Rebell Argues for More “Professional Rigor” in Cost Studies

Examining the methodologies used in costing-out studies and how they can be improved, Michael A. Rebell, executive director of the national Access network, has published a detailed judicial and academic analysis of studies that estimate the cost of an adequate education. The article, “Professional Rigor, Public Engagement and Judicial Review: A Proposal for Enhancing the Validity of Education Adequacy Studies” appears in this month’s Teachers College Record. Those who oppose cost studies and claim “money doesn’t matter” in education, having lost their argument in 29 of 30 courts, have turned to the court of public opinion to argue against adequate school funding and the conducting of cost studies.

Debate Heats Up

Designed to estimate the amount of funding required to provide all students an adequate education, the cost studies have become a useful resource for advocates, legislatures, and courts in the past 15 years. Consultants, researchers, and state commissions have performed cost studies in over 30 states, with more states joining the list every year. In addition, attorneys in many education finance adequacy litigations and remedial proceedings have used cost studies as evidence of shortfalls in education funding.

Some opponents of the adequacy movement, however, dispute the validity of such studies. Eric Hanushek, of the Hoover Institution, argued in an October 9 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that cost studies are “nothing more than junk science.” Hanushek claims that since courts might rely on them when giving directives to state legislatures, “one would be hard pressed to overestimate the potential danger posed by these costing-out studies.”

Improving the Validity of Cost Studies

Echoing his positions in a heralded debate with Dr. Hanushek that he organized and led at this spring’s American Education Finance Association conference, Rebell defends cost studies as “an essential tool” in developing adequate school funding systems. In addition, he provides several recommendations for improving the “professional rigor” of such studies, so as to improve their validity.

Rebell proposes four specific ways in which cost studies can be improved. First, he says that the analysts conducting the studies must be sure to articulate and justify each study’s “output measures” – the level of school performance the analyst is deeming “adequate.” Researchers, with guidance from the public, must thoroughly discuss this matter, so that the definition of “adequacy” is not simply an arbitrary or political matter. The second recommendation is that researchers must perform empirical studies to determine the validity of the “weightings” given to special needs students – such as low-income, special education, or English language learner students – in determining per-pupil costs. In many studies, these weightings have been determined either through reference to earlier studies’ unsupported weightings or through political compromises.

Third, Rebell discusses the necessity of “minimizing political bias and manipulations.” Costing-out studies must be conducted by independent consultants without a vested political interest in the outcome of the studies, and they should use multiple methodologies, to show where particular methodologies might lead researchers astray. The transparency of independent studies assists in minimizing any political biases. Finally, Rebell recommends the use of “quality education models” in cost studies. Quality education models analyze both the amount of money needed to provide an adequate education and also the best and most efficient educational practices, so that the costs determined by the study truly represent necessary costs.

Roles for the Public and the Courts

In addition to procedural recommendations, Rebell also discusses the necessary players involved in cost studies. Rebell explains how a process of public engagement is “a credible and practical way to inform…key judgments,” such as those listed above. In addition, Rebell describes the “necessary role of the courts,” explaining how courtrooms provide an impartial setting where the merits and failings of particular studies can be discussed and assessed.

"Professional Rigor" appears in this month's Teacher's College Record.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, October 13, 2006