Re: Hanushek

["Gloria Pipkin" <gpipkin@i-1.net>]

Jerry, below you'll find a post Monty made in December that might be the
one you're referring to.

Gloria
gpipkin@i-1.net



-----Original Message-----
From: arn-l-owner@interversity.org [mailto:arn-l-owner@interversity.org]
On Behalf Of gerald bracey
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 9:33 AM
To: arn-l@interversity.org
Subject: [arn-l] Hanushek


Some time, not too long ago, there was a note to the effect "Look who
says money is important--Hanushek."  I thought I'd saved it, but can't
find it.  Looks like I'll be on a program with Rick this summer.  Anyone
recall where that article came from?

Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kansas funding case

To: <ARN-state@yahoogroups.com>, "ARN-L" <arn-l@interversity.org> 
Subject: Kansas funding case 
From: "Monty Neill" <monty@fairtest.org> 
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:58:25 -0500 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Another court decsion on financial adequacy and equity. Note that one of
the nation's leading proponents of the claim that money does not matter
much (Hanushek) and the state's witness, says that only a fool would say
money does not matter and if used well clearly matters.

Monty


Monday, December 15 


Kansas Trial Court Declares Funding System Unconstitutional
Court Relies on Costing-Out Study and Says "Money Matters"
On December 2, 2003, in Montoy v. State, the District Court of Shawnee
County, Kansas, after a bench trial earlier this year and oral argument
in November, declared the state education finance system
unconstitutional. The Kansas legislature enacted the current funding
scheme, the School District Financing and Quality Performance Act of
1992 (SDFQPA), in 1992, in response to the Mock v. State fiscal equity
litigation, and the Kansas Supreme Court declared the legislation
constitutional in Unified School District No. 229 v. State in 1994. 

Backsliding and Inequities 

Since 1994, however, the legislature has removed and amended key
provisions of the 1992 law and added new provisions, the combination of
which has led to funding disparities that now exceed 300%. Applying a
"rational basis test" to the funding system, the court found the present
scheme to be irrational and in violation of Article 6, the Education
Article, of the state constitution due to "its failure to provide equity
in funding for all Kansas children."

The Montoy plaintiffs also claimed that the funding system has an
adverse disparate impact on students who are minorities or English
language learners and those with disabilities. The court heard
convincing testimony that most of these students attend school in the
small number of urban school districts in Kansas and that those
districts receive the least per-pupil funding, despite the fact that
these students are more expensive to educate. Therefore, the court held
that the funding system, as to these students, violates both Article 6
and the Kansas Constitution's equal protection clause.

Costing-Out Study and Inadequacy 

In addition to alleging funding inequities, the Montoy plaintiffs also
claimed that funding was inadequate to provide the "suitable education"
guaranteed by the state constitution. The court heard testimony on a
costing-out study conducted in 2001-2002 for the Legislative
Coordinating Council. The study calculated the cost of providing a
"suitable education" using both the professional judgment and successful
schools methodologies. 

For the study the state defined "suitable education" using required
course offerings and other programs and services as "input" measures and
percentages of students scoring satisfactory on reading and math
assessments as "output" measures. The study concluded that "the funds
provided to Kansas schools were $853 million short of adequate for a
suitable education," as defined by the Legislature - over $1 billion,
according to the court, when adjusted for inflation and for items
excluded from the study, such as transportation and facilities.

Of Course Money Matters 

The defendants argued that money doesn't matter in education, that
"there is no correlation between spending and student learning." Dr.
Eric Hanushek testified for the defendants, but, as summarized by the
court, "testified that money spent wisely, logically, and with
accountability would be very useful indeed. He concluded by agreeing
with this statement: 'Only a fool would say money doesn't matter.'" (See
the Hoke County v. State decision, from North Carolina, for this
underlying quote regarding Dr. Hanushek's testimony in that case.) 

Furthermore, the court heard testimony from Kansas educators who "almost
with one voice, laid out the strategies necessary to teach the most
challenging students." Their recommended strategies included:


Smaller class sizes 
New learning strategies and professional development for teachers 
More and better trained teachers 
Principals who encourage innovation and reward achievement 
Expanded learning times, and 
Preschool. 

The court also cited compelling evidence from the Dodge City school
district, which received extra funding in the form of grants and used
the money for some of these strategies to generate major achievement
gains. The court declared: "'Money doesn't matter?' That dog won't hunt
in Dodge City!" 

NCLB 

Defendants further asserted that any school meeting the "adequate yearly
progress" (AYP) requirements of the federal "No Child Left Behind"
(NCLB) law was providing a suitable education. Regarding this argument,
the court referred to the fact that failure rates as high as 70.9% (in
high school math) are adequate to meet the AYP requirement in Kansas at
this time and said, "obviously, the attainment of such AYP status in no
way indicates" a suitable education. Moreover, the court pointed out
that the substantial achievement gaps for some groups of Kansas
students, "if not corrected, will soon violate . . . No Child Left
Behind."

July 1, 2004 Deadline

The court issued an interim order and set a deadline of July 1, 2004, to
allow a full legislative session for "our Legislature and our state's
chief executive [to] step up to the challenge to bring the Kansas school
funding scheme into compliance" with the state constitution. The court
provided remedial guidelines, which include making the funding system
more equitable, more adequate (at a cost estimated to be over $1 billion
more than the nearly $4 billion currently spent on Kansas's 467,000 K-12
students), and providing more resources for the school districts
educating the state's most vulnerable students. 

The court retained jurisdiction and plans to reconvene in July to review
the actions taken to remedy the current constitutional violations.

Trends

The Montoy trial court's decision is consistent with trends in school
funding litigations and remedial orders across the country. For many
years, courts in most of these cases have concluded unequivocally that
money matters in education, rejecting state defendants' assertions to
the contrary. More recently, courts have also been relying on their
state's own student learning standards to measure the quality of
education available to and received by schoolchildren (e.g. Hoke County
v. North Carolina; CFE v. New York; Lake View v. Arkansas; Hancock v.
Driscoll (Massachusetts)), and they are more frequently ordering
cost-based funding reforms.

Another trend that is causing controversy in states with declining rural
populations, like Kansas, are proposals for state-imposed school and
school district consolidations. Although the Montoy decision does not
mention consolidation, rural communities in Kansas will become concerned
if the state, in its efforts to remedy the constitutional violation,
considers consolidating small rural schools. Visit the Rural Trust
website for information on consolidation proposals and the advantages of
small schools.

Prepared by Molly A. Hunter, December 2, 2003
C Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

ACCESS
c/o Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc.
6 E. 43rd St, New York, NY, 10017 | (212) 867-8455 Fax: (212)/ 867-8460 

-------------------------------------------------------