Author archive

jsduarte

State education finance has become a very contentious issue for a number of state legislatures. State legislative education budgets have been legally challenged by school districts and individuals. In 1973, the Supreme Court decision San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez held that the state did not have to justify higher quality education for wealthier districts resulting from their local property taxes. However, state education funding formulas attempt to provide adequate resources to districts of less wealth. Currently, members of some state legislatures are being ordered to re-examine their education budgets and funding formulas because of issues of funding adequacy and constitutionality of equity in education.

In Texas district court, Judge John Dietz has told the state legislature to redo their funding formula to rectify the gaps between low and high wealth districts. Washington’s Supreme Court ruled in McCleary v. State of Washington the education funding was constitutionally inadequate. Some state legislatures are becoming less likely to increase educational resources, so what is the deeper immediate effect of reduced state resources for education? Reduction of staff and faculty are significant immediate events, but the closing of schools can be the most significant event for students and community.

Because of San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, some state legislatures are not overly concerned with equal access to education for their underrepresented constituencies and have created budgets that reflect their lack of concern. Wealthier districts have the economical foundation to provide resources for the shortfalls from the state—lower wealth districts do not have these resources to compensate for shortfalls from state education budgets.

What are the options for a lower wealth district facing a significant shortfall from an inadequate education budget? Almost inevitably, the district will close schools. A school closure originated in the state legislature and realized by an unequal funding formula force a lower wealth district to adversely affect students and community.  State education budgets are becoming increasingly separate and unequal.

jsduarte

On Tuesday, November 6, the nation will go to the ballot box to vote. We will decide who will be the President of the United States, state senators, state representatives, and a plethora of other political positions and referendums on various state and local levels. Political ads have bombarded all media and social networks vying for our support on Election Day, but we have seen a dearth of political ads advocating support for public school education reform in Virginia. This, however, has not been the case in all states. Public school education reform has been a topic in a number of states and particularly contentious in Idaho and Washington.

Idaho voters are considering three referendum measures advocated by Governor Butch Otter and proposed by State Superintendent Tom Luna. The voters will decide if parents have input into teachers evaluations, limits on teacher union collective bargaining and elimination of teacher tenure. The teacher unions and the National Education Association have spent over 1.3 million dollars in political ads to persuade voters that the trinity education reform advocated by Governor Otter would set students in a downward spiral of achievement because of wasteful resource allocation and additional bureaucracy.  However, Otter’s attempt at public education reform has also been supported by political ads. Wealthy businessman Frank Vandershoot has supported a cascade of political ads calling for support of the referendum.

The exact amount of contributions for the support of Otter’s referendums will not be known for a few days. Fourth District Judge Michael Wetherell ruled on October 29 all donors who financed more than $200,000 in campaign ads for Otters must be disclosed.  The voters of Idaho will have to define the future of public education reform for on November 6.

The voters of Washington are also going to define the future of public education reform on November 6. The political ads are supported by Bill Gates and Wal-Mart heir Alice Walton on one side, and state and national teacher unions on the other side. The two areas of education reform contention are allowing charter schools in Washington and allowing parents to demand any public school be converted into a charter school.

Washington does not presently allow charter schools. Charter schools are public funded schools but managed privately. Many charter schools are operated by privately for-profit companies. When parents have the ability to “take over” a school it is referred to as a parent trigger. The recently released movie “Won’t Back Down”, directed by Daniel Barnz, sensationalizes a group of parents in California that forced education reform in their school. The political ads in Washington are well financed and portray the success or failure of charter schools and the determination or misguided efforts of concerned parents.

The voters of Idaho and Washington will consider contentious education reform issues on November 6. Political ads attempt to fortify support for divergent reforms that will ultimately affect all educational stakeholders. The voters of Idaho and Washington are serving as public school educational reform petri dishes for the rest of the states. We are all hoping the experiments will be successful and repeatable.

References

Simon, S. (2012). Some states will soon call the roll on school reform. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USBRE89S0FL20121029

jsduarte

In the book Cutting Through the Hype: the Essential Guide to School Reform, authors Jane L. David and Larry Cuban concisely describe various aspects of educational reform. They categorize educational reform into three strategies: reforming the system, reforming how schools are organized, and reforming teaching and learning. Their descriptors are factual, historical and informative, but conspicuously devoid of any information supporting partisan political positions. David and Cuban give the facts about 22 educational reform strategies and not the political spins from either side of the aisle either vociferously supporting or vehemently opposing any of these 22 educational reform strategies. Does the American voter see education reform as another partisan political fight as our political leaders have demonstrated?

