Rethinking expert testimony in education rights litigation

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 127-142

  Welner, Kevin G ^a   Kupermintz, Haggai ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

Author keywords

Ability grouping; Expert witnesses; Law; Policy; Tracking

Indexed keywords

EID: 4944246084     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737026002127     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Appleton, D. R., French, J. M., & Vanderpump, M. P. J. (1996). Ignoring a covariate: An example of Simpson's Paradox. American Statistician, 50, 340-341.
2. Bickel, P. J., Hammel, E. A., & O'Connell, J. W. (1975). Sex bias in graduate admissions: Data from Berkeley. Science, 187, 398-404.
3. Black, B., Ayala, F. J., & Saffran-Brinks, C. (1994). Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review, 72, 715.
4. Brown, H. (1999). Eight gates for expert witnesses. Houston Law Review, 36, 743.
5. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 473 (1954).
6. Camilli, G. & Bulkley, K. (2001). Critique of "An evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program." Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(7). Retrieved June 25, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v9n7/.
7. Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education, 901 F. Supp. 784 (D. Del., 1995), aff'd 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996).
8. Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education, 90 F.3d 752 (3rd Cir. 1996).
9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
10. Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1995).
11. Deason, E. E. (1998). Court-appointed expert witnesses: Scientific positivism meets bias and deference. Oregon Law Review, 77, 59.
12. Farrell, M. G. (1994). Scientific and technological evidence: Coping with scientific evidence: the use of special masters. Emory Law Journal, 43, 927.
13. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
14. Gatesv. United States, 707 F.2d 1141 (10th Cir. 1983).
15. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
16. Greene, J. P. (2001). An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program. New York: The Manhattan Institute.
17. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
18. Guillory v. Domtar Indus., Inc., 95 F.3d 1320 (5th Cir. 1996).
19. Hand, L. (1901). Historical and practical considerations regarding expert testimony. Harvard Law Review, 15, 40.
20. Henry, T. (2001, February 16). Florida schools shape up amid voucher threat; Findings could boost Bush's national plan. USA Today, p. 1A.
21. Imwinkelried, E. J. (2000). Evaluating the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony: A partial answer to the questions left unresolved by Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael. Maine Law Review, 52, 19.
22. In re Paoli R. R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994).
23. In re Richardson-Merrell, Inc. "Bendectin" Prods. Liab. Litig., 624 F. Supp. 1212 (S.D. Ohio 1985), aff'd, 857 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1988).
24. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977).
25. Kaye, D. H. & Freedman, D. A. (2000). Reference guide on statistics, in Reference manual on scientific evidence, 2d ed. Federal Judicial Center.
26. Kuhmo Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
27. Kupermintz, H. (2001). The effects of vouchers on school improvement: Another look at the Florida data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(8). Retrieved June 26, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/ epaa/v9n8/.
28. Levin, B. & Hawley, W. (1975). Forward. Law & Contemporary Problems, 39, 1.
29. Mantel, N. (1982). Letter. The American statistician, 36, 46-48.
30. Mickelson, R. (2001). Subverting Swann: First-and second-generation segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 215-252.
31. Oakes, J. (1995). Ability grouping, Tracking and within-school segregation in New Castle County Schools. Report prepared for the court in Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education, et al. (D. Del.).
32. Oakes, J. (2000). Report prepared for the court in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205 (N.D. 111.).
33. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205, 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D. 111. 1994).
34. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205, No. 89 C 20168 (N.D.Ill., August 11, 2000).
35. People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education School District No. 205, 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001).
36. Rebell, M. A., & Block, A. R. (1982). Educational policy making and the courts. University of Chicago Press.
37. Reilly v. United States, 863 F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1988).
38. Rossell, C. (1994). Report of defendants' expert in Coalition to Save our Children v. State Board of Education, dated November 30, 1994.
39. Rossell, C. (1999). Report of defendant's expert in People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education, dated December 10, 1999.
40. Schemo, D. J. (2001, February 16). Threat of vouchers motivates schools to improve, study says. New York Times.
41. Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 13, 238-241.
42. United States v. Amaral, 488 F.2d 1148 (9th Cir. 1973).
43. United States v. Baller, 519 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1975).
44. United States v. Hicks, 103 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 1996).
45. Wainer, H. (1986). Minority contributions to the SAT score turnaround: An example of Simpson's Paradox. Journal of Educational Statistics, 11(4), 239-244.
46. Weiner, K. G. (2001). Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with educational equity. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
47. Welner, K. G., & Oakes, J. (1996). (Li)Ability grouping: The new susceptibility of school tracking systems to legal challenges. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 451-470.