Epilogue 
The Proficient Education of Each and Every Child

This study focused on public school funding in Kentucky and the efforts of the Council for Better Education to seek an efficient system of schools – one that was more equitable and more adequate.  From this I was necessarily drawn into an exploration of the law as the Council built its case, the defense responded, and the courts ruled.  Unknown to me at the outset were the breadth of implications for educators as changing standards have raised the bar, especially for those at the school level who are now charged with a world-class mission on below average budgets.  
This study is not an official view, sanitized for publication.  It is rather, the perspective of one Kentucky Principal who, like many others, is charged with the solemn duty to do better for Kentucky’s children.  We have never asked more of our teachers in any other time in our history.  More importantly, the stakes have never been higher for our children as they approach adult life in an increasingly technological, knowledge-based world.  The circumstances raise serious questions about the immediate future of Kentucky’s public schools.
Unlike the more traditional means of policy change where an elite group of legislative leaders determine policy, the actions of the Council for Better Education led to judicial policy making and a new way for the courts to look at the question of adequacy.  The Council for Better Education wanted monetary equity, which could have been satisfied by the relatively modest sum of $400 million in 1985.  But, Bert Combs argued vigorously for adequacy as well, and the Kentucky Supreme Court agreed, producing a new litmus test for an adequate education – equity of student outcomes.  
Justice Stephens wrote, “Each child, every child.” The Kentucky Education Reform Act rephrases the same ideal stating, “All children can learn.”  The Kentucky Department of Education echoes, “All means all.”  At the federal level President George W. Bush named his first education effort, “No Child Left Behind.”  Today’s educators are bombarded with the collective rhetoric of reform and social equity and according to the Kentucky Supreme Court - it’s the law.   
But as we have seen, the law alone may be insufficient motivation for the General Assembly.  Is the Supreme Court ruling simply dicta – high sounding, but empty words meant to declare excellence rather than actually providing it?  If the sole responsibility lies with the General Assembly, why did legislators repeatedly ignore advice and warnings from the Office of Educational Accountability that the promise of KERA had not yet been obtained and that more needed to be done?  Who are the true stewards of educational excellence for Kentucky’s children if lawmakers have come to rely on court rulings before they can act responsibly?  The best argument for continued judicial monitoring in such cases may be some legislator’s open acknowledgment that they need the court to provide political cover before they can consider any revenue enhancement.  Are school programs, as they presently exist sufficient to allow educators to keep Kentucky’s promise to its children?  These questions will be answered, for good or for ill, in the upcoming years.  
Changes at the school level have focused intentional attention to the proficient education of each and every child, according to a well–defined and heavily monitored plan.  But it remains to be seen if Kentucky’s teachers will receive the help and resources they need to achieve success.  It even remains to be seen if they will have a fighting chance.  
Along with more adequate funding, Kentucky’s SEEK formula also needs a little patchwork.  The Kentucky Supreme Court determined that a fundamental right to an adequate education is the constitutional mandate and the right of all of Kentucky’s children.  This certainly means that adequate funding for necessary programs must be available to every school district.  But it also means that the legislature must assure that resources reach every child.  Evidence shows that this is not yet the case.  
While KERA brought about a new means of funding school districts, little attention has been paid to the needs of particular school children, and thus equity concerns remain at the school level.  The General Assembly still relies on local boards of education to distribute funds to local schools in an equitable manner, but it has failed to set any requirements that might assure that each child and every child has access to needed programs.  The broad inequities that existed at the district level before KERA still exist, albeit on a smaller scale, and now at the local school level.  This has resulted in identifiable groups of students who are not realizing the promise of KERA and the Kentucky Department of Education appears powerless or unwilling to address the problem.  The rhetoric of reform assures the public that no child will be left behind.  But old methods of distributing supplementary funds for extra instructional help continue to flow only to schools with high percentages of low-income students.  Low-income students who may need extra assistance are not likely to get the programs they need if they attend a school with a high percentage of affluent peers. 
In addition, federal dollars, particularly Title I funds, are distributed within the state in the same manner.  This is crucial since the state relies heavily on these funds to remediate students’ academic problems and close the achievement gap.  This has the effect of leaving thousands of needy children without access to programs they would enjoy if they only attended a different school.  
For example, during the 2001-2002 school year, Cassidy Elementary School in Fayette County served approximately 125 free/reduced lunch students, representing about 27% of the school’s population.  By contrast, Russell Elementary served approximately 200 free/reduced lunch students, representing nearly all of its population.  Russell Elementary received approximately $173,000 in Title I assistance, enough to fund four teachers with change left over.  Cassidy School received no Title I dollars.  This is based on a distribution formula that provides funding for poor students, only if those students attend a school with a high percentage of free/reduced lunch students.  All 325 students in question live in an urban area within a mile of each other, and all within the same school district.  In the 2002-2003 school year, the percentage of Cassidy’s free/reduced lunch students rose to 33.3%, still with no assistance for poor students.
One might think that under the philosophy of President George W. Bush’s education plan, “No Child Left Behind,” federal dollars would follow the child.  This would allow each and every child to receive his or her share.  But that has not been the case.  Funding practices have not kept pace with the new rhetoric and the correspondingly higher aspirations.  This failure leaves the Department of Education at the mercy of local Superintendents and board members to assure that equity issues are addressed.  But if they are not, apparently there is nothing to be done about it - but to blame the school.
At the state level, that same philosophy of providing extra support only to schools, rather than to children, keeps many needy Kentucky students from receiving the extra help or extra time they need to close the achievement gap.  Most notably, the Early Reading Incentive Grants and the Innovative Extended School Services grants both promise substantial help for low performing students.  But these grants also target the same student populations as does Title I, and so help is still not available.  
The low SES children attending affluent schools are as valuable as any other children in the state.  Why should these needy children be denied the services they need to reach high standards, based solely on the demographics of other children who attend the same school they do?  The Rose case made it clear that any system that permits such disparities does not meet the constitutional mandate under Section 183.
Through the late 1980s, and for a short time after KERA’s passage, Kentucky schools continued to receive accolades if 65% of their students scored at or above average on nationally normed tests.  By the mid-nineties this changed, as attention was called to the widening achievement gap between Caucasian and African-American students.  For the first time race and student outcomes were directly introduced and applied to the Rose decision.  Recognizing Kentucky’s history of saying all but not meaning it, the Department of Education issued an Equity Task Force Report that had as it’s title and central theme, “All Means All.”  Schools that fail to close the achievement gap are subject to sanctions.  This has the practical effect of raising the expectations of every Kentucky school by approximately 35%.  What was an adequately funded education in 1990 had changed substantially by 1999.  The passage of Senate Bill 168, in 2002, formalized a system of targets for closing the gap in every Kentucky school with penalties for schools failing to meet those targets.  
Thus, the question of an adequate education for all has been expanded to include strong measures of equity in student outcomes.  It has been made a statewide objective, acknowledged by Education Commissioner Gene Wilhoit, and affirmatively acknowledged by the General Assembly in Senate Bill 168.   What remains to be answered is whether closing the achievement gap is a measure of equity as a legal matter.  It is noteworthy that the General Assembly has acknowledged the need to close the gap but failed to spend a penny on the effort.    So what must be done to assure that an efficient system of schools still exists throughout the state – a system that is both equitable and adequate? 

