Information to Users

INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information C om pany 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313 761-4700 800:521-0600 Order Number 9401365 Resolving the dispute over methods of financing elementary and secondary education: The decision of local school districts to go to court Swinford, William Kinney, Ph.D. The Ohio State University, 1993 Copyright ©1993 by Swinford, William Kinney. All rights reserved. UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 RESOLVING THE DISPUTE OVER METHODS OF FINANCING ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION The Decision of Local School Districts To Go To Court DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By William Kinney Swinford, B.A. ****** The Ohio State University 1993 Dissertation Committee Approved by Dr. Lawrence Baum Dr. Gregory A. Caldeira Adviser Dr. Paul A. Beck Department of Political Science Copyright by William Kinney Swinford 1993 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this dissertation and the achievement of my Ph.D. is the result of the contributions, both great and small, of a large number of people. 1 would like to take a moment to express my heartfelt appreciation to a few in particular. Very special thanks to Professor Lawrence Baum for five years of guidance, insight, stories, patience and friendship. I am also indebted to the other members of my dissertation committee, Professors Paul Beck and Greg Caldeira, for their consistent encouragement and assistance in the course of this research in particular and over the last five years in general. It has been an honor and a privilege for me to have known and worked with my graduate student colleagues in political science at Ohio State. They have been an invaluable source of constant encouragement, friendship and support. This is particularly true of Jeff, John, Tom, Marie and Professor John Clark. There is really no way for me to express my appreciation and adoration for my wife, Regina, and her unwavering love, patience, encouragement, snacks, endurance, friendship and constant efforts to prevent me from working too much. Without her, this degree simply would not have been possible. Finally, I want to thank my parents, John and Mary Swinford, to whom this dissertation is dedicated. Everything that I am and will ever become is because of them, particularly my mother’s love and my father’s example. Thank you all very much. This dissertation and degree is as much yours as it is mine. VITA May 22, 1966......................................................................................Born -- Cynthiana, Kentucky 1988.......................................................................................................B.A., University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky PUBLICATION "A Predictive Model of Decision Making in State Supreme Courts: The School Financing Cases," American Politics Quarterly 3: 336-352. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science Studies in: Judicial Politics (Dr. Lawrence Baum) State Politics (Dr. Lawrence Baum) Legislative Politics (Dr. Samuel C. Patterson) Voting Behavior (Dr. Paul A. Beck) Public Policy (Dr. Randall B. Ripley) TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................... ii VITA ............................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................vii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 Dissertation Focus ........................................................................................... 3 State-Local R elations ........................................................................................ 6 Primary and Secondary Education in the U.S ................................................. 11 Systems of Education Finance ........................................................................ 17 Alternative Responses to the Problem of Inequity ....................................... 19 II. A HISTORY OF EDUCATION FINANCE LITIGATION ..................................... 23 Serrano v. Priest .............................................................................................. 24 The Aftermath of S erran o ................................................................................ 31 San Antonio v. Rodriguez ................................................................................ 32 Litigation in the Post-Rodriguez Era ............................................................. 36 Litigation After Robinson v. Cahill ................................................................ 41 The Third Wave of Reform ............................................................................. 46 The Future of Litigation ................................................................................... 49 III. A MODEL OF THE DECISION TO LITIGATE THE DISPUTE OVER EDUCATION FINANCE .............................................................................................. 50 Previous Research on Litigation ..................................................................... 50 Developing the Model ..................................................................................... 54 A Brief Overview of the Model ..................................................................... 56 Potential Influences on the Decision to L itigate ............................................ 59 IV. THE DESIGN FOR RESEARCH ................................................................................ 82 The Sample of S ta te s........................................................................................ 82 Data Collection ................................................................................................ 86 Data Analysis . ............................................................................................. 88 iv V. EDUCATION FINANCE LITIGATION IN ALABAMA ....................................... 94 Responding to Brown v. Board of Education ............................................... 94 Education in Alabama Today ........................................................................... % Commencing a Lawsuit over Inequity ............................................................. 100 Bivariate Analysis.............................................................................................. 103 Multivariate Analysis........................................................................................ 128 Multivariate Analysis-Part II ........................................................................... 133 VI. EDUCATION FINANCE LITIGATION IN ARIZONA ......................................... 137 Education in Arizona ......................................................................................... 138 The Commencement of the Arizona Lawsuit ............................................... 142 Bivariate Analysis.............................................................................................. 146 Multivariate Analysis......................................................................................... 166 Multivariate Analysis-Part II ........................................................................... 172 VII. EDUCATION FINANCE LITIGATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE............................ 174 Education in New H am pshire ........................................................................... 174 Commencing the Lawsuit ................................................................................ 178 Bivariate Analysis.............................................................................................. 183 Multivariate Analysis............................................................................................204 Multivariate Analysis-Part II ..............................................................................209 VIII.

Load more