We all should care about K-12 education

We all should care about K-12 education

In 1994, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that the statutory-driven finance strategy for the public school system was unconstitutional on the grounds that it could not "provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and uniform public school system." Since the finance scheme impacts exclusively K-12 schools, the court's finding addressed only K-12 education, although the constitutional clause implies institutions of higher learning could be included. The question here is why should students, faculty or administrators in higher education care about this Supreme Court decision. I believe a report by the Arizona Board of Regents, given at this month's meeting held here at the University of Arizona, may shed some light on the answer.

The board of regents gave their Annual Progress Report on Recruitment and Graduation of Minority Students. This report grew from recommendations updated in a 1989 published report called Our Common Commitment: Enhancing Ethnic Minority Integration and Ach ievement in Arizona's Universities. In an effort to measure their commitment to minority integration into higher education, the regents established goals, which are reported in the annual progress report. The goals, in short, are (1) to work with the publ ic school districts to increase the number of eligible minority graduates for admission, (2) emphasize recruitment of eligible minority students to increase enrollment rates, and (3) increase the graduation rates of minority students.

The regents correctly realized that minority recruitment and enrollment goals would not be met unless there were eligible students graduating from high school. In 1990, the universities found the percentage of minority high school students eligible for co llege was significantly lower that for non-minority (white) populations of high school students. The regents turned to K-12 and community colleges, through early outreach and financial aid incentives, to increase the number of eligible minority students b ound for higher education.

The regent's progress report found, of the estimated number of 1994-95 high school graduates eligible to enroll into one of the universities, there was an increase in the number of minority students that did, in fact, enroll. Good news. However, in this s ame report, the goals to increase the graduation rates were not met. For first-year students, based on a six-year time frame, only the graduation rate for Hispanics increased to meet the goal, while the graduation rates for African Americans, Asian Americ ans, and Native Americans decreased. This implies that first-year freshman students, graduates from high school and products of the K-12 public system, are not able to graduate from college within six years.

A direct link between available funding and the quality of education has yet to be established, but few would deny there is a substantive connection. The case before the court occurred only because a school district could neither implement, nor maintain, the necessary infrastructure (buildings, classrooms, desks, etc.) to provide for the minimum standards of education mandated by the state's constitution because the amount of funding available was inadequate. If the district funding is based on property t axes, those districts with low property value and few industry and commercial business will suffer the greatest - as found by the Supreme Court in 1994.

Although no one can definitely conclude that more money means a better education, the correlation is hard to ignore. Communities with low property values and fewer industrial or commercial operations are disproportionately minority. Thus, as the Supreme C ourt stated, those communities with low property values pay lower property taxes, thus reducing the available funding for their school district and their ability to provide a standard education. This scenario would adversely impact minority communities. N ow, as seen in the board of regents report, we see first year minority students (except Hispanics) having difficulty graduating within six years.

This correlation is not intended to point fingers, nor to invite sympathy. It is intended to illustrate that educating our youth is a process and those who are disproportionately disadvantaged could suffer the effects for an entire lifetime. The foundatio n of the process is an infrastructure that includes office space, classrooms, libraries, gyms, books, computers, laboratories and support equipment. It is not hard to fathom that those students who have access to this infrastructure will be better prepare d than those who do not. School districts with resources to provide the infrastructure will churn out better-prepared students. Better-prepared K-12 students will be better high school graduates and will be more likely to graduate from college.

A diverse and well-educated entry-level pool of college graduates will attract business and industry to Arizona. As businesses flourish, so does our economy, as industry pumps resources into the communities and universities to maintain the influx of diver se and well-educated college graduates. This renders an increase in the standard of living, and concomitantly, the property values. The cycle of success is a blessing for us all and is the reason we should all be concerned that the quality of K-12 educati on is improved in every manner possible.

David H. Benton is a third-year law student and learned all of his ABCs and numbers via a K-12 education. He sits on the cabinet of the ASUA president and is a board member on the Arizona Students' Association. His column, 'Another Perspective,' app ears Tuesdays.

By David H. Benton (columnist)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 18, 1997