OCR Text |
Show STRIKING THE MIDDLE GROUND ON THE EDUCATION DEBATE: THE OVERARCHING QUESTION OF WHAT is BEST FOR OUR CHILDREN Representative Jim Matheson be used. It is a concept of rewarding states that are "accountable" with "flexibility." In contrast, others would like to preserve the separate federal education programs that currently exist. They contend that each is designed to meet a unique and valuable need, and that they must continue to do so. They see guidelines as checks on the appropriate use of funds to meet federal priorities. Perhaps here, more than in any other case, there is a contrast in the opposing views. In the middle of all the debate is the practical reality of what really ought to be accomplished on education. Historically, the federal role in education began to help in areas where the states lacked the resources to serve specific student populations. Several examples of these programs include Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Title I was designed to provide federal dollars to schools serving a high number of students in poverty, schools shouldering an increased burden because of their student populations. It was not intended to help all schools or all students, but it was intended to meet a specific need that states alone were unable to finance. Impact Aid served a similar role. This funding was designed to help schools serving a large number of students living on federal lands, since federal lands are not taxable by local authorities. Schools serving children living on these lands lose a large base of local tax revenue, which typically would help finance public education. Impact aid is designed to help offset expenditures and provide these schools with the missing operating funds. Over time, the scope of federal involvement has increased, generating many concerns about over-regulation, increased bureaucracy, and the size of expenditures. These concerns about how the federal government ought to be involved in education have given rise to the discussions on choice, accountability, and flexibility outlined above. However, the situation in Utah does not necessarily conform to these national concerns. There are many unique characteristics and needs to be considered in education reform. THE SITUATION IN UTAH In evaluating education it is necessary to create a context for the debate. This means looking closely at the situation in Utah and the effects of policies at the state level. Many of the concerns being expressed nationally are valid, but often the pictures of "failing schools" do not accurately depict education in Utah. Utah's schools are characterized by committed teachers, committed administrators, and - perhaps most of all -committed parents who care about quality education. These individuals invest their time in the heroic, daily act known as teaching. Parents give record numbers of volunteer hours to their children's schools (Parent Teacher Association (PTA) organizations are involved in 85 percent of Utah's schools compared to only 20-30 percent nationwide). Recent data shows Utah's schools rank eighth in the nation on the eighth grade NAEP tests.1 Students continue to score well above the national average on tests and attend college at high rates. Utah's schools also face tremendous challenges. Census data shows Utah to have the highest ratio of students to teachers in the nation, and Utah also ranks the lowest (51st) in the nation in per pupil expenditure. Classrooms are chronically overcrowded; textbooks are outdated. And, the growth causing these challenges will continue. In the next ten years the State Board of Education estimates that Utah will add approximately 100,000 new students and need to build over 124 new schools, a 15 percent increase. Overall, tremendous commitment has allowed Utah to overcome the odds against it: too little money and too many children in classes. Granted, these are general statements. They do not account for every situation. Certain parents struggle with uncommitted teachers, and certain teachers struggle with uncommitted parents, however they do represent much of the norm. Decreasing class size, increasing the resources available, and meeting the increasing challenge of new immigrant and refugee students are all priorities in Utah. These are not partisan issues. They are the reality of what Utah needs. However, the national debate on education does little to address these needs in its current form. THE MIDDLE GROUND Despite ideological differences between parties, addressing the challenges in Utah's education system is a practical matter. It is about what works for our schools. It is about meeting priorities. Following are several practical, common sense principles to guide federal decisions on education. These are not steeped in any ideology. They do not conform to either Republican or Democratic priorities. Instead they cut across the rhetoric and ask a simple question: What is best for our children? They do not generate a perfect proposal, but they begin to redefine the way we examine education, specifically the federal role in education. 1* The federal government should meet its obligations and keep its promises* New education programs should not be initiated until the existing ones are adequately funded. This is a simple concept, but one that is often lacking in federal politicking. If states and local schools are depending on federal dollars to meet certain priorities, providing these should be the first objective in federal education policy. New programs create new obligations, and subsequently new revenue sources that local educators come to count on. New programs should be initiated only after existing obligations have been met. This means that when looking at consolidating existing 1 Bennet, W.J. (2001). The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators 2001. Washington, DC: empower.org. 84 |