解决“没人解决的问题”:法院、因果推理和受教育权

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW University of Illinois Law Review Pub Date : 2018-01-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2886754
Christopher S. Elmendorf, Darien Shanske
{"title":"解决“没人解决的问题”:法院、因果推理和受教育权","authors":"Christopher S. Elmendorf, Darien Shanske","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2886754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"For several decades now, liberal public-interest litigators have argued that insufficiently generous subsidies for the education of disadvantaged children violate the education or equal protection clauses of state constitutions. Their opponents responded that the evidence that more money would substantially improve student outcomes was too speculative to warrant judicial intervention. More recently, conservative public-interest litigators have started attacking teacher tenure and seniority protections on the same constitutional grounds. In response, liberals are parroting the evidentiary and causation arguments that conservatives made in school-finance cases. Both factions in this back-and-forth have overlooked a critically important fact: the state’s own choices substantially determine whether researchers — and hence litigators — can produce credible evidence concerning the causal effect of state laws and funding arrangements on the outcomes that ground the education right. States exercise this control through the architecture of administrative data systems; through the rules for assigning students, programs, and funding to schools; through the manner in which educational reforms are rolled out; and through the terms on which the state provides access to administrative data. Recognizing that the information needed to enforce the education right is endogenous to law, we make the case for a new, information-oriented education rights jurisprudence in which courts would intervene not simply to resolve disputes about how to organize and fund the education of disadvantaged children, but to enable more credible tests of the competing predictions of warring education reformers. Our analysis directs attention to a number of issues that have been overlooked since education-rights litigation got underway in the 1970s and it does so at a critical moment — as educational research undergoes a “scientific revolution” bearing on the very questions that must be answered to implement the education right.","PeriodicalId":47018,"journal":{"name":"University of Illinois Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Solving 'Problems No One Has Solved': Courts, Causal Inference, and the Right to Education\",\"authors\":\"Christopher S. Elmendorf, Darien Shanske\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2886754\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"For several decades now, liberal public-interest litigators have argued that insufficiently generous subsidies for the education of disadvantaged children violate the education or equal protection clauses of state constitutions. Their opponents responded that the evidence that more money would substantially improve student outcomes was too speculative to warrant judicial intervention. More recently, conservative public-interest litigators have started attacking teacher tenure and seniority protections on the same constitutional grounds. In response, liberals are parroting the evidentiary and causation arguments that conservatives made in school-finance cases. Both factions in this back-and-forth have overlooked a critically important fact: the state’s own choices substantially determine whether researchers — and hence litigators — can produce credible evidence concerning the causal effect of state laws and funding arrangements on the outcomes that ground the education right. States exercise this control through the architecture of administrative data systems; through the rules for assigning students, programs, and funding to schools; through the manner in which educational reforms are rolled out; and through the terms on which the state provides access to administrative data. Recognizing that the information needed to enforce the education right is endogenous to law, we make the case for a new, information-oriented education rights jurisprudence in which courts would intervene not simply to resolve disputes about how to organize and fund the education of disadvantaged children, but to enable more credible tests of the competing predictions of warring education reformers. Our analysis directs attention to a number of issues that have been overlooked since education-rights litigation got underway in the 1970s and it does so at a critical moment — as educational research undergoes a “scientific revolution” bearing on the very questions that must be answered to implement the education right.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Illinois Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Illinois Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2886754\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Illinois Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2886754","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

几十年来,自由派公益诉讼律师一直认为,对弱势儿童的教育补贴不够慷慨,违反了州宪法中的教育或平等保护条款。他们的反对者回应说,更多的资金将大幅提高学生成绩的证据过于投机,不值得司法干预。最近,保守的公共利益诉讼律师开始以同样的宪法理由攻击教师任期和资历保护。作为回应,自由派正在重复保守派在学校财政案件中提出的证据和因果关系论点。在这种反复的争论中,两派都忽略了一个至关重要的事实:国家自己的选择在很大程度上决定了研究人员——以及由此产生的诉讼律师——是否能够提出可信的证据,证明国家法律和资金安排对教育权利产生的因果关系。各国通过行政数据系统的架构行使这种控制;通过分配学生、项目和资金给学校的规则;通过推行教育改革的方式;通过国家提供行政数据访问的条款。认识到执行教育权所需的信息是法律内生的,我们提出了一种新的、以信息为导向的教育权法理,在这种法理中,法院的干预不仅是为了解决有关如何组织和资助弱势儿童教育的纠纷,而且是为了对相互冲突的教育改革者的相互竞争的预测进行更可信的检验。我们的分析将人们的注意力引向了自20世纪70年代教育权诉讼开始以来一直被忽视的一些问题,而且它是在一个关键时刻这样做的——因为教育研究经历了一场“科学革命”,与实现教育权必须回答的问题息息相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Solving 'Problems No One Has Solved': Courts, Causal Inference, and the Right to Education
For several decades now, liberal public-interest litigators have argued that insufficiently generous subsidies for the education of disadvantaged children violate the education or equal protection clauses of state constitutions. Their opponents responded that the evidence that more money would substantially improve student outcomes was too speculative to warrant judicial intervention. More recently, conservative public-interest litigators have started attacking teacher tenure and seniority protections on the same constitutional grounds. In response, liberals are parroting the evidentiary and causation arguments that conservatives made in school-finance cases. Both factions in this back-and-forth have overlooked a critically important fact: the state’s own choices substantially determine whether researchers — and hence litigators — can produce credible evidence concerning the causal effect of state laws and funding arrangements on the outcomes that ground the education right. States exercise this control through the architecture of administrative data systems; through the rules for assigning students, programs, and funding to schools; through the manner in which educational reforms are rolled out; and through the terms on which the state provides access to administrative data. Recognizing that the information needed to enforce the education right is endogenous to law, we make the case for a new, information-oriented education rights jurisprudence in which courts would intervene not simply to resolve disputes about how to organize and fund the education of disadvantaged children, but to enable more credible tests of the competing predictions of warring education reformers. Our analysis directs attention to a number of issues that have been overlooked since education-rights litigation got underway in the 1970s and it does so at a critical moment — as educational research undergoes a “scientific revolution” bearing on the very questions that must be answered to implement the education right.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Education Contracts of Adhesion in the COVID-19 Pandemic Justice on the Line: Prosecutorial Screening Before Arrest #MeToo, Time’s Up, and Theories of Justice Solving 'Problems No One Has Solved': Courts, Causal Inference, and the Right to Education Human Rights in the British Constitution : A Prisoner of History
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1