I don't pretend to even come close to understanding public school finance, which would make me fit right in with the TX Legislature since they can't quite seem to get it right either. School finance has been and issue for well over a decade and it hasn't been fixed yet, and I'm not totally convinced it's just because Republicans and Democrats can't agree. The latest in the ongoing saga is the decision handed down by the TX Supreme Court stating that the current plan is unconstitutional.
One of the main reasons listed for finding the current school financing plan unconstitutional is that the individual school districts have no control of the tax rates. The court holds that the state-designated cap on property taxes which are used for public school financing is in effect a statewide property tax, which is prohibited in the TX Constitution. Maybe the June 1 deadline stated in the decision will light a fire under the Legislature to actually come up with a better plan. I'll let them borrow my lighter if it will help get that fire lit.
The other points of this lawsuit are the adequacy of public school funding and the equity of school funding between districts. The court holds that current school funding is adequate to achieve a 'general diffusion of knowledge.' The problem with this is that the standards used to measure whether to not the schools are achieving this are set way to low. The current requirements for a school to be rated as 'academically acceptable' are focused on reducing the failure rate, not educating the students in a way that will prepare them to function in our society as adults. The court's majority opinion on the school finance decision addresses this, although it's long and may take a little bit to wade through.
Current requirements for a school in Texas to be academically acceptable state that only 25 % of their students have to pass the science portion of the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) test, 35% have to pass the math portion, and 50% have to pass the English, writing and social studies portion. The rates will increase incrementally until 2009 when the rate will have to be 70% passing in all areas, but it doesn't really make sense to start the levels low and incrementally increase them. I've found that when you settle for standards that require lower levels of education that's exactly what you'll get. Allowing students and teachers a lower level of accountability in passing rates on the TAKS now doesn't promote increased learning as there is a lower base to build on which will make it harder to increase the passing rate at later dates. And people wonder why our students aren't better educated.
Because the passing rates are measured by standardized test scores, I feel like I need to comment on the reliability of standardized tests. While I recognize the need for a uniform system of evaluating what students have learned, I am not a big fan of standardized testing. While it may show how much a student knows to a certain degree, I believe that it is more a measure of how well a student tests. Additionally, the TAKS test doesn't cover all of the prescribed curriculum, and therefore isn't necessarily an accurate measure of whether or not a school has provided a 'general diffusion of knowledge.'
Unfortunately, without a better way of evaluating how well our schools are preparing students to function in college and society, we are stuck with standardized tests. I'm sure this issue will be visited again in future posts. Equity in funding between the districts is a different issue for a different time. Not even the high court would touch the Robin Hood law in their latest ruling.
Maybe some day, someone will come up with a better method of evaluating how effective our schools are. And maybe Legislature can fix public school finance.
Hmmm... a girl can dream can't she?
No comments:
Post a Comment