On June 25,
the Appellate Division, First Department, of the New York State Supreme
Court declared that a middle-school education in one of the State’s
lowest performing school districts is all that is guaranteed by the
State Constitution. All residents of New York State should be terrified
by the implications of this misguided decision.
In
many other states around the nation, courts have declared that an
adequate education is one sufficient to give every student the tools
needed to succeed in today’s competitive society. State supreme courts
in Kentucky and Texas, for example, have set high standards for all
schools, and policy makers in these two states have responded by
dramatically boosting financial support for the neediest school
districts. The widely cited 1989 Kentucky Supreme Court decision
concluded that the state’s education system should give students a wide
range of “capacities” including “sufficient oral and written
communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and
rapidly changing civilization,” “sufficient understanding of
governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues
that affect his or her community, state, and nation,” and “sufficient
levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students
to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in
academics or in the job market.”
In
contrast, New York’s recent court ruling concludes that “the skills
required to enable a person to obtain employment, vote, and serve on a
jury are imparted between grades 8 and 9.” Moreover, the court says,
“Society needs workers at all levels, the majority of which may very
well be low level.” This is, of course, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Limiting the State’s financial obligation to ensuring the minimal
educational standard advocated by this court will relegate a large share
of the students in New York City and other underfunded districts to
minimum-wage jobs. This standard will also result in citizens with
minimal understanding of the complex issues they will confront as jurors
and voters. Surely the Empire State can do better than this.
In
other states around the nation, courts and public officials have also
recognized that a high concentration of students from poor families or
otherwise “at risk” raises the cost of providing an adequate education,
as defined by a performance standard. A 1998 decision by the highest
court in New Jersey required the state to pay for a variety of extra
programs, including pre-K programs and whole-school reform, in urban
districts with many at-risk students. Earlier this year the Governor of
New Jersey set up a commission to make certain that the state meets the
court’s requirements. Maryland recently passed a plan devoting
extensive extra funding to schools where at-risk students are
concentrated. Texas explicitly adjusts its state aid for the higher
cost of living in some school districts, and adjustments for the higher
cost of at-risk students are included in recent state-aid reforms in
Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, and Texas.
In
New York, the recent court decision recognizes that “City students’
lower test results in comparison with the rest of the State are largely
the result of demographic factors, such as poverty, high crime
neighborhoods, single parent or dysfunctional homes, homes where English
is not spoken.” The court also declares that “the pedagogic system
should be geared toward such students,” but it then parts company with
other states by rejecting the argument that a concentration of at-risk
students raises the cost of education. Here again, the court has much
too narrow a view of the State’s financial obligations. Moreover,
instead of being concerned about the high dropout rate in New York City,
which is accepted by educators as an indication of poor school
performance, the court declares “nor can the State be faulted if
students do not avail themselves of the opportunities presented.”
Apparently this court, unlike courts and policy makers around the
nation, does not think that constitutional requirements have anything to
do with educational performance.
The
court’s confusion about the high cost of at-risk students is accompanied
by an invalid argument about the cost of teachers. “Plaintiffs’ claim
that it costs more to educate students in New York City than elsewhere
in the state is based, to a large extent, on a cost of living index
which factors in salaries of non-educators, and is thus irrelevant to
the cost of educating a student.” As many other states have recognized,
however, the market for teachers is not insulated from the rest of the
labor market and a school district’s ability to attract teachers clearly
depends on the salaries offered in alternative occupations.
New
York State is clearly in danger of being left behind, with an
educational system that produces tens of thousands of young people who
are not prepared for the demands of jobs and citizenship in the 21st
century. We hope that New York’s highest court reverses the misguided
opinion of June 25th. But even if it does not, elected
officials in New York State still have the ability to build an education
finance system that supports high student performance in every school
district. Instead of giving more state aid or property tax breaks to
wealthy school districts that do not need the help, it is time for New
York State to follow the lead of other states and implement an
educational finance system that recognizes the high cost of educating
at-risk students and brings all districts up to a high performance
standard.
*John
Yinger teaches at the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. Papers
presented at his recent conference on state aid to education can be
found on the internet at
http://cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/efap.