Judicial Beliefs and Education Finance Adequacy Remedies

Abstract

This study uses a theoretical model of education finance adequacy that combines the concept of qualitative and quantitative adequacy described by Ladd and Hansen with the concept of differing student needs addressed by Wise. It also employs three measures of judicial beliefs or predispositions regarding school’s role in society, student entitlements and resources. In the nine cases subject to this analysis, there was a consistent relationship between judicial beliefs and adequacy remedies. Judges with higher belief scores ordered larger education finance adequacy remedies. This study confirms suspicions expressed by Thro, and it expands on studies of education finance litigation conducted by Lundberg and Swenson. That judicial beliefs, rather than constitutional wording, precedent, or history, are consistently related to the outcomes of education finance cases has important implications for American representative democracy.