Examination and analysis of education finance litigation in the context of judicial review and the utilization of statistical indices of equity.

摘要

The purpose of this study was fourfold; to examine the explicit utilization of statistical indices of equity in education finance litigation, a consideration of the same within the context of the ongoing dialogue addressing judicial activism and the role of the judiciary in American polity, the possible implications of the findings of the former for the later, and lastly, provision of a framework with which to further explore education finance, weighing its philosophical grounding, the larger question of judicial review and the evolution from an appreciation of equity to one of adequacy. To that end, ninety-seven cases in total were addressed, from Sawyer v. Gilmore, in 1912 to Hoke County Board of Education v. State, in 2004. Of these cases, seventy-seven were state high court decisions, nine from state appellate courts, six from federal district courts, one from a federal circuit court, and six cases before the United States Supreme Court. The review of the education finance cases herein demonstrated a state jurisprudential stance that has generally been grounded in Article III doctrine, despite significant institutional, administrative, and constitutional differences between state and federal courts. Yet, while the courts have historically carefully guarded application of judicial review, the emerging judicial trend exhibits a more aggressive posture, rendering decisions which present with tenuous constitutional groundings, venture far into the realm of remedial prescription and oversight and cast the courts as quasi-legislatures that define educational policy and goals, while constraining fiscal discretion. The study of statistical indices over the course of the litigation record offers a clear conclusion; few courts have called for complex statistical data and for the most part, at the appellate level and beyond, simple indices were employed solely to inform the details of a case but were irrelevant to the philosophical issue and the court's predisposition.