Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Does the Consitution draw the line? | Main | One Lawsuit Left Behind.. »
November 29, 2005
Darn Those Activist Judges
NOT!
Here is an editorial from the Wall Street Journal, in its entirety:
Texas School Lesson
November 29, 2005; Page A18
The Texas Supreme Court did the expected last week and struck down the statewide property tax for funding public schools. But what was surprising and welcome was the Court's unanimous ruling that the Texas school system, which spends nearly $10,000 per student, satisfies the funding "adequacy" requirements of the state constitution. Most remarkable of all was the court's declaration that "more money does not guarantee better schools or more educated students."
Think about that one for a second. To our knowledge, this is the first time anywhere in the country that the judiciary has flatly rejected the core doctrine of the education establishment that more dollars equal better classroom performance. And it is potentially very good news for students, especially those from the poorest neighborhoods, because it shifts the policy emphasis from money to achievement. Better send the paramedics to check for heart failure at National Education Association headquarters.
Even more encouraging, the court endorsed more choices for parents and the state's 4.3 million school kids. It said flatly: "Public education could benefit from more competition." The Texas Public Policy Foundation, which provided much of the academic research for the court, looked at the Edgewood school district in San Antonio, where donors started a privately financed voucher program. The results indicate that not only have the kids with the vouchers benefited, but so have kids in the public schools that are now forced to compete for students.
We hope that courts and school boards across the country study the Texas decision -- including its comments on school financing: "The Constitution does not require a particular solution," Judge Nathan Hecht wrote for the majority. "We leave such matters to the discretion of the Legislature." In other words, it's not the proper role of the judiciary to intervene in the operation or financing of the public schools.
That kind of judicial thinking tends to be the exception these days. Over the past two decades, courts in more than 30 states have intervened in education policy and ordered billions of dollars spent on schools in the name of boosting student performance and ensuring equitable financing. The result has been an avalanche of new spending on inner-city and rural schools, but, alas, not much measurable achievement by the kids who were supposed to be helped.
In one of the most notorious cases, in Kansas City, Missouri in the 1980s, a judge issued an edict requiring a $1 billion tax hike to help the failing inner-city schools. This raised expenditures to about $14,000 per student, or double the national average, but test scores continued to decline. Even the judge later admitted that he had blundered.
The hope now is that, as Republican Governor Rick Perry and the state legislature search for a new school financing mechanism next year, they will accept the court's invitation to open up the school system to a wide range of options including charters, vouchers, scholarships and rewards for quality, such as teacher pay for performance. If so, the Lone Star State, once the home of some of the worst public schools in the country, could become the national model for educational excellence.
---end editorial---
I welcome your comments.
Tim Keaney
Comments
Tim:
This is a strange question, but what gives any judge the necessary background to make a competant judgement on education funding? I would trust you, Arleigh, and a lot of other parents and teachers before I'd trust an unelected judge to make an effective decision on your kids education?
While the WSJ ariticulates that this is the first time a court stated that funding has nothing to with performance, I want to point out that no court including the Supreme Court has ever, ever said that funding should be equal across all schools. We demonstrated this funding inequality when we asked why Inglewood gets more funds than Simi Valley?
Would you say students in Simi should be able to file an equal protection claim stating they do not receive the same amount of per pupil funds as Inglewood. No. To my knowledge and reading no court has ever said funding = performance, so the Wall Street Journal is really rewriting settled legal precedent.
However, do judges really have the expertise to make the best decisions on funding equity? I don't think they do...
Arleigh: Can you provide for us examples of how the highest funded school perform better than the lowest funded ones?
To my recollection, Oak Park receives the least funding, yet scores the highest.
Again, the next step is to talk about free lunch status and socioeconomics in these districts.
I think the better question is how are we as a society and a community utilizing are precious funding resources to make performance improvements in each and every child?
This is a tougher question to answer and measure. Even test scores don't address this question.
What are the year to year improvements we see in these students and how can we enhance the learning experience and translate their success in the classroom into real world practical advancements in our community?
Still a tougher question to answer...
To me, its not about judges, bureaucrats, ideologues, funding experts, think tankers, and Presidents. It really comes down to a couple of questions on every educational decision.
1. How will this enhance student achievement?
2. How can we build on the success of the "direct instruction" model to achieve greater gains in compliance with the content standards?
3. How can we achieve student proficiency on the content standards more efficiently?
If we can't gauge how it will improve student performance, we throw it out. Plain and simple...
It's like a puzzle to me. You don't solve a puzzle by taking apart each puzzle piece that fits together. You solve it by building off what is working, by what is already together.
If you can answer this question...
"I think the better question is how are we as a society and a community utilizing are precious funding resources to make performance improvements in each and every child?"
...I'll take you to lunch.
Scott
How can we pay for NCLB increases?
2004 - 46 billion went to farm subsidies.
How about 30 billion more to NCLB requirements and cut 16 billion to balance the budget or leave 16 billion in subsidies. Makes sense to me.
Divided evenly amongg the 50 states, that 600 million more dollars to schools.
And consumers don't pay 146 dollars extra each year at the grocery store in what has been called the food tax.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at November 30, 2005 11:06 AM
Blah Blah Blah. What a surprise, the Wall Street Journal hates public education and teachers, like no one knew that. Texas Judges who can't find their butts with both hands spout right wing slogans against public education, another big surprise. Judges who have never taught a day in their lives and hope to court favor with W so they can get a better appointment with higher pay.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at November 29, 2005 10:18 AMMaybe the new Texas motto for education can be "Pack em' deep and teach em' cheap." A sad day for Texas and America.