Record Numbers Attend ACCESS's 2005 Education Adequacy Conference

Highlights Importance and Potential of National Movement

On June 13 th and 14 th , 2005, in Washington, D.C., over 200 litigators, educators, advocates, organizers, and policymakers convened at the Westin Grand hotel for the fifth annual ACCESS/CFE conference, entitled “Schools for Our Future: Expanding the National Movement for Education Adequacy.” Cosponsored by the Education Law Center , National School Funding Network, Public Education Network, and the Rural School and Community Trust, the conference drew participants from 39 states and the District of Columbia , all actively involved in the pursuit of the educational rights of children.

Bright and early Monday morning, Wendy Puriefoy, the president of the Public Education Network, set the tone for the conference. She welcomed the large audience and hailed the importance for the future of our democracy of their coming together as a national movement around the common agenda of educational opportunity for all. Michael Rebell, executive director and counsel of the Campaign for Fiscal Equity/ACCESS, followed with opening remarks on the coming of age of the education adequacy movement. The momentum of the movement is increasing, he said, thanks to plaintiff victories in a growing number of school funding cases around the country. Courts, litigators, and advocates now recognize the important education rights precedents set in diverse states. The next challenge, Rebell posited, is to broaden the movement, make it more visible, and give it a strong voice in both state and national policy conversations.

The conference's greater depth of focus on national policy issues was reflected in the number of nationally prominent speakers featured over the course of the two days. These included Congressman George Miller of California, ranking Democrat on the House Education Committee and one of the principal authors of the No Child Left Behind Act; Justice Robert Orr, author of North Carolina's Hoke County decision; Robert Wise the former governor of West Virginia and current president of the Alliance for Excellent Education; and Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy. Many of these speakers stressed the unique voice, messages, and data that the education adequacy movement can contribute to national policy debates.

The conference conveners also put new efforts into broadening the movement by reaching out to more organizers and advocates than ever before—and by including strategy-sharing discussions on how to build the movement nationwide. Running concurrently with the conference's annual litigators' workshop, which is open only to litigators and their supporters due to the confidential nature of the discussions, was an organizers' workshop in which activists from across the country shared their experiences, plans, and successful strategies. Simultaneously, advocates and others participated in a messaging workshop where experts explored various useful communications strategies.

Session Round-Ups

The agenda used a combination of plenary and concurrent sessions to underscore the purpose of the conference while fleshing out relevant topics. Three plenary sessions seized the opportunity to draw from state adequacy cases and apply lessons to important state and national policy issues. The first discussed accountability and emphasized the creation of accountability systems that will build capacity and maximize the effectiveness of the resources and programs for which so many conference participants are fighting. The second looked at NCLB through the lens of the adequacy movement and discussed changes needed during the 2007 reauthorization of the law to ensure alignment between federal policy and state adequacy efforts. The final plenary discussed the future of the adequacy movement and explored what is needed to broaden it from a litigation movement into a popular, broad-based education rights movement united in the pursuit of educational opportunity for all children.

With numerous concurrent sessions to accommodate the large and broad audience, this year's conference plumbed topics of vital interest to litigants, advocates, and organizers working to build the capacity of the movement. Discussion sessions with experts on a wide range of subjects, from costing out and public engagement to teacher quality and preschool, offered valuable strategies, data, and alliances critical to participants' efforts in state courtrooms and beyond.

Converting Court Victories into Solid Remedies

In the fight to achieve equal educational opportunity for all children, winning a favorable court ruling is not enough, says Alan Rupe, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in Montoy v. State , Kansas ' school funding adequacy lawsuit. It is essential to translate that ruling into concrete remedies for public school students. Rupe and two other recent victors in school funding suits, Robert Spearman, attorney for the plaintiffs in the North Carolina cases Leandro v. State and Hoke County v. State , and James Molloy, attorney for the plaintiffs in Montana's school funding lawsuit, Columbia Falls Elementary School District v. State , shared their strategies during the session entitled “Converting Court Victories into Solid Remedies.”

