165 public school districts. Fiscal neutrality was measured for each of the eleven years of the study, to assess the association between the per-pupil Students FIRST funding level and the per-pupil property wealth. Multiple regression analysis was also conducted to assess if both property wealth and district size were associated with the distribution of Students FIRST funding. Finally, I analyzed the eleven-year average of the total Students FIRST funding distributed to school districts and assessed how the plaintiff districts ranked in the distribution. Overall, the findings revealed that Students FIRST met the fiscal neutrality standard in some, but not in all the categories and years of this study, per-pupil property wealth was only weakly related to, and district size was not associated with, Students FIRST funding. The analysis of average funding suggested that some property rich school districts benefited most from Students FIRST. These results suggest that the traditional measures used to assess the fiscal neutrality of operating funding may not be appropriate for assessing the fiscal neutrality of capital finance reforms. While the results of this study provide some suggestive evidence that Students FIRST did not fulfill the Court's mandate, additional research is needed as to whether or not Arizona's capital finance system has resulted in disparities in funding that fall short of the constitutional standard. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ed.D. Educational Leadership and Policy Studies 2011