You asked which states have revamped their school finance systems based on “adequacy. ”

SUMMARY

Arkansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wyoming have all revamped their method of education funding in some manner to consider the concept of adequacy. The changes have usually occurred after the states conduct adequacy studies to determine the costs associated with providing an adequate education in accordance with state constitutions.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Early education finance litigation focused more on the equitable distribution of resources. However, in recent years, there has been more of a focus on whether funding levels are adequate to assist students in meeting the state’s educational goals. Literature points out that states have been very involved in the “standards based” education reform movement and determining what constitutes an adequate level of performance but have not determined the associated costs.

The 1989 Kentucky Supreme Court case Rose v. Council for Better Education (790 S. W. 2d, 186, Ky. ,) is widely cited as the beginning of the modern adequacy movement. The court found Kentucky’s system of

elementary and secondary education unconstitutional, focusing not only on the guidelines they set for what constituted an adequate education but also the legislature’s failure to provide appropriate funding to meet these goals.

According to the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. , as of January 2005, plaintiffs in about 18 states have prevailed on adequacy-based claims. Plaintiffs in five states were unsuccessful in their claims on this issue, with cases pending in another eight states.

ADEQUACY STUDIES

In order to revamp their education finance system based on adequacy, states usually have to take the initial step of conducting an adequacy study. These studies are usually a response to litigation or legislative mandate. According to the Quality Counts 2005, a 50-state survey on education in the United States published by Education Week, 30 states have conducted or are in the process of conducting adequacy studies. The studies have been conducted using one of the following models or variations thereof.

In the “successful schools” model, the adequate education funding level is based on the amount spent by schools identified as meeting state standards. In a variation of this model, known as the “evidence based” or “professional judgment” approach, experts identify best practices and determine the costs of implementing those practices in all schools. Finally, under the “statistical” or “cost function” approach, experts undertake a complex statistical analysis to examine spending and achievement levels, taking into account various student characteristics to determine the costs associated with helping students achieve a designated level of performance. Each of the models have strengths and weaknesses and the different models have been known to yield vastly different results when applied to one set of data as is the case in New York.

STATES THAT HAVE REVAMPED THEIR SYSTEMS TO CONSIDER ADEQUACY

According to various sources, the following states have altered their education finance system in some way to consider adequacy: Arkansas

Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wyoming.

In Arkansas, the state legislature commissioned an adequacy study in response to a court decision. The study, which used the evidence-based approach, determined that an additional 33% in educational funding was required to fulfill constitutional mandates. The state provided tax revenue to provide half of the funding in 2004, with the remaining funding to be provided next year.

The Maryland legislature established a commission in 2001 to study their education finance system. The commission employed the professional school district and successful schools model and the recommendations were adopted in 2003. The system eliminated many of the categorical programs in favor of a two-tier system. The successful school approach was used to created the foundation level for the first tier and the professional judgment approach is used to create the limit for the second tier of additional funding. The program is being phased in and therefore results are difficult to determine.

Around the same time that the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued a favorable decision for plaintiffs in an adequacy case, the legislature passed the Education Reform Act of 1993, which set a foundation budget to be phased in. The foundation was based largely on an independent 1991 professional-judgment-based adequacy study. The foundation level is calculated for each district every year, based on the districts needs in 18 categories. However, the court recently held that Massachusetts still had not met its constitutional obligations, so the formula is likely to change.

According to the Education Commission of the States, Mississippi was the first state to use an adequacy study. In 1998, the state implemented the Mississippi Adequate Education Program. The program provides school districts a per-pupil funding level based on the successful schools model.

According to Quality Counts 2005, New Hampshire has attempted to incorporate the adequacy concept into the foundation formula. The foundation level in their formula is based on the actual cost in certain districts.

Ohio conducted its cost study in response to a 1997 court case. The resulting education finance formula, which uses the successful schools model to calculate the foundation level, resulted in an increase in a 37. 5% increase in per-student funding from 1996-97 to 2001-02.

In Tennessee, the education funding system was declared unconstitutional in 1993. In the face of this litigation, the state passed the Educational Improvement Act of 1992. The legislation requires the allocation of funds based on the cost of providing an adequate education for all students. The legislature defined “adequacy” as the cumulative cost of providing 42 “educational essentials. ”

Wyoming conducted an adequacy study using the professional judgment model in response to a 1995 court case. The state developed an “education basket” of programs and services. Experts also developed a cost-based block grant model to determine the costs of providing the programs at prototype schools. According to the Education Commission of the States, per-student funding increased by 3. 4% to 13. 7% depending on students’ grade levels.

SC: dw