Augenblick also said Gardenhire's statement that his firm "seems to reach strikingly similar conclusion in state after state" was wrong.

Augenblick cited studies his firm did for Maryland and Kansas, where, he said, the states used "our numbers in (their) education funding system."

"Maryland was very proud of their accountability system," he said. "But they wanted an answer to what it cost and we set about doing the work. Later, the Legislature created a new school finance system and used our numbers in this new system."

Maryland officials, he said, "knew there was no way to fund" their formula so they used a six-year phase-in process. "They now have reached a point were they are funding schools at a level sufficient so districts have no excuse. And, as far as I know, they weren't bankrupt."

Gardenhire countered, saying the form "seems to find that the only way to solve a state's education problems is to throw hundreds of millions of dollars more at the system."

This almost always seems to hinge on "adequacy" with lawsuits by state-level teachers' unions and public policy fights hanging on Augenblick's intriguing findings, he said.

"Last year, the OEA filed one such lawsuit against the Oklahoma Legislature, and it was dismissed. This seems to follow a pattern of lawsuits seen in other states. Other education experts have questioned Augenblick's methodology."

Gardenhire, however, did not say which experts have questioned the firm's work.

Still, Augenblick said he was surprised the study was paid for and not released.

"It would be unusual for a state to do a study and for it not to be made public somehow," he said. "It's unusual in our experience. That doesn't mean people like them and people agree with them; because it's public money, they are normally released."

M. Scott Carter 366-3545 scarter@normantranscript.com