By
Cory Spiller
Arizona finally has some money to spend on our dilapidated school system. Proposition 301, passed by the gracious citizens of this state last November, instituted a 0.6 percent sales tax in the hopes that more money would equal better education. Our state's school system has consistently ranked among the lowest in the country due to a lack of funding and poor administration. So, now we've got the money. But the new problem is, where do we spend it?
Lisa Graham Keegan, the state's Superintendent of Public Instruction, believes that we should use all available education money for teachers. She has stated "Let's make the $100,000 teacher a reality in every school," and on this point she is right-on. If teaching becomes a well-paying profession, then talented and educated individuals that would otherwise choose higher-paying positions would consider teaching. If Keegan's dream of teachers with six-figure salaries becomes a reality, then teaching will become a competitive position. Students that usually study law, medicine or business would consider becoming educators.
However, we don't have enough money to pay every teacher $100,000, and currently discussions are being held about how to divvy up the dough.
This is where Keegan falters.
Keegan believes that the Arizona Instrument to Measure the Standards (AIMS) and Stanford 9 standardized tests are the best way to determine a teacher's effectiveness. She's wrong. Standardized tests are effective when studying the different levels of education among schools, but not when trying to decipher which particular teacher is effective. If Keegan takes raw AIMS scores and raises teachers' salaries according to those results, the wrong teachers will end up getting pay raises.
A lousy teacher who teaches in a wealthy section of town with families who have more resources could be getting a raise while a great teacher in a poor part of town with less resources will go without recognition. Schools in poorer sections of town also show a high mobility rate among students. This not only affects a student's education because settling does not occur in one school, but it also affects teachers that are being evaluated on the size of a shifting student population. Teachers are unable to show improvement from one year to the next when their pool of students is inconsistent.
Standardized tests actually weaken the educational experiences of minorities. While middle-class kids in suburban high schools have the opportunity to take electives such as choir, drama and computer science, minority students are forced to take a double load of English and math just to pass the AIMS test. Teachers also feel obligated to prepare their students for the AIMS test and often find themselves limited and frustrated by being forced to teach to the test. The AIMS test will soon become a requisite for graduation. The disastrous effects of a required graduation exam can be seen in our new president's home state. Texas instituted a standardized test for graduation and saw their dropout rate nearly double among minorities.
Keegan also supports Bush's destructive voucher program and his "do or die" policy for public schools. Bush has stated recently that any federal money given to failing schools will be discontinued after three years. These schools will be shut down and parents will be given vouchers to be used for private schools.
However, private schools do not receive funding from federal or state governments and will not be held accountable for a quality education. By advocating vouchers, Bush could be forcing students towards schools that require uniforms, prayer, and biblical and creative instruction.
Keegan and Bush are trying hard to give equitable education to all students and raise teacher's salaries, but they are doing it the wrong way. We should not give up on struggling schools. We cannot limit minority education by teaching for the AIMS test and we cannot give vouchers for private schools that teach conformity, religion and elitism.
