This paper is part of a collection of 54 papers from the 48th annual conference of the Education Law Association held in November 2002. It discusses the role that states' constitutional mandates play in education finance. It examines why, when one of the few constitutionally shared responsibilities of all 50 states is the provision of education, court outcomes on education finance vary so drastically. In particular, the paper reports on a study that focused on two questions: (1) In cases in which justices seem to have ruled contrary to the state education clause, what kinds of interpretive rationales have they provided? and (2) In what ways might other constitutional considerations, such as narrowly or broadly framed preambles, governmental responsibility parameters, or equal-protection clauses, have influenced outcomes, both rulings in line with education clauses and those seemingly contrary to those clauses? The study used a statistical cluster analysis of broad factors across the 50 states; an analysis of other factors, particularly the state education clause; and an examination of 18 cases. Findings show that outcomes of cases depended largely on the general interpretive approach of the justices hearing the cases. These findings, however, are preliminary and suggest further research. (Contains 1 figure, 3 tables, and 39 references.) (WFA)