Should states mandate school reform standards?

NEA Today, Apr 1994 by Carlson, Marge, Jones, Hannah

Should States Mandate School Reform Standards?

Yes

If we're going to be serious about achieving equity in education, we must advocate state-level education reform.

Case in point: California is a state known for diversity. From the fashionable mansions of Carmel and Beverly Hills to the inner-city neighborhoods of Watts and Oakland, the state is serving vastly different student populations.

And striking differences in property taxes create schools with graphically different resources for students.

In California, as in the rest of the country, the state department of education exists to make policies that bring consistency and standardization to the state's diverse localities. There is much to be standardized. Following are just a few areas where state reforms can help bring about equity among districts:

*Equality of services to diverse populations. The state can play a role in seeing that there are opportunities for bilingual, gifted, handicapped, Native American, adult, and vocational education students. Without these special programs, how can populations that require extra resources be expected to achieve at the same level as their less needy peers?

*Standardization of student outcomes. The state can provide minimum competency standards and expectations to begin to establish consistency in student outcomes. Without these standards, how can schools expect to achieve consistency in student learning?

*Uniformity of class size. Research shows that lower student-teacher ratios bring learning gains. Without a state minimum class size, how can financially strapped schools justify reducing class size? Reducing class size statewide is the only equitable way to improve learning for all students.

*Standardization of safety codes and building maintenance. Schools in districts that have high property taxes and bond revenues can afford to create aesthetically pleasing schools with first-rate facilities. Without standardized safety codes and maintenance guidelines, how can poor schools ensure their facilities are safe and up to par?

*Cost efficiency in purchases of education supplies. When supplies and equipment are purchased in bulk, costs are significantly reduced. Without volume purchasing, how can poor districts afford the same supplies and equipment that wealthy schools get?

People argue that state departments of education tie up schools in red tape. In many states, that's changing. Thanks to progressive initiatives in several states, state-mandated charter schools are providing school site autonomy. Schools are being freed up from state regulations to provide outcome-based instruction with site-based decision making.

This goes to show that when reform is in the public interest, states are relaxing their hold on local schools. That's progress.

States are also in the best position to stop exploitative schemes like Chris Whittle's "Channel One" program. As you probably know, Whittle has been tempting schools with free video equipment--typically worth $30,000 to $50,000--in exchange for two minutes of advertising each day along with a 10-minute news show.

Most educators would agree that someone needs to put the brakes on this effort, which is grossing Whittle $628,000 every school day. That's well over $100 million a year.

The New York State Board of Regents has already moved to ban Channel One. Who is in a better position to stop this exploitation than states? Progressive leaders can make the state level the most effective venue for making these kinds of changes.

The key, then, is progressive state leadership. There's no doubt that putting forward-thinking educators in positions of leadership in state departments of education is crucial.

State mandates carry with them the force of law that affects thousands of people. In contrast, local mandates affect fewer people and establish inconsistent and inequitable outcomes across states.

Marge Carlson is a biology teacher at Greenfield Jr. High in El Cajon, California. She's co-chair of the Cajon Valley Education Association Political Action Committee and council representative to the California Teachers Association.

NO

With the advent of site-based management and an increase in teacher-driven school research and reform, teachers are slowly being handed the responsibility to create schools that mirror our knowledge about the best ways to teach.

To hand that power back to anyone--textbook publishers, business groups, or especially states--would be to lose professional ground. We'd also be abdicating our greatest responsibility: to create dynamic schools that respond to the needs of our students.

Sometimes it would seem almost comforting to let a state commission set reform guidelines so that we could focus entirely on working with kids. But the price we'd pay for such a compromise is too high. The moment teachers turn to outside sources for answers, we lose the flexibility to innovate.

For instance, there are veteran teachers who believe that basal readers are not the most effective method for teaching reading. Yet they continue to use basal readers in their classrooms because they are required to do so by outmoded curricular standards or, worse, because they've internalized feelings of disempowerment. Top-down, state-mandated standards would contribute to teacher passivity and disempowerment.