Rather than approaching the case as a traditional funding adequacy complaint, the plaintiffs built the following argument:
1. The state is constitutionally required to operate a system of schools.
2. Since the late 1990s, the state's system of schools has been defined as one that is standards-based; as we've discussed previously, that includes assessments, instructional materials, support for teachers, accountability, and coherent policies.
3. The state's system of financial support for schools--driven by the voter-approved Proposition 98 (1988) is not rationally or reasonably related to supporting the standards but is instead a financial formula designed to respond to state economic conditions
4. Evidence--ranging from research reports from the Governor's Committe on Education Excellence to Getting Down to Facts--conclude that the state has failed to rationally align resources required for schools to offer the standards-based curriculum and for students to achieve the standards.
5. Student achievement results demonstrate the failure of the entire system.
The state finds itself, therefore, in an interesting position. The strange coincidence of the lawsuit with the Common Core standards legislation (SBX5 1) and Race to the Top is forcing the state to consider changes to the standards. Yet doing so may affect pretty dramatically the lawsuit. There are at least three perspectives that the state may consider as it views the lawsuit through the lens of standards revision. Let's explore these three.
First, the State could take an absolutist position and defend the current system ggressively. The state might argue:
- The current standards are more desirable than any alternative
- The current standards are supported by an adequate system that is rationally related to the student learning and achievement sought by the state
- Altering the state's standards-based system would raise doubts about the state's belief in the current standards and the system now supporting them.
Interestingly, this position might well be the state's default and the most secure place for it to land. As Secretary of Education Bonnie Reiss said in responding to the lawsuit, " The governor will oppose this lawsuit and believes the state will prevail. The funding of public education in California has long been and continues to be a top priority of California, even in bad economic and budget times."
The second option is for the state--through the recommendations of the Academic Standards Commission and the State Board of Education--to decide that the current California standards are more desirable than the Common Core, but the system supporting the standards needs to be improved. With this option, the state might declare its support for the current standards but also its intent to improve graduation and/or course requirements or define college and career readiness, or provide additional support for students and schools.
Appropos Robles-Wong, this is the worst option for the State. It is, essentially, a stipulation to the lawsuit that the current standards-based system is not sufficiently supported--in programs, finance, or policy. Arguing that the state's education program is sound but that its support network needs to be revised would be a tough sell to the superior court.
Finally, the state can abandon the current system and adopt the Common Core standards, with presumably at least 85 percent of the state's new standards comprised of the Common Core. From the perspective of the state's positioning on the lawsuit, adopting the Common Core has both strong advantages and disadvantages. If the state were to adopt the Common Core, it could argue to the plaintiffs and the court that the state's standards--the basis for the system of schools--have changed and the state will now require time to figure out the attendant fiscal questions of support. This would likely buy the state at least a few years.
Conversely, it is doubtful that the plaintiffs would let the opportunity to require the state to align its financial support with its learning expectations to go by. Consequently, this option is a balancing act between buying time and a likely push for alignment and transparency between the state's investment in schools and the standards.
I, for one, will be watching the state's action with all of this in mind. Is the state in a bind? Are there other options?
