Instead it allowed them to design, modify and follow their own reform plan. This kept the onus of reform on the politically accountable branches of government and out of the court, and allowed the flexibility that ACS needed to make adjustments in the face of unexpected events and new ideas. The list is daunting. Each of these elements is essential, but none has been definitely defined. Levels of adequacy and sufficiency are debatable.
Public expectations are contradictory and changeable.
If people had agreed on solutions there would have been little need for a lawsuit. Courts may be able to define a floor beneath which education must not fall, but how to lift the system above that floor and how much more beyond the bare minimum ought to be done are issues that ultimately must be answered by elected officials who can tax, respond to real world pressures, cobble out acceptable compromises, and answer to the public through periodic elections. If the court has any remedial role, it is to set the ball in motion and then get out of the way. Limit the court's and the advocates' control of decisions . It is tempting for courts at the remedy stage of an institutional reform case to designate plaintiffs and their attorneys as lead agents of change.