ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, January 7, 1996 TAG: 9601050008
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: F-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WAYNE WORNER
PUBLIC EDUCATION was one of the most important issues in November's legislative races. While much was made of the critical needs facing higher education, the greater number of concerns were, by far, those related to the operation of Virginia's public elementary and secondary schools.
The sheer volume of the discourse confirms Virginians' ranking of education as the state's highest priority. Much of what was said and written emphasized the need for higher academic and behavioral standards for students; higher standards of accountability and performance for teachers and administrators; and challenges to parents, the business community and nonparent patrons to learn about and get involved in schools.
All good suggestions. Public schools in Virginia will get better through shared ownership and responsibility. Unfortunately, however, expectations and exhortation are not sufficient. To make education better in Virginia's schools, Virginians will need to match their rhetoric with support. While we speak passionately about the need for high standards, there is a tendency to ignore the building blocks by which we achieve them.
We are also beset with myths about schools and schooling that divert and dilute our efforts. In addition, state educational policy over the past decade has become so politicized and unpredictable that local efforts to improve schools have been muted at best; abandoned at worst.
Several myths that seem to be driving educational policy decisions in Virginia must be dispelled before we can begin to make the progress all of us seem to desire.
MYTH NO. 1: STANDARDS, NOT MONEY, WILL IMPROVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
The logic here is that knowing the destination is more important than having the vehicle to get there. Obviously, that logic is flawed. We need both the high standards and expectations suggested by William Bosher, state superintendent of public instruction, and the resources to accomplish them. Of the two, creating standards comes easier.
Setting high standards will not, however, substitute for the teachers, facilities, computers and instructional materials necessary if students are to achieve the standards.
The "facts" generally presented to argue the "standards vs. money" debate are exceptional performance of a low-expenditure school or school division on one test or another. Performance on any single measure not only oversimplifies the question of quality, it ignores the expectations of parents. It should not be surprising that any school division can demonstrate exceptional outcomes if a single indicator is used as the measure of quality. The rub comes in determining which indicator is important.
Most school patrons are interested in a broad range of high-quality programs and services. The wider the range, the higher the cost. If we really believe in "local control," why not let each community select its own indicators?
MYTH NO. 2: SCHOOLS ARE FAILING; THE PUBLIC HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN SCHOOLS.
"Evidence" for this myth comes from inappropriate analysis of data like SAT scores and college/university reports regarding the quality of entering freshmen.
Never mind the facts:
that the SAT decline is a function of who now takes the test (a much larger proportion of students who generally have scored lower); or
that seven of the eight measured subgroups had higher average SAT scores in 1990 than in 1970; or
that, while the coterie of 18-year-olds in the recruitment pool was declining by 25 percent (between 1970 and 1985), the number of students entering higher education was increasing dramatically (nearly 100 percent at Virginia Tech during that same period).
Small wonder that with a smaller pool of applicants and more students being admitted, the average SAT score for entering freshmen would decline. The wonder is that the decline was not greater.
Remember, too, that nearly 10 times as many students were taking advanced courses in math, science and technology in 1995 than when "Nation at Risk" declared our education system bankrupt.
The public schools of the 1990s are serving more students better today than at any time in our history. Undeniable, too, is the fact that we must do even better.
With respect to the issue of public confidence in and support of the schools, while there is some evidence of eroding public support for education, it is not nearly as severe as we have been led to believe, especially given the demographics of our changing society. For example:
Over the past three decades, the proportion of taxpayers with children in public schools has declined from more than 50 percent to less than 25 percent. This has resulted in fierce competition for limited public resources.
More students with special needs are being served by schools as a result of litigation and legislation. Schools are the only remaining long-term-care facilities in our society. The range of programs and services provided by or in schools has expanded dramatically. A substantial portion of the public wonders why.
In spite of these conditions, the support of public education remains exceptionally high. Virginians, in a recent poll, listed education as the top priority for state funding. In the 1995 PDK-Gallup Poll:
20 percent of the respondents gave "all schools in America" an A or B;
40 percent gave the schools in their community an A or B; and
65 percent of those with children in schools gave the school attended by their oldest child an A or B.
Hardly an indication of lost public confidence.
MYTH NO. 3: THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM WON'T SOLVE IT.
This variation of Myth No. 1 is interesting because it has never been tested in education. Certainly not in Virginia.
Constitutional issues regarding public-school financing focus on two concepts: equity and adequacy. Obviously, a state funding system can be equitable but not adequate - if a state provides no support for public schools, it has perfect equity. Both conditions are essential to educational excellence. Recently, a coalition of school divisions brought suit claiming the Virginia funding pattern was not equitable.
The Virginia Supreme Court disagreed - or at least indicated that existing problems should be resolved legislatively and not by the courts. Regardless of that decision, almost nobody disagrees that Virginia's system of funding public schools is inequitable. A fair number also believe it is inadequately funded.
Educational discrimination exists in Virginia as a function of geography. Where you live determines the quality of your education. Differences in expenditures to support public-school education from one school division to another can be as high as $100,000 per classroom, per year. If education is a state function (and it is), then the state must not permit such inequities to exist.
With regard to adequacy, the commonwealth provides support for public-school students (on average) at the rate of approximately $12 per student per day. While one can debate how much money is needed, current levels of support hardly seem to support a "throwing-money-at-the-problem" metaphor.
MYTH NO. 4: SCHOOLS ARE INEFFICIENT, BUREAUCRATIC AND PERFORMING POORLY.
Ten years ago, I worked with a statewide task force that examined the challenges facing public education in Virginia. That particular governor's commission studied Virginia's taxing capacity, effort and educational performance. The findings:
Virginia was a relatively high-wealth state (ranking in the upper third);
Virginia was a relatively low-effort state (ranking in the lower third);
Virginia students performed at or slightly above the mean on most indicators of quality (standardized tests, dropout rate, etc.).
The conclusion? Virginians get a "good bang for their buck."
How have the conditions changed since 1984? Virginia is wealthier, spends a smaller portion of its budget on its public schools, and still scores at or slightly higher than the mean on most performance indicators.
Returning to equity for a moment, we should recognize that if we remove the scores of "high expenditure" districts from state performance indicators, our state results are closer to those of Mississippi than Minnesota.
Virginia's schools need to improve. The challenges they face are as complex as those faced at any time in our history. Those challenges will not be addressed by inaccurate information or exhortation.
Fundamental change requires first, an accurate assessment of where we are; second, a determination of where we want to be; and third, the necessary resources to move us from where we are to where we want to be. Progress will depend on vision, leadership and the resources needed to accomplish the agreed-upon goals.
Wayne Worner is dean of Virginia Tech's College of Education.
LENGTH: Long : 169 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Kevin Kreneck/LA Timesby CNB