Why School Districts and Unions Seek School Finance Remedies through Litigation: Competing Priorities Under the Term “Equity”

• In Event: Educational Resource Allocation for Recovery, Renewal, and Restoration

Abstract

School finance litigation is a key strategy that local communities have leveraged for gaining more adequate and equitable public-school funding, with major cases proceeding in all but two states over the past 50 years. When judges rule in favor of school district plaintiffs, they typically mandate the state legislature to pass laws that increase overall funding, and in some cases, to equalize funding across districts. But the court rulings and legislative responses do not always result in more adequate or equitable funding systems. Drawing on recent empirical work (Fujioka & Knight, 2024; Knight et al., 2024), as well as new theoretical advances (Backer & Cyna, 2024), the authors offer a new conceptual framework for understanding what factors influence the overarching goals of school finance litigation and reform. Three key findings emerge from this work: (a) power imbalances among advocacy groups can lead to a “whitewashing” of fiscal equity analyses, focusing on income-based disparities in resources instead of racial disparities. Thus, establishing a clear definition of school finance equity can help prevent disagreements about policy solutions; (b) identifying school finance remedies that benefit all districts equally is not compatible with definitions of equity that emphasize greater resources for greater need; (c) policies that dictate resource provision are limited without further guidance or regulation about who makes decisions about resource use, and who is held accountable for those decisions.

Authors

• David S. Knight, University of Washington

• Pooya Almasi, University of Washington

• Kendall Fujioka, University of Washington

• Tomas de Rezende Rocha, University of Washington