ABSTRACT
The state of New York has had two major adequacy cases, one for New York City (NYC) and a more recent case for a larger set of districts throughout the State. The City case established the important legal precedents, including a finding that plaintiffs are required to prove a causal connection between funding (or other school resources) and NYC achievement levels.
For the second case (sometimes called the “small cities” case), defendant experts relied on an extensive New York statewide database, including achievement test results, student background, and school resources to show very weak relationships between achievement and school resources, including expenditures, after controlling for student background. The strongest standardized effects were .03 for teacher salary and −.02 for average class size (after imposing controls). The effect for per pupil expenditures was just .02. Other expert studies for state defendants found that New York State had the nation’s second-highest expenditures but ranked 30th in achievement scores.
The local court eventually decided in favor of the state defendants, concluding that plaintiffs had not established a causal link between school resources and academic achievement. This decision was overturned on appeal, however, with the higher court making its own findings of fact, contrary to the trial court’s detailed findings.
