FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W224664871> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W224664871 endingPage "74" @default.
• W224664871 startingPage "68" @default.
• W224664871 abstract "Since the 1970s, proponents of greater spending in disadvantaged school have pursued their goal through litigation in state courts. They have brought suits in 45 of the 50 states. These suits began with claims of equity, which sought to redistribute revenues rich to poor districts. Disappointed with the results, within a decade the plaintiffs substituted for equity--and have had more success (see Figure 1). [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Often the victories for adequacy are only the beginning of prolonged and inconclusive struggles within the ruling courts and between the courts and legislatures or governors. But sometimes the outcomes are radical. In a path-breaking suit in Kentucky, the state supreme court in 1989 found virtually everything about that state's schools to be unconstitutional, and the legislature responded with major reforms. More recently, in March 2006, an appellate court in New York State ordered its elected officials to increase operating aid for New York City schools by between $4.7 and $5.63 billion a year and by $9.2 billion over five years for capital improvements. Adequacy lawsuits have proved a serious threat to the right of citizens to have their taxes determined by elected officials who are in a position to weigh competing claims for public support and to judge the relative efficacy of spending for particular purposes. Adequacy as a Political Campaign At first glance it appears ironic that plaintiffs have enjoyed a higher rate of success in adequacy cases than in those grounded in equity. Courts would seem to have greater legitimacy and competence in adjudicating the latter. The irony disappears, however, if school finance lawsuits are viewed as political rather than legal events. As political events, equity cases compelled the redistribution of spending for education, inciting a strong reaction those property-rich school with the most to lose. Adequacy cases have the clear political advantage: they aim to enlarge the educational pie. Districts rich or poor and urban or rural, teachers and administrators, equipment suppliers, consultants, building contractors, pension funds--along with the advocacy organizations that everywhere push for more school spending--can detect such opportunities for gain and join forces, at least up to the point at which remedies are specified and the bigger pie begins to be sliced. Adequacy lawsuits are political events: they allocate things of value, and they propel the courts into an institutional sphere normally reserved for the legislature and the governor. Head litigators in adequacy lawsuits know that judicial decisions depend on implementation by the political branches and are alert to ways in which this might be achieved. At a 2005 conference of the adequacy movement, winning lawyers North Carolina, Montana, and Kansas constituted a panel devoted to the subject of converting court victories into solid remedies. Beyond speaking of standard litigating tactics, such as picking plaintiffs, witnesses, and exhibits, they spoke of success at spinning the media, hiring public relations firms, and engaging a lobbying firm to work with the legislature (in Kansas), all standard political tactics. One lawyer hinted at success in having a school board attorney from one of our [plaintiff] districts appointed to the state supreme court (again, Kansas). They spoke of the utility of lawsuits for agenda setting--of keeping school spending inescapably before the legislature. Implementation of national statutes is always problematic in a federal system and with a national legislature that habitually underfunds its promises. The adequacy campaign, a national movement committed to litigating in state courts, conceives of itself as stepping into this breach. The standards-and-accountability movement--which spread nationwide through the 1990s and reached a climax with passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002--has provided a political step-stool to adequacy suits. …" @default.
• W224664871 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W224664871 creator A5054658980 @default.
• W224664871 creator A5063337646 @default.
• W224664871 date "2007-01-01" @default.
• W224664871 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W224664871 title "Judging Money: When Courts Decide How to Spend Taxpayer Dollars" @default.
• W224664871 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W224664871 type Work @default.
• W224664871 sameAs 224664871 @default.
• W224664871 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W224664871 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W224664871 hasAuthorship W224664871A5054658980 @default.
• W224664871 hasAuthorship W224664871A5063337646 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C199728807 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C2776360696 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C2779949451 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C2909001134 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W224664871 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C11413529 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C162324750 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C17744445 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C199539241 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C199728807 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C2776360696 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C2778272461 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C2779949451 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C2909001134 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C41008148 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C48103436 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C83009810 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C94625758 @default.
• W224664871 hasConceptScore W224664871C97460637 @default.
• W224664871 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W224664871 hasLocation W2246648711 @default.
• W224664871 hasOpenAccess W224664871 @default.
• W224664871 hasPrimaryLocation W2246648711 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W116359632 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W1539560061 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W1542496742 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W2102781467 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W2170943727 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W2301964475 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W238253966 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W242644515 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W243240632 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W252319552 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W253422229 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W287344402 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W289387996 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W3121701850 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W319041259 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W322673113 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W335940793 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W346278287 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W397046252 @default.
• W224664871 hasRelatedWork W49330983 @default.
• W224664871 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W224664871 isParatext "false" @default.
• W224664871 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W224664871 magId "224664871" @default.
• W224664871 workType "article" @default.