Veronica Norris

The survival of public education will rest on whether it can meet the knowledge needs of the children it is charged with educating. While we often read and hear about issues in public education today as if it were being heard for the first time, it is noteworthy to look back almost fifty years ago to what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). The Court's message is as relevant today as it was in 1954:

Today, education is perhaps the most important

function of state and local governments.

Compulsory school attendance laws and the great

expenditures for education both demonstrate

our recognition of the importance of education to our

democratic society.

* * *

In these days, it is doubtful that any child may

reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an

opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide

it, is a right which must be made available to all

on equal terms. (1)

There is no fundamental right to public education under the U.S. Constitution. (4) However, state constitutions typically provide for free public education.

Historically, school finance cases were the vehicle for challenging principles of constitutional equal protection with respect to education. (5) Schools are primarily funded by the state, and funding must be fairly distributed. Litigation over equitable funding arose under free public education clauses such as the one contained in the Texas constitution.

In California, Serrano v. Priest, 18 Cal. 3d 728 (1976), laid the groundwork for constitutional challenges to states regarding issues of inequitable funding. (6) In examining disparities in expenditure levels among districts, the Serrano court stated, "equality of educational opportunity requires that all school districts possess an equal ability . . . to provide students with substantially equal opportunities for learning." (7)

Curriculum content traditionally has been left to the discretion of the education establishment. In fact, legislatures and policy makers complacently delegated and funded various "innovative" educational programs. (8) But when U.S children showed serious deficits in basic knowledge compared to children from around the world in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), policy makers were stunned. (9) The TIMSS provided an irrefutable snapshot of the serious underperformance of our educational system when compared with international levels of achievement. The educational achievement of U.S. children in mathematics at twelfth grade placed them only third from the bottom of all participating countries--ahead of Cyprus and South Africa.

Many educators were frustrated with the poor content foisted upon them by educational "gurus." Parents were becoming increasingly alarmed at the failure of their children to learn basic concepts in English, writing, math, and science. Those who could afford to do so paid out-of-pocket for private tutoring and private schools. College and university professors saw entering college students far less prepared for college level work than students in years past.

Parents and professionals, alarmed by mounting credible evidence of diluted curricular content, joined together to battle what is now known as the "education wars." The downward spiral in children's knowledge acquisition, confirmed by TIMSS, placed the issue of education on the radar screen of virtually every lawmaker in the country.

It is the nation's children who are caught in the crossfire of the "wars" waged by adults. Lost educational opportunity burdens students by denying them access to the currency of knowledge. Not surprisingly, the burden of failed curricula is borne most heavily by children who are educationally resource-poor. Ultimately, there is a divergence in foundational knowledge between the "haves" and "have-nots." When the currency of knowledge is obtainable by one group yet foreclosed to another, disparate impact is plain. If the disparate impact falls along racial or gender lines, we are compelled to look hard at whether civil rights are at stake.

A solid curriculum can do much to mitigate the burden of low academic achievement to our children. But defining what such curricula should be is contentious and has led to unfounded notions that some of our children are not capable of learning standard content.

In the late 1980's and 1990's, alternative curricula invaded schools. An overwhelming number of these programs contained little in the way of basic skills. Resource-rich children were able to compensate for poor content. Resource-poor children were not. This disparity in access to "intellectual capital" forms the basis for the concept of curriculum equity. (10)

Very few cases exist directly challenging curricula, and courts have traditionally taken a hands-off approach on challenges to curricula. Recently, in Plano, Texas, parents sought to challenge the local school district's decision to continue a controversial mathematics program. (11) Although the district offered only one mathematics program in four middle schools, an experimental program at that, the court refused to grant the parents' request for a traditional program as an alternative. The court held that the issue was a "political question," susceptible to the political process but not to court intervention. There was no allegation that the program discriminated on the basis of race or gender.

Another recent case, GI Forum v. Texas Education Agency, brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), challenged the TAAS exit exam on the theory that TAAS violated The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The attorneys for MALDEF urged that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) "is implementing invalid discriminatory standardized tests as requirements for high school graduation." (12) A federal judge dismissed the action, finding that the TAAS was not designed to discriminate even though the TEA knew there would be a higher percent of minorities than whites failing TAAS. Despite considerable evidence, the court in GI Forum held that the plaintiffs failed to show that the TEA intended to discriminate against minorities. (13)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) took a different approach, choosing to demand access to meaningful curriculum to minority students instead of challenging testing. In Daniel v. State of California, the plaintiffs argued that there existed an unjustifiable disparity of Advanced Placement (AP) courses among California's high schools. (14) The evidence showed far fewer AP courses available in predominantly minority high schools while largely white high schools had many AP courses. Since AP courses confer a variety of benefits, including the opportunity to earn a higher grade point average (GPA), the students from high schools with fewer AP courses had diminished or no access to the University of California and other universities.

Curriculum content lies at the core of the "education wars." Educational methodologies and pedagogical philosophies have sparked skirmishes as well. But the firepower that is brought into play over curriculum content is stunning.

In no single instance has there been quite the Clash of the Titans as that which occurred in 1999. The "math wars" had been well under way when the United States Department of Education (USDOE) published its list of "promising and exemplary" programs of mathematics. (17) The USDOE's panel of "experts" was heavily comprised of math educators, not professional mathematicians (who were, with one notable exception, virtually excluded from the panel).

