Take one step at a time to fix schools

By WAYNE SANSTEAD

Bismarck

A letter to the editor (Oct. 3) by Tim Lamb explored the issues of school adequacy and equity. A few observations about his comments and his approach to these issues are appropriate.

Let me assure readers first that I agree with Lamb that North Dakota needs to achieve what is currently known as educational adequacy in its public school system. Educational adequacy means determining what we want 12th-grade students to know and be able to do when they leave high school.

We then need to systematically define that outcome and put the resources in place to ensure that all students, wherever they live in North Dakota, have access to schooling that will enable them to achieve those levels of learning.

In North Dakota, a second funding lawsuit was filed several years ago to force the issue of moving in this direction. The Governor's Educational Improvement Commission has undertaken the task of trying to achieve basic equity first and later presumably, with the blessing of the upcoming legislative session, will tackle the more difficult issue of defining educational adequacy.

However, given how far North Dakota is behind the curve in terms of an adequate funding formula and a basis for moving toward educational adequacy, we have to take one step at a time. The first step is exactly what the commission is currently working on, achieving a basic level of funding equity. The agreement with the plaintiff districts that established the commission outlines achieving educational adequacy as the next step. Likely, the plaintiffs will stick to their guns by insisting that this issue will be undertaken during the upcoming interim between the 2007 and 2009 legislative sessions.

North Dakota's funding formula has not been changed in any fundamental way since the late '60s or early '70s. It is out of date and out of whack in almost every way formulas can be out of shape. The Educational Improvement Commission, on which I serve, is doing a good job in moving through the first important step, dealing with funding equity issues. It would be nice if we could rush the process and move directly to defining and funding adequacy. But that will be the more difficult challenge and will require a good deal of focus, effort and commitment from all involved. In addition, as Lamb correctly points out, addressing adequacy will require additional state general fund resources.

The people who have been involved with the education improvement effort have dealt with difficult and challenging issues and are reaching a consensus on a proposal to bring to the Legislature. In many other states, these issues are only settled in court after long and bitter battles between sides. These battles tend to have the effect of polarizing elements within the education community and the public in ways that are clearly counter- productive.

The P-16 Education Task Force has studied many of the issues and provided a good deal of resources and perspective on those issues that relate to educational adequacy. As we move forward, the work of that task force should be invaluable in the discussions about formulating a definition of educational adequacy for our state.

Ideally, we would have resolved these issues years ago, but in the present context, we need to be patient and stay the course of doing first things first, while remembering that the ultimate goal is a quality education for all of our students. As currently defined in this country, quality is educational adequacy, a situation in which we provide the resources to ensure that all students reach their full potential.