| Summary: | Thesis advisor: Dennis Hale === This project traces the use of litigation and judicial intervention as a remedy to the enduring problem of intrastate, interdistrict variations in education funding from the US Supreme Court’s 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education to the present. Reformers contend that these nested inequalities directly correlate to the achievement gap between students in property-poor districts and their wealthier peers, and frequently appeal to the judiciary to compel states to redistribute funds for public schools to disadvantaged districts.
Quantitative and qualitative analysis of education finance reform processes in Rhode Island and New Jersey offers evidence that judicial remedies are ineffective in improving at-risk students’ learning outcomes because they lack the political will to implement and sustain reform. The Rhode Island Supreme Court chose to respect the state legislature’s primacy in determining allocations. As a result, the state undertook a years-long, scientifically guided process to develop a nationally acclaimed formula that enjoys enduring support in the political branches. In contrast, New Jersey has been embroiled in litigation since 1973, a costly process that has produced mixed results. Rulings favorable to disadvantaged students continually falter during implementation, when the political branches lack the resources to enact a sweeping judicial policy. As the Rhode Island and New Jersey experiences demonstrate, action by the political branches produces longer-lasting, more efficient state funding mechanisms that further the goal of equalization. === Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2016. === Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. === Discipline: Departmental Honors. === Discipline: Political Science.
|
|---|