The Kansas , North Carolina , and Montana attorneys share an impressive record of victories, all three having convinced seemingly unsympathetic judges of the merits of their cases. In their presentations, the three agreed on the need to strategize beyond the court rulings to ensure a concrete remedy. James Molloy noted that it is essential to be aware of a disturbing trend in the defense of school funding cases. Molloy informed the audience that, despite the staggering success of school funding cases across the country, defense attorneys are now advising states not to be concerned with rulings in favor of plaintiffs. They observe that the defense will ultimately win if the issue of school funding reform becomes a matter of process rather than substance. Molloy cautioned that it is essential to focus on remedies in order to ensure that state legislatures are not able to shirk an unpopular ruling. Engaging the public through such channels as public relations efforts and coalition building is also vital in the eyes of all three attorneys. Molloy noted that, prior to his lawsuit, education funding was not a media issue. Now the issue receives popular attention and, despite resistance, the idea that money matters is beginning to take hold.

Promoting and Using Costing-Out Studies for Better Funding

Historically, public school funding has been the result of political deals, with little or no connection to the true cost of educating public school students. No serious analysis of student need was undertaken. With the advent of school funding lawsuits, cost studies have become important tools in demonstrating the inadequacies of state funding systems, and in devising more equitable funding systems. At the session entitled “Promoting and Using Costing-Out Studies for Better Funding,” William J. Mathis, education finance expert and Superintendent for Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union (VT); Thomas Parrish, Managing Research Scientist at the American Institutes for Research; and Molly A. Hunter, ACCESS Network Director at the Campaign for Fiscal Equity, discussed the interrelationship between cost studies and education adequacy litigation. Patricia Sullivan, Director of the Center on Education Policy, was the moderator.

A review by Mathis of the cost studies completed to date reveals a startling consistency of results, despite a diversity of methodologies, researchers, and initiators of the studies. His research demonstrates that the studies deem an average 27.5% increase in a state's budget necessary to provide students with adequate resources to enable them to meet state academic standards. The speakers reviewed emerging trends amongst recent cost studies, and discussed the important role of the courts in critiquing and refining the studies. In reviewing cost studies conducted in the context of school funding litigation, courts in states such as New York and Kansas have criticized those in which it is clear there has been manipulation of the data, and have aided parties in crafting more reliable cost studies. They have also helped create a standard for the critical, and at times very difficult, determination of appropriate funding for special needs students. The panelists also emphasized that transparency of methodology and results is also fostered by public engagement in the development, performance, and analysis of costing-out studies. It is clear that education adequacy lawsuits, and the costing-out studies associated with them, have enabled policy-makers and stakeholders to better understand and to improve how public schools are funded.

The Taxpayers' Right to Lose

In a session entitled “Fighting the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights and Other Tax-Cut Initiatives,” experts from Colorado , Ohio , and Wisconsin outlined the severely restrictive tax measures either in place or under consideration in their states. Colorado 's TABOR law is designed to prohibit tax increases beyond inflation, irrespective of the rising costs of public works, health care, and other cost-inflating factors. This restriction remains in place even when state revenues are enough to provide an improvement in services. This has resulted in a severe degeneration in the quality of the public services in Colorado , primarily its public school system. These effects have been so deleterious as to necessitate a measure, supported even by the state's Republican governor, which will roll back TABOR provisions for the immediate future to allow the state to regain its economic foothold.

The negative impact of TABOR in Colorado has provided a useful example for advocates opposing similar laws that are currently under consideration in Ohio and Wisconsin . As public school advocates fight against misinformed support of an ultimately destructive law, national advocates for smaller government fund campaigns that attempt to distract attention from the damaging effects of Colorado's law. Anti-TABOR activists use real facts to make their case, emphasizing both the failure of current restrictive tax laws and the critical importance of public services to everyday life. These advocates also emphasize the possibility of improving states' current tax systems, which often fail to minimize the burden on individuals or to maximize revenue under existing structures.

“Talking About Taxes”

The conversation on tax policy continued in a subsequent session entitled “Talking About Taxes and Schools.” Here experts outlined the context in which taxes must be discussed in order to fight a rising tide of cynicism about government and unwillingness to pay taxes. The public often needs to be reminded of the essential role public services play in everyday life, and the serious and immediate impact that decreased funding will have on the quality of those services. One of the most important of these services is the public education system, which is responsible for educating, disciplining, and in many ways shaping the vast majority of the nation's children.