The "promising and exemplary" list included various programs which had been under heavy attack by mathematicians and parents as "fuzzy" and devoid of meaningful mathematics. So content-anemic were some programs that reports frequently came in from around the country that "math" classes simply did not contain math. (18) Parents, educators, university professors, and even some of the students themselves reported extreme dissatisfaction with math content. Children were not learning math, teens were failing college entrance exams despite being in honors high school math programs, SAT scores were falling, and future careers in science, technology, and engineering were being foreclosed. (19)

Professional mathematicians weighed in, blasting the USDOE's "promising and exemplary" list by placing a full-page letter of protest in the Washington Post. (20) The letter was complete with signatures of over 200 mathematicians and scientists from leading colleges and universities across the country. The list of signatories included a total of seven Nobel Laureates and winners of the Fields Medal, mathematics' highest award. When the dust settled, two congressional subcommittees decided to hold hearings on curricular content in mathematics.

So why do math programs exist that professional mathematicians criticize for being deficient in math? Where were the studies, the pilot programs, the hard data? Where was the informed consent by parents that their children were immersed in experimental math programs? What happened to the usual precautions taken in experimentation and research involving live human subjects--children in this case? The simple answer is that the "research" was skimpy or nonexistent. Children in experimental educational programs are largely legally exempt from the usual notice and informed consent required for other types of research. Parents had no way of knowing that the programs voted in by school boards had not been found, through research, to be effective at imparting knowledge about math.

The hard data on the efficacy of curricula is slippery and elusive. But the state of California has staked its new educational statutory structure on research-based programming. Along with California's academic standards, the state has implemented testing to measure student achievement. The SAT9 norm-referenced test with augmented questions tied directly to the content standards (known as "STAR"), is beginning to provide hard data to evaluate programs. In addition, SAT results for college bound students are showing results.

The California Department of Education website maintains test results for all California districts. (21) From these data we are finding that minority children learn just as well as non-minorities if they are given adequate programs.

David Klein, Ph.D., has made one of the most striking program comparisons in a report on elementary school student achievement in three Los Angeles area schools. (22) Dr. Klein looked at three high-minority, high-poverty, high-achieving schools. In a detailed discussion, he noted that "[t]here are three fundamental ingredients to student achievement in mathematics: 1. [a] clear set of high quality grade by grade standards. 2. Textbooks and curricula for teachers and students that are aligned to the [California content] standards. 3. Sufficiently high teacher knowledge of mathematics to teach to the standards." (23) These three schools outperformed the Los Angeles Unified schools and the Los Angeles County schools by significant percentile margins. (24)

Elementary and secondary (K-12) school districts are charged with preparing students for college and beyond. In fact, over 75% of our high school graduates now seek to continue their education in college. Yet amazingly, the deleterious impact of poor K-12 education is often totally undiscovered until children attempt college. A significant "disconnect" exists between what K-12 educators deem adequate and what colleges, universities, and employers demand.

The disconnect can be severe. Some of the worst educational fads that gained popularity with some educators during the late 1980's and 1990's resulted in student populations that were effectively illiterate and inumerate. In fact, some argue persuasively that many children designated as learning disabled and who are forced to enter the special education programs are merely content deficient and not disabled at all. The Los Angeles Times thundered, "[t]housands of students are wrongly labeled 'learning disabled' because they were not taught to read." (26) (Emphasis added.)

The importance of solid curriculum, especially in mathematics, was examined in detail by Senior Research Analyst Clifford Adelman at the USDOE. The result: Answers In The Toolbox, a forceful argument backed by solid research showing a clear correlation between success in high school algebra and college completion. The results were most significant in predicting minority students' completion of college.

There can no longer be any justification for withholding from children, particularly minority children, adequate curriculum content. The cost to society is simply too high in terms of lost human capital. The personal cost to children and families has caused parents, professionals, business leaders, and educators to work together for a solution. Policy leaders and legislators must ensure that educational policies and funding are carried out responsibly.

The stark truth is simply this: the burden of sanctions for low academic achievement fall squarely on the backs of children. Sadly, they have no voice in deciding whether their districts offer adequate programming. The burden is borne disproportionately by poor and minority children, thereby raising important civil rights issues with respect to denial of adequate educational curriculum.

We must insist upon well-reasoned, duly considered educational curricula for our public schools. "The stakes are enormous. We owe our children no less than our very best efforts." (29)

16. Id. at 25-26.

17. Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, David Klein, Ph.D., et. al.

<http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm>

18. <http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com>

19. Milgram, R. James. Outcomes Analysis for Core Plus Students At Andover High School: One Year Later.

<ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram>

Dr. Milgram is a professor of Mathematics at Stanford

University

Milgram, R. James, and Norris, Veronica N. California Standards and Assessments.

<ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/white-paper.html>

20. Klein Letter, November 18, 1999

<http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm>

21. <http://www.cde.ca.gov>

22. Klein, David. High Achievement in Mathematics: Lessons from Three Los Angeles Elementary Schools, August 2000.

23. Id. at 15.

24. Id. at 3.

25. GI Forum v. TEA.