School finance reform Introducing the choice factor.doc

Published in New York City Schools, (D. Ravitch and J. Vitteritti, eds)
John Hopkins University Press, 2000
School Finance Reform: Introducing the Choice Factor
Thomas Nechyba* Assistant Professor of Economics, Stanford University; and Faculty Research Fellow, National Bureau of Economic Research. Some of this work was done while Nechyba was on leave as a National Fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace (Stanford University) whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
and Michael Heise** Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University.

1. Introduction

The number and intensity of school finance reform efforts have grown steadily over the past decades and have been fueled by increasing frustration with the political processes and a growing unease with real and perceived inequities in public school quality. Much of the direction for these reforms is provided in court mandated remedies that arise from equity and adequacy based school finance lawsuits, a trend which suggests a general belief in the courts' ability to deliver or at least stimulate desired education reform. See Michael Heise, "Equal Educational Opportunity, Hollow Victories, and the Demise of School Finance Equity Theory: An Empirical Perspective and Alternative Explanation," ia Law Review 32 (1998): 543-628, for a discussion and evidence on the efficacy of state supreme court decisions in the school finance area.
We argue in this paper, however, that the typical judicial remedy advanced by courts in school finance litigation cases overlooks the fundamental causes for current inequities in public education and therefore misses an important class of potential reforms that aim to achieve the courts’ objectives through the expansion of parental choice.
Most judicial remedies in essful challenges to public school finance systems seek to make schools more equal or adequate by directing increased educational spending to under-performing school districts. The landmark Kentuck