Apparently, American voters see education reform much like David and Cuban see education reform, desperately needed and devoid of political bias.  According to the Center for the Next Generation Survey of American Voters Attitudes on Education and Global Competitiveness (http://www.tcng.org/files/Survey_of_American_Voters_Attitudes_on_Education_and_

Global_Competitiveness.pdf) and as stated in a recent US Politics Today article (http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr_news/111185232/more-than-three-in-four-u-s-voters-want-next-president-to-prioritize-education-new-survey-finds),  78 percent of American voters say restoring America’s leadership in global innovation and increasing investments in education should be a top or high priority for the next President. The American voter, regardless of political affiliation, wants education reform but are they willing to pay for educational reform? The answer is a resounding “Yes!” The survey also revealed that by more than a ratio of 2-1, voters are very, or somewhat willing to pay more in taxes if the funds are dedicated to K-12 education programs. The willingness to pay more taxes if funds are dedicated to education improvements was represented by strong majorities of each major political affiliation (81 percent of Democrats surveyed, 59 percent of Independents surveyed and 57 percent of Republicans surveyed.)

The American voter realizes the importance of a strong education system and how it relates to global competitiveness; however, the improvement of our education system is contingent upon employing effective education reforms as described by David and Cuban. Perhaps David and Cuban did not address the politics of educational reform because the urgency of educational reform has superseded political partisanship. The American voter, Democrat, Republican, and Independent, are seemingly cognizant of the need for educational reform and are willing to support reforms with resources. But most importantly, are the politicians listening to their electorate?

jsduarte

The United States Department of Education has declared August “Connected Educator Month”. The focus of the month will be creating, fostering, and enhancing the abilities of online education communities to collaborate on various subjects. Individual teachers, administrators, schools and divisions can participate in the 265 planned online events. As doctoral candidates and lifelong learners, we realize the critical importance of working together towards the common goal of improving education. Please take a look at the website http://connectededucators.org/cem/

We can all benefit from being more connected with our fellow educators and educational organizations.

jsduarte

The K-12 public school education system in the United States continues, on the federal and state levels, to implement a variety of reforms to ensure students are prepared for life after school. For a great number of these students, their public school education is in preparation for college. However, not all students entering college are prepared for the academic rigor. According to Complete College America, a Washington-based, non-profit aimed at increasing college completion, four in 10 high school graduates are required to take remedial courses when they begin college, because they aren’t academically prepared (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/paul-lepage-maine-governo_n_1707851.html?view=print&comm_ref=false). Perhaps Maine Governor, Paul LePage, has developed an educational reform that will help mitigate students not being academically prepared for college.

Governor LePage notes “54 percent of the students entering Maine’s community colleges and 20-25 percent of the students entering four-year universities have to take remedial courses to re-learn basic tools” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/paul-lepage-maine-governo_n_1707851.html?view=print&comm_ref=false). LePage cites the failure of Maine’s public school education as the reason students are required to take the remedial courses. LePage continues, Maine’s tax-payers pays for the students’ public school education, and then have to re-pay for the remedial classes taken in college. LePage will introduce a legislative plan at the next session requiring high schools to pay the cost of their graduates’ expense for remedial courses taken in college. In essence, this proposes a money-back guarantee that all students entering college are academically prepared at the appropriate level and will not have to take remedial classes. Will this type  of education reform be effective?

Perhaps LePage should require a more rigorous admissions system for the colleges and universities in Maine, thus ensuring or mitigating the need for remedial classes. Perhaps the money-back guarantee can be expanded to other college programs. If prospective lawyers do not pass their Bar Examination, will they get their money back from their law schools also? Perhaps an expansion of post-secondary vocational programs will allow for more viable options for graduating seniors.

Public school education reform is a critical problem for the future of the United States. Reform is very complex and problems are layered and unique in geographical, social, economic, and ethnic perspectives, but I am not sure LePage’s plan for Maine will help reform public school education. Governor LePage’s money-back guarantee seems to only complicate and not mitigate Maine’s public school reform.