Re: Hanushek

["gerald bracey" <gbracey@erols.com>]

That's the one.
Thanks

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gloria Pipkin" <gpipkin@i-1.net>
To: <arn-l@interversity.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [arn-l] Hanushek


> 
> 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 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
>