An unprincipled arrangement?

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 81, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 248-249

  Zirkel, Perry A ^a  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040016425     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Fourteen states have accountability systems that provide monetary rewards to schools. See Lynn Olson, "Shining a Spotlight on Results," Education Week, 11 January 1999, p. 8.
2. Walker v. Kentucky Dep't of Educ., 981 S.W.2d 128 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998). I obtained supplementary information via telephone interviews in late June 1999 with attorneys Donna Thornton-Green and David Yewell, who represented the plaintiff principal and the district defendants respectively.
3. Kentucky's comprehensive school reform statute, which had its genesis in a sweeping school finance decision by the state's highest court, has led to other litigation. In addition to the cases discussed here, see Perry A. Zirkel, "Testing the Limits or Limiting the Tests?," Phi Delta Kappan, December 1998, pp. 330-31.
4. Linda B. Blackford, "Jury Sides with Whistle-Blowing Teachers," Lexington Herald-Leader, Online Edition (http://kentuckyconnect.com/heraldleader), 14 September 1999.
5. See, for example, Perry A. Zirkel, "The Judge in Judgment," Phi Delta Kappan, March 1993, pp. 576-78.
6. The two most likely choices would be to limit-voting to those certified staff members who had worked at the school at the time the total amount was calculated (i.e., the last day of the biennium) or those who had worked there on the day the state deposited the funds in the school's account. Walker would have been eligible to vote based on the first, but not the second, interpretation.