Beginning in the late 1960s, and accelerating unabated through to the present, plaintiffs have filed more than 125 court cases questioning the constitutionality of school district and school spending levels. Much of the litigation, particularly early on, centered on the issue of funding "equity." Few would seek to deny American public school students access to the courts when inadequate school funding threatens their chances for achieving academic, and ultimately economic, success. But the contemporary school-finance movement is becoming a self-serving cause whereby plaintiffs have gained relatively uncontested judicial access to the policy process. In this article, the authors examine this trend which is threatening to erode public interest in and support for K-12 education policy. Specifically, they examine the often faulty procedures used to prove a lack of adequacy to the courts and set forth three recommendations by which adequacy-driven reform and cost modeling strategies can become more effective: (1) invest in research; (2) raise the standards; and (3) change the venue from the courthouse to the statehouse.