by Marsha Richards, Evergreen Freedom Foundation
Last fall, Washingtons Superintendent of Public Instruction Terry
Bergeson released the names of schools that failed to make adequate
yearly progress (AYP) in the 2003-04 school year, as required by federal
law.
The good news: The number of low-performing schools dropped significantly
from 436 in 2003 to 281 in 2004.
The bad news: Most of the progress can be credited to lower standards,
not higher academic achievement. In fact, some of the now-passing schools
even regressed academically.
It took weeks of data-crunching by Evergreen Freedom Foundation staff to
determine how schools would have measured up in 2004 if the standards had
not been lowered. While we didnt have access to some key data, we
were able to identify 577 schools that would have failed AYP based on the
original benchmarks. Complete data would likely increase the number significantly.
It was Superintendent Bergeson who determined what it means for Washington
students to succeed under federal law. Schools must meet annual benchmarks
to ensure that all students (regardless of their ethnic and socioeconomic
background) are proficient in reading and math by 2014.
Low-performing schools face varying degrees of sanctions. Schools that
fail to meet benchmarks for two consecutive years or more must provide students
with successful public and/or private alternatives.
When more than 400 schools failed to meet the standards in 2003, Bergeson
improved performance by lowering the bar. Her decision means
that hundreds or even thousands of students in low-performing schools have
been sentenced to a second-rate education and deprived of successful academic
alternatives. Their plight is being called an improvement, and
the improvement is being used to justify demands for hundreds
of millions of dollars in new education spending.
Is it fair to leave kids behind so adults can protect their reputations
and justify higher education taxes? I dont think so.
Marsha Richards is the Education Reform Center Director for the Evergreen
Freedom Foundation, a non-partisan, public policy watchdog organization,
focused on advancing individual liberty, a free-market economy, and limited
and responsible government.
Contact: Marsha Richards |
Education Reform Center Director | 360.956.3482
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"