By Mark
The Seattle Times posted a couple of days ago that the Washington State Supreme Court has found the state legislature in contempt for failing to make adequate progress toward the mandate issued in the McCleary case. (Quick review from the Times link above "in 2012, the Supreme Court … ordered the state to increase education spending enough to fulfill the Washington state Legislature’s own definition of what it would take to meet the state constitution’s requirement of providing a basic education to all Washington children," emphasis mine).
Obviously, I'm in favor of the legislature funding schools to meet their own definition of basic education. However, when I typed the first sentence above, I almost inserted "yearly" between "failing to make adequate" and "progress."
Considering the letters that many schools had to send home to parents about not meeting "adequate yearly progress," this idea has been in my head a great deal lately.
My own school's failure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (we're in Step 2 despite test passing rates high enough that the state cannot even report them because of privacy laws) and the legislature's failure to make adequate progress toward funding solutions both seem to come with consequences. Paradoxically, my school's failure to meet AYP means funding set-asides, program restrictions, and letters home to parents…while I have not yet managed to sort out how a contempt finding actually will sting, since there is only a threat of sanctions should the 2015 legislative session be less than productive.
The big difference: the punishments related to AYP failure result from the fact that AYP expectations are plainly unrealistic. I believe that it is realistic for the legislature to meet its obligation and avoid whatever sanctions the court might determine.
Here's the real question: how will your school or your classroom be different when public education in Washington is funded the way the legislature itself says it should be? These stories of what can be–not the stories of what we don't have, so easily dismissed as idle complaining–will have the potential to move policymakers forward.
Previous StoriesFromSchool posts about the McCleary decision:
Right on every point, Spencer. I am very curious to see if there will be developments this year as Duncan seems to be starting to recognize that connecting teacher evaluation to SBAC and CCSS so soon is unwise.
Interesting connection between AYP and adequate progress towards fully funding public education. Does anyone question the idea that the inaction of the legislature to fund education directly impacts the ability of schools to meet AYP? Right now schools all over the state (not to mention the nation) work with less than what it takes to do the job right – nevertheless the expectations stay the same. Money will not solve all of our problems in education, but it does solve the issue of “lack of money”. Whether it is curricula, staffing, class size, heat, you name it – money sets the stage for our ability to operate.