Despite this incredible responsibility, the funds necessary for creating a quality education are often denied to schools, often as a result of public misinformation and a misplaced sense of individual rights. Attacks on government by its opponents are constant, and spectacularly unproductive; only by emphasizing the central role of government in creating healthy communities can advocates regain the public confidence and reinvest in public services. Even private sector services are negatively impacted by the financial starvation of public services, as NGOs find themselves fighting for the same dollars that public schools need to provide art, music, and language classes. By pitting elements of community well-being against each other, anti-tax efforts will undermine the ability of all communities to operate in a productive and successful fashion, and will ultimately have a severe negative impact on the ability of the country to progress, socially as well as economically. These messages were emphasized by the policy and advocacy experts alike as being central to any progress towards adequate and equitable provision of education across the country.

Paying for a Quality Education

Redressing historical school funding inequities also involves building the will to discuss state tax reform. While this task is politically difficult, three speakers at the session entitled “Paying for a Quality Education” outlined successful approaches to attacking this thorny issue. The speakers were: Matt Gardner, Director of State Tax Policy at Citizens for Tax Justice; Michael Edwards, Executive Director of the Foundation for Virginia ; and Jack Norman, Research Director for the Institute for Wisconsin 's Future.

While the current political and economic climate provides a challenging environment in which to advocate increased spending on social institutions, the speakers pointed to success stories and to effective methods for achieving the goal of increased spending on public schools. In Virginia , a diverse coalition of Republicans and Democrats, with business leaders in support, mounted a successful effort to raise state taxes by fundraising, successfully managing their coalition, and effectively communicating the coalition's message. In addition, coalition members remained focused on their discrete objective, and downplayed differences in their political orientations.

The speakers also emphasized the need to explore methods of tax reform that are both politically viable and good for society in the long term. Achieving adequacy through tax reform does not necessarily mean the state must sacrifice economic development. Elements of a good tax system include: (1) progressivity, (2) base-broadening reforms, (3) neutrality, and (4) simplicity.

It is indeed difficult to discuss tax reform in a political environment that reveres tax relief as a newfound “civil right.” However, in order to ensure that fundamental constitutional right of all children to receive an adequate education is a reality, advocates must find the coalition partners, winning strategies, and effective messages to tackle this challenging issue.

Communicating our Messages with Winning Strategies

Early in the civil rights movement, crusading attorney Charles Hamilton Houston observed that “lawsuits mean little unless supported by public opinion.” Today this declaration, invoked by public relations professional David Sassoon, a panelist in the “Communicating our Messages with Winning Strategies” session, illustrates both the key to recent victories in school funding cases, and the challenges facing advocates in the education adequacy movement. Joining him on the panel were Jan Resseger, Minister for Public Education and Witness for the United Church of Christ and Witness Ministries, and Daniel Greenspahn, Legislative Director for Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and former Communications Associate for the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. Jay Worona, General Counsel for the New York State School Boards Association, served as moderator.

Plaintiffs in school funding cases in New York , Kansas , and Montana attribute a great deal of their recent success in the courts to their ability to convey their message effectively to the public. However, as the three speakers at this session pointed out, the challenge facing advocates in this movement is to build support in a difficult economy and in a political environment hostile to investment in social institutions in general, and public education in particular.

The Problem of Framing

Jan Resseger discussed the need to understand, and sometimes overcome, “frames”, or points of view, prevalent in current American public discourse. She referred to George Lakoff's recent book, Don't Think of an Elephant , and Robert Reich's New Republic article, entitled “Story Time,” two pieces that argue that Americans see issues through a particular lens, and will discard any facts that do not fit within it. Resseger used the example of the way NCLB focuses solely on the operation of the school as a place of business. If the production targets are not met, NCLB looks within the school only, and blames teachers and school officials. NCLB fails to look at external factors, such as poverty, segregation, or inadequate health care, which affect a child's ability to learn. In contrast to the individualistic frame, Resseger emphasized a frame of communal responsibility, included in which is the notion that an entire community will be judged by how it treats its most needy. The challenge, she contended is to get those people who see things in an individualistic frame to hear our message of social responsibility.

