2009 COMMENTARY

September 08, 2009

Analyzing Adequacy

By Marsha Michaelis

The importance of a good education for individuals, families, communities, states and the nation is obvious. As concerns mount over America's ability to compete in a global economy, the question of how to achieve a well-educated public is at the forefront of many minds and policy debates.
 
Do students in Washington state have access to a high-quality basic education?
 
A coalition of school districts, union affiliates, and other education organizations say "no." These groups, called the Network for Excellence in Washington Schools (NEWS), are suing the state to force an increase in education spending. They believe the legislature has failed its constitutional mandate to “make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its border.”
 
It's not the first lawsuit of its kind. In fact, it's the third here in Washington, and 45 other states have faced similar "adequacy lawsuits" over the years.
 
This time, in a trial that began last week in our state, plaintiffs are asking the court to order legislators to determine the actual cost of providing a basic education for public school students, and then fully fund the undertaking.
 
It sounds simple, but is the case likely to help students in our state? Is it likely to improve the quality of education here?
 
Sadly, we don't think so. In fact, it may have the opposite effect intended; it may actually harm the quality of education.
 
Questionable Assumptions
The NEWS lawsuit relies on a few significant but questionable assumptions. Among them:

1.     The state needs to spend more money on education, and doing so will improve academic achievement.
2.     The state is already spending current education dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible.
3.     The actual cost of educating every child in the state to standard can be determined and fixed.
4.     It is beneficial for judges and courts to order the legislature to make specific education policies.
 

It's worth looking at these in a little more detail since policy founded on false assumptions can have serious and unintended consequences.
 
More Money
The idea that more money is needed to improve academic achievement isn't new. It's been a central theme of state and national education policy for decades, and efforts to increase spending have been quite successful. Spending per-pupil has increased significantly during the last two decades, even after dollars are adjusted for inflation. Today, our state spends an average of more than $12,000 per year per student in our K-12 public schools.
 
Has there been a corresponding increase in academic achievement? Unfortunately, no. Student test scores have remained stagnant.
 
More money doesn't necessarily mean better education. This shouldn't be surprising. It's common sense that how money is spent is just as important as how much. Poorly spent, more money won't improve outcomes.
 
We don't have to believe this just because it sounds logical. Numerous studies have shown there isn't a strong correlation between dollars spent and student success. (For examples, see the 1966 Coleman report and the work of Stanford Professor Eric Hanushek.)
 
Providing quality education isn't free, but all the money in the world won't buy results without the factors that matter most: high quality teachers, clear academic standards, meaningful parental involvement, and strong school leaders. The highest performing schools across the nation and world are not necessarily the highest spending.
 
Policies that assume more money will always improve the quality of education may actually hurt students by masking other problem areas that have a greater impact. Years can pass before each new education solution (such as higher spending) has been fully evaluated, and those years represent generations of students.
 
Efficiency and Efficacy
Is our state spending enough to provide students with a quality public education? As University of Washington Professor Paul Hill points out in a recent study, it's impossible to know without answering a basic question: Are current dollars being spent as efficiently and effectively as possible? Until the answer is a definitive "yes," it doesn't make sense to spend more.
 
This question has not been answered in our state. Following dollars through what has become a very complicated funding system is difficult even for experts, and our state auditor has only in recent years been given authority to conduct performance audits of public schools and districts.
 
State officials owe it to taxpayers and students to make sure current dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible to provide quality education. Increasing spending in the meantime, especially if it requires increasing taxes, will likely reduce the educational options of many families around the state who are paying out of pocket for private school tuition.
 
Cost of Education
In making its case against the state, the NEWS coalition points to the fact that not all students are passing the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). This, the plaintiffs argue, proves the constitution has been violated and the legislature is failing to provide all students a quality basic education.
 
NEWS is asking the court to order the legislature to determine the actual cost of bringing all students to standard, and then to pay that cost.
 
Unfortunately, this request may be impossible to fulfill. Determining what it costs to make sure every student masters basic education material has never been done, simply because there is no school in the nation that can guarantee 100 percent success with students. Students are unique and, yes, human. Many factors, including their own motivation and aptitude, impact their educational success, and these cannot all be controlled by policy.
 
No education system and no amount of money can guarantee equal outcomes. What they can do is provide equal opportunities, and those opportunities can be based on proven best practices showing what works well when it comes to meeting the needs of unique students.
 
Judicial Policy-Making
Suppose legislators are failing to fulfill their constitutional responsibility when it comes to funding basic education, will it really help students if judges grant the NEWS request to step in and order specific education policy actions?
 
It would be hard to remove education decision-making farther from its point of impact. Who is best acquainted with the needs of individual students in individual schools? Their parents, teachers and school leaders, of course. While those individuals arguably have some voice in decisions made by their state representatives, they have virtually none when it comes to decisions made by a court. And while judges are well-equipped to make decisions regarding the intended meaning of a law, they are not necessarily equipped with the knowledge necessary to make sound policy decisions. That's not their job.
 
Not only are they likely ill-equipped, this is a clear violation of our separation of governmental powers. What the plaintiffs seek is a court order essentially making a policy decision that actually belongs to the legislature.
 
Some justices have expressed concern about taking on the role of education reformers in the recent Federal Way v. State case dealing with equity in special education funding.
 
In terms of efficacy, have adequacy lawsuits in other states improved education for their students?
 
A study conducted by Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas and Julie Trivitt of Arkansas Tech University examined the effect of adequacy lawsuits on student performance, budget size, and governance. Interestingly, they found no statistically significant relationship between adequacy victories and student test scores. Test scores in some states increased, and in other states decreased. Oddly, the only statistically relevant relationship in the data was a correlation between plaintiff victories in adequacy lawsuits and decreased graduation rates.
 
A plaintiff victory in our state would blur the lines ensuring a healthy balance of power between state government authorities. This effect would trickle down to individual citizens as well. Suppose the court order required a certain higher amount of the state budget to be spent on education. Complying would mean either raising taxes (a hard sell on most good days, but particularly in today's depressed economy) or reducing spending in other areas of the state budget.
 
Whether good or bad, such decisions are best left in the hands of legislators, who are by definition more responsive to the needs of citizens, and by design more aware of the potential impact of specific policies.
 
Conclusion
At the end of the day, important questions should be answered before the assumptions in this latest adequacy lawsuit are acted upon, and resulting policy decisions are best made outside the courts.
 
As much as possible, education decisions should be put into the hands of those who know students best: parents, teachers and school leaders. And this authority should be combined with meaningful accountability for student outcomes.
 
We'd be happy to discuss further what this would involve.
 

Nothing in this commentary should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation or ballot measure.

 

# # # #


Learn more:
For further reading on the history of education litigation in Washington State, see:

For more on adequacy litigation nationally, see:
For Analysis of the effects of adequacy litigation, see:
For analysis of spending in public education, see:

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation is a non-profit public policy research organization based in Olympia, Washington.

Marsha is the Education Analyst for EFF. She holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Seattle Pacific University and trained with the National Journalism Center in Washington, D.C., where she interned with syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Marsha was the 2001 “On the Right” columnist for The Olympian (Olympia), writes a regular guest column for The News Tribune (Tacoma), and is a contributing writer for Sound Politics. Her editorials have appeared in numerous state and national publications. She is a periodic co-host for Seattle’s Republican Radio, and a frequent guest on other state and national radio shows.


Contact: Marsha Michaelis | Education Analyst | (360) 956-3482

+ Send EFF your comments

  Send this Article to a Friend