FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W289553936> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W289553936 endingPage "33" @default.
• W289553936 startingPage "27" @default.
• W289553936 abstract "The various solicitors in the cause, some two or three of whom have inherited it from their fathers ... might look in vain for truth at the bottom of it between the registrar's red table and the silk gowns, with bills, cross-bills, answers, rejoinders, injunctions, affidavits, issues, references to masters, masters' reports, mountains of costly nonsense, piled before them.--Charles Dickens, Bleak House A crowd of protesters gathered on the sidewalk outside a government building in Lower Manhattan last June, collectively demanding that the city and state reach an agreement on how to pump billions of new dollars into New York City schools--and settle its contentious, decade-long school lawsuit. City councilman Robert Jackson, a Democrat from Manhattan and one of the original plaintiffs in the 1993 suit, took it upon himself to lead the crowd in a chant. do we want? he shouted. Money! came the perfect protest reply. (In subsequent rallies the voices of actresses Susan Sarandon and Cynthia Nixon were part of the medley.) When do we want it? Now! It's a rare occasion when a sound bite meant for news crews so succinctly sums up a complicated issue like the one surrounding the Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York, one of the longest and most hotly contested school adequacy lawsuits in the country. In the rawest of terms, these cases are, as the protesters shouted, about one thing: money. What has made New York's case worth watching is the eye-popping amount of dollars being shouted about. On February 14, 2005, State Supreme Court Justice Leland DeGrasse, who had overseen the case from the beginning, awarded the city a staggering $5.6 billion more per year for its schools, a 43 percent increase to the city's $12.9 billion school budget, an amount that would raise per-pupil spending to more than $18,000 per year and make New York City's huge school district (with more than a third of the children in the state) among the richest in the state, if not the country. (In fact, it would propel per-pupil spending to the top 3 percent of districts nationwide.) It was an amazingly generous Valentine's Day gift to the city's 1.1 million schoolchildren. Or was it for the children? While the players in this multibillion-dollar drama wrangled over Justice DeGrasse's order last winter, the question at the heart of the New York case was the one debated across the country: Will more money improve children's education or simply feed an already bloated and ineffectual bureaucracy? How much is enough? Does money buy adequacy? Nationwide, public school spending in the United States has more than doubled in the past 30 years (even adjusted for inflation), while there has been no appreciable improvement in academic outcomes. The United States spends more of its gross national product on education than any industrialized country, yet languishes near the bottom of lists comparing those countries' reading and math scores. Nonetheless, the lawsuit has emerged as a prominent, if largely unnoticed, reform strategy, using the courts to force even more education spending on state and local governments. How many total dollars these suits have contributed to the rapid increase in education spending is unknown, but we do know that, since 1989, lawsuits have been launched in more than 30 states, and a vast majority of them have resulted in a court award to plaintiffs mandating more money for schools. In fact, while the Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York poses the question of with characteristically New York bluntness and extravagance, many wonder if the case hasn't become a victim of those excesses and, during the 12-year brawl over the merits of linking financial input with academic output, been overtaken by events. (See Robert Costrell's analysis of the landmark Hancock decision, page 28, to see how Massachusetts's highest court addressed the question. …" @default.
• W289553936 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W289553936 creator A5069973557 @default.
• W289553936 date "2005-06-22" @default.
• W289553936 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W289553936 title "The Legal Cash Machine: A New York Adequacy Case Tests the Limits of Fiscal Coherence" @default.
• W289553936 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W289553936 type Work @default.
• W289553936 sameAs 289553936 @default.
• W289553936 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W289553936 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W289553936 hasAuthorship W289553936A5069973557 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C2777134139 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W289553936 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C11413529 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C138885662 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C144024400 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C17744445 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C199539241 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C2777134139 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C2778137410 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C41008148 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C41895202 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C48103436 @default.
• W289553936 hasConceptScore W289553936C97460637 @default.
• W289553936 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W289553936 hasLocation W2895539361 @default.
• W289553936 hasOpenAccess W289553936 @default.
• W289553936 hasPrimaryLocation W2895539361 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W147238425 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W1555154729 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W1563859231 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W160529878 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W187813006 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W1995079444 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W2003465551 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W2043534698 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W2090860180 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W230610092 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W239740807 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W254990408 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W258916754 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W261575303 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W280421415 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W332204930 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W334678983 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W817738727 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W214362271 @default.
• W289553936 hasRelatedWork W2603590284 @default.
• W289553936 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W289553936 isParatext "false" @default.
• W289553936 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W289553936 magId "289553936" @default.
• W289553936 workType "article" @default.