Resource Center

• by Aurelio M. Montemayor, M.Ed. • IDRA Newsletter • February 2007

Accountability means answerability, responsibility and liability. Equity means being just and fair and not having a bias or showing favoritism.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act gives significant leverage to parents of children in schools that receive federal funds. Yet there is no stronger lever for parents than each state’s constitutional responsibility to provide an excellent education to all children. For example, the Texas state constitution defines tremendous rights for parents in the education of their children.

NCLB Accountability

Funding education is fundamentally a state responsibility. This is why schools may supplement but not supplant the state responsibilities with federal resources. As outlined in the January 2007 issue of the IDRA Newsletter, NCLB includes six key elements, or levers, for parents. The strength of these levers are premised on states providing the fundamental equitable funding needed as a foundation:

• • A School Parent Involvement Policy. Such a policy requires certain resources to be carried out.
  • A School-Parent Compact. Without the appropriate resources, these compact agreements cannot have meaningful impact.
  • Parent Involvement Districtwide Policy. Effective parent involvement requires investment to focus on engagement of families that impacts student success rather than on “punch and cookie” events to no effect.
  • School Report Cards are only useful if the school has the appropriate resources to support the academic achievement of all students.
  • Public School Choice and Supplemental Educational Services. Underfunding of schools is a major cause of the conditions that lead some parents to seek these alternatives.

The strong levers that NCLB gives to parents are seriously weakened if there is a condition of inequity in funding. Fair funding is a necessary foundation for a system that truly leaves no child behind.

State Responsibility

Just over a decade ago, the Texas legislature finally took steps to reduce inequity in funding between property wealthy and property poor school districts. This was the result of public information, the creation of a public will for fair funding of all schools, litigation and legislation. Unfortunately, several months ago, the legislature returned Texas to the time of high contrast between resource-rich and resource-poor schools.

School districts teaching 91 percent of Texas students are having to raise taxes, cut programs for children and lay off teachers. Children with unique needs being served by special education, bilingual education, and gifted and talented programs are being poorly served.

Money is a central answer, though obviously not the only one. Visualize color-coded stick pins on a state map. The red pins represent resource-poor schools and green pins represent resource-rich schools. The map would be a sea of red with a few tiny islands of green. That’s inequity.

Keep Your Eye on the Prize (Price)

For the power of the NCLB federal law to result in academic success for all students and for there to be a guaranteed graduation (which is the spirit of NCLB), there has to be equitable funding of schools. It is illogical to hold neighborhood public schools responsible for providing an excellent education to all children while having them operate with the huge handicap of underfunding. Annual yearly progress necessitates appropriate and fair funding.

This allows for competitive salaries for teachers and staff. It provides the fundamental source for well-stocked libraries and good physical plants. It keeps and increases resources in neighborhood schools, which are central to healthy neighborhoods and communities. Equitable funding enables neighborhood schools to serve all children with appropriate and excellent instruction.

Parents must remind decision-makers that all children in the state merit an excellent education, and it should not matter where the child lives and goes to school for him or her to get a good education. It is unconstitutional, unethical and counter-productive to allow serious inequity in the basic resources made available to children. As long as there are preferred public school districts, all districts will be affected negatively. The economic future of the community, the state and the nation suffers as a result.

Aurelio M. Montemayor, M.Ed, is an IDRA senior education associate and director of the Texas IDRA Parent Information and Resource Center. Comments and questions may be directed to him via e-mail at comment@idra.org.

[©2007, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the February 2007 IDRA Newsletter by the Intercultural Development Research Association. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]