This Symposium concerns adequacy as a theory of school finance litigation. School finance litigation typically has been based on one of two theories: equity or adequacy. "Equity" in school finance means equal resources across a state; for example, equal spending per pupil or equal taxable resources. "Adequacy" refers to resources that are sufficient (or adequate) to achieve some educational result, such as a minimum passing grade on a state achievement test.1 The two theories are not always clearly distinguishable in practice. Adequacy theory may be used as the legal basis for reaching equity when courts have rejected traditional equity theories, such as equal protection. Conversely, equity litigation may produce adequacy as a byproduct. State legislatures that are required to equalize school funding often allocate large amounts of minimum-level funding in order to achieve equality without excessive budget cutting. In at least three circumstances, adequacy may dictate results or remedies that are different from those required by equity: (1) where practically all schools in a state are inadequate and the remedy must guarantee new resources for education; (2) where certain groups of students, schools, or districts need extra resources to meet minimum achievement standards, and the remedy must include some kind of compensatory aid, such as for children in poverty; and (3) where reaching minimum achievement levels requires schools to become more effective and efficient, forcing the remedy to include elements of educational reform and accountability. The Articles in this volume explore a broad range of issues raised by adequacy litigation. This Introduction will summarize the Articles, discuss the theory of adequacy, and explore highlights of the Articles' examination of key aspects of judicial remedies. In School Finance Adequacy as Vertical Equity,2 Dean Julie K. Underwood examines the evolution of school finance theory, arguing that traditional notions of fiscal equity are outdated and are being replaced with theories based on student needs, such as adequacy or vertical equity. Recent cases have focused on what is actually provided to a student in light of that student's needs, not just on a mathematical calculation of dollars per scholar. These cases reason in terms of fulfilling the state's constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education. The trend is to find that state constitutional provisions require, at a minimum, an education that provides each student with the opportunity to develop and become a productive worker and citizen. This goal is made more difficult, however, because the children most in need of high-cost programs are typically clustered in districts of average or below average wealth. Success for such students also requires integrated management of multiple programs, such as compensatory, bilingual, or special education. In Achieving Equity and Excellence in Kentucky Education, 3 C. Scott Trimble and Andrew C. Forsaith discuss the landmark Kentucky school finance case, Rose v. Council for Better Education, 4 and the school reform efforts it spawned. In Council for Better Education, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that the state had failed in its duty under the state constitution to provide all students with an adequate education, which it defined in terms of seven categories of knowledge and skills that students should acquire. The State General Assembly responded with the Kentucky Education Reform Act5 (KERA), a comprehensive approach to school reform involving increased funds, dollar equity, specific services such as preschool and social services for the poor, state testing, and an ambitious accountability system based on high minimum outcomes for all students. Trimble and Forsaith demonstrate the extent to which Council for Better Education and KERA mark a major departure from previously modest reform efforts in Kentucky, and they attempt to identify what brought about this major development. In addition, they discuss the substantial challenges involved in implementing the Council for Better Education mandate by examining the new statewide assessment system, a central component of KERA. The Kentucky experience is important because, of all the states, Kentucky has the most experience with the methods and problems of state implementation of adequate student performance standards. In Establishing Education Program Inadequacy: The Alabama Example,6 Martha I. Morgan, Adam S. Cohen, and Helen Hershkoff examine the standards and proof that were used in Harper v. Hunt7 to demonstrate the inadequacy of the public school system in Alabama. Their Article raises three particularly interesting points. First, a variety of standards for both inputs and outputs now exist in state constitutions, state statutes and regulations, regional accreditation requirements, professional standards, and federal laws. Such standards solve potentially serious problems of judicial manageability, competence, and political legitimacy. Second, different kinds of standards have offsetting advantages and disadvantages. For example, state standards have a certain measure of political legitimacy, while regional and nationally recognized standards are insulated from local political retrenchment and local underenforcement of constitutional norms. Third, the remedial phase of Harper, now pending, grapples with the question of how to make new, court-ordered resources effective in raising the achievement of Alabama students. In Oklahoma School Finance Litigation: Shifting from Equity to Adequacy,8 Mark S. Grossman discusses the political and legal consequences of a lawsuit brought by an association of local school boards to challenge the constitutionality of Oklahoma's school finance system. Grossman was one of the attorneys who represented the association in the case. The school boards initiated the litigation when they became fearful that the State Legislature was about to impose a package of costly educational reforms without providing additional funds. The school boards argued that the state had to support the substantive reforms with the money required to implement them in order to provide the state's children with adequate education. While the case never reached trial, Grossman concludes that the litigation achieved its basic goal in that the state fully funded its school reform legislation. Thus, the Article is a case study of a theme present throughout the Symposium-the interdependence of litigation, politics, and ongoing educational reform. In Accelerated Education as a Remedy for High-Poverty Schools,9 I argue that high-poverty schools should receive priority treatment in any adequacy remedy and suggest a remedy designed to bring students in such schools up to minimum state standards. The Article begins with an inventory of the unique problems of high-poverty schools. These problems include not only the large numbers of students who fall substantially below state minimum standards of achievement, but also a series of challenges to the delivery of high-quality education, such as high rates of teacher and student mobility. The remedy proposed to meet these problems includes: compensatory aid based on the cost of demonstrably effective programs, a statewide system of aid as the foundation for the compensatory aid, and a series of educational reforms aimed at increasing the likelihood that newly available funds will be used in such a way as to create genuinely adequate and effective education. Finally, the Article examines governance structures appropriate to these reforms.