Changing the Frame

Daniel Greenspahn focused on the false crisis created in the media about the state of public education and urged us to trumpet the successes of public schools. He noted that seven of the ten most recent presidents, Republicans and Democrats, were educated in public schools, and that today one in six Americans are in public school. Greenspahn suggested speaking of public school as essential to national security, since the men and women in our armed forces come from public school; as essential to public safety, since our police officers and firefighters are educated in public school; and as essential to a vital economy, since public schools produce our CEO's, scientists, and farmers. He pointed out that Americans spend a mere $6.76 an hour or less to educate public school students. In contrast, a private school such as Andover , where George W. Bush attended, charges between $24,000 and $31,000 a year, has a student-teacher ratio of one to five, and has resources such as 120,000 books in its library. He also suggested finding a familiar and sympathetic face for our movement, as AIDS activists found in Ryan White.

Greenspahn enumerated ten strategies to improve communication of our message:

(1) find a clear names for the organizations we establish, names which communicate our goal of building strong schools for stronger communities;

(2) trumpet the success of public schools;

(3) stay committed to reform as well as to increased funding;

(4) appeal to Republicans and Democrats. The fight for strong schools is as much about nostalgia for the little red schoolhouse as it is about equality of opportunity;

(5) show reasons for people to care about public education as much as they do about terrorism;

(6) use ACCESS and other organizations that help us work smarter rather than harder;

(7) establish new organizations (for example, Congress has no public education caucus, although it has caucuses committed to all sorts of issues);

(8) work with traditional supporters, but start finding messages that appeal to or defuse traditional detractors (for example, point out that we save tax dollars by investing in education);

(9) find poster children for our movement; and

(10) develop a name for our movement.

Getting People to Look at the Picture in the Frame

David Sassoon, president of Science First Communications, echoed Resseger's and Greenspahn's remarks, and presented concrete suggestions for effective communication. He noted that the No Child Left Behind is a powerful brand. It automatically implies that if a child is left behind, it is the school's fault. Sassoon presented some essential steps in presenting our message and countering the negative messaging:

use simple messages and graphics (one slogan put forth by Sassoon was No School Left Behind);

get the messaging done professionally; and

share resources. Most of the advocates have scant resources, so when a message is effective, it should shared to the greatest extent possible.

As illustrated by these speakers, public support is essential to achieving a court victory and translating that victory into real remedies for public school students. Communication of a positive and strong message is a crucial tool in the fight for educational equality for all American children.

Advocates for Preschool Herald its Advantages

As research continually demonstrates the efficacy of preschool in closing the achievement gap, it has become an essential aspect of many adequacy litigations and remedies. Preschool has become a major element of education reform efforts in Nebraska, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Arkansas, and representatives from each of these states were on hand to discuss its importance during the session entitled “Making Pre-K the Starting Point for Adequacy.”

Elizabeth Eynon-Kokdra, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in Nebraska 's Douglas County v. Johanns school funding lawsuit, began by outlining arguments in favor of preschool as a constitutionally mandated element of an adequate education. Eynon-Kokra held that the education clause, the equal protection clause, and the due process clause of state constitutions all protect rights of children that are only attainable through quality early childhood education. This conclusion was reinforced by W. Steven Barnett of the National Institute for Early Education Research, who outlined the numerous studies that have demonstrated the significant, quantifiable, and unique positive impact of preschool on at-risk populations.

It is precisely that impact that led advocates from Early Education for All, a Massachusetts group, and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families to focus their efforts on ensuring universal pre-kindergarten. Both of these groups have used the pressure school funding litigations placed on their state legislatures to fight for state funding of preschool; this effort was extremely successful in Arkansas , where a nationally-renowned pre-kindergarten program is now in place. Though advocates in Massachusetts are still working to implement a statewide pre-k program, advocates from both states agreed on the importance of inserting preschool into every conversation about education, achievement, and disparity. Only by stopping the achievement gap where it begins can states ever hope to reach equitable levels of educational achievement.

Prepared July 11, 2005