Secondary Education

Arkansas has as much to gain as it does to lose in the current debate about public education, and this is a most critical time for term-limited legislators to do what is necessary and right for the future of Arkansas and its children without being overly focused on the next election. The Arkansas Supreme Court has spoken, and now it is time for the people to respond.

The state is constitutionally required to provide educational opportunities for its children, and the Lake View case is what has brought it all home. Perhaps it is that consolidation of some districts was the right thing to do, but it may also be time to expand the role of the state's Department of Education.

It is no secret that Arkansas has pockets of poverty in sections of the state in which industry is not typically attracted, but Arkansas is not alone. Every state in the union would certainly have its own areas that do not perform as well as others. Does this mean that something in the water causes lower scholastic achievement in certain parts of the state, or might it mean that the municipalities can only work with what they have?

Therein, I think, lies the fundamental problem with secondary education. It is not that the state is not demanding that children attend school, and it is not that the state is refusing to address problems. I think the whole thing can be summed up in "equal" as well as "adequate" funding levels.

I do not believe that money itself, or the lack thereof, is the root cause of educational failures in Arkansas. Parents and the children must own up to their own failures. To question whether the educational funding system in Arkansas is adequate is not addressing what I believe to be the core concern of the state Supreme Court. I also do not think that the Supreme Court has overstepped its constitutional boundaries in its timeline and demand. While "adequate" will be difficult to determine, I believe the Supreme Court has only stated that if the state spends $3 on a student in NW Arkansas, it must also spend $3 on a student in the Delta region. This money would necessarily include teacher salaries and adequate facilities.

Existing formulas can help teachers and administrators to determine what is "adequate" not according to demographics but adequate in what it will take to ensure that a senior in high school is actually reading at a senior's level. "Adequate" will demand not that a student can figure the most complex mathematical problems but that a student can function in the real world by balancing a check book, figuring simple and compound interest, and understanding credit markets. These are real-world applications, and the consumer debt load and level of literacy in this nation suggests that perhaps we are not addressing "functionality" in education.

Does an "adequate" education demand that all graduating seniors be overachieving scholars? It seems to me that perhaps we are expecting and demanding too much of the children by asking that they be able to compete with Japanese or German children when in reality, they need only be able to function right here at home.

The solution is very simple, I think. The state's Department of Education will disburse the money according to population and enrollment so that in the end if the governor's "secret" meetings can determine what is "adequate", the Department of Education can work to ensure "equitable" disbursement of funds.

First things first, however. "Adequate" must be defined and measured.