The Achievement Gap

Discussions about the achievement gap are essentially discussions about poverty and race, and race is a topic many Americans prefer to avoid.  This detachment is probably the largest barrier to leadership on the issue.  As Angela Blackwell, Stewart Kwoh and Manuel Pastor explain in their book, Looking for the Uncommon Common Ground: New Dimensions on Race in America,
Race is a difficult subject for Americans.  Many simply do not want to talk about it.  Those who try often find the discussions unproductive, particularly with members of other races.  There is almost palpable fatigue that hangs in the air whenever the subject comes up.  To the ears of many white Americans, cries of racism sound shrill.  On the other hand, many black Americans are exasperated and angry that they must continue to face discrimination in their everyday lives.  Latinos are often tired of hearing the issue of race reduced to black and white.  Asians are increasingly boxed into a corner, monolithically considered the ‘model minority’ by the larger society and often resented by other minorities.  To Native Americans, it must appear that the atrocities committed against them have been forgotten.  And, of course, there are Americans of all racial backgrounds who feel that racism no longer exists and that the term is no longer relevant.

Adding to the perception of many Caucasians that race is not a problem in America is the growing African-American middle class.  Haya El Nasser reported “an analysis of census 2000 data reveals that the phenomena [sic] of ‘flight to the suburbs’ is spreading among people of color.  ‘Minorities are moving to the nation’s mostly white suburbs like never before and forming their own racial and ethnic enclaves’.”  

But, after 400 years of racism and oppression, it is unreasonable to expect that there would be no residual negative effects for African-Americans.  The over-representation of African-Americans among our nation’s poor is perhaps the most powerful of its manifestations.  Throughout our history, active measures were taken to assure that African-Americans were kept down through a set of “Jim Crow” laws that prevented any real equality, and indeed, seriously limited opportunities, thus perpetuating the poverty that already existed.  And, poverty is well known by educators to have a debilitating impact on far too many of our students, regardless of race.  Each of these variables seems to have an additive impact, however.  That is to say that, if a student is disadvantaged by poverty, racial factors may well exacerbate the problem.  
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) shows a significant narrowing of the gap between blacks and non-Hispanic whites on reading and mathematical tests between 1971 and 1996.  Although the NAEP did not begin collecting data until 1971, the seventeen year-olds it tested in 1971 were born in 1954 and entered school around 1960.  Their scores, therefore, reflect the cumulative effects of home and community environments dating from the late 1950s and 1960s including,
•	National efforts to equalize opportunity and reduce poverty that began in the mid-1960s and continued or expanded in the subsequent decades [Head Start, compensatory funding for poor schools, affirmative action].
•	Educational changes that were not primarily intended to equalize opportunity [such as increased spending and early schooling].
•	Changes in families and communities that may have been influenced by efforts to equalize opportunity and reduce poverty but occurred mainly for other reasons. [Parents had more formal education, more affluent blacks moved to the suburbs].

The importance of social programs to the success of school students appears to be significant and direct.  During the presidency of Lyndon Johnson, when such programs flourished, the gap began to narrow.  After the cuts made during the Ronald Reagan administration, the gap grew.  Atlantic Monthly author, Nicholas Lemann, observed the impact of such programs on individual families in his book, The Promised Land: The Great Migration and How it Changed America.  He concludes that no American president did more to help the lives of the poor than President Johnson, and there was not another President even close.
The test score achievement gap between blacks and whites in our nation’s schools has received only sporadic attention over the years.  The debate was most recently rekindled by the 1994 publication, of The Bell Curve, by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.  At issue is whether cognitive skills have become the most important determinant of personal success in modern American.  Given the advances in modern technologies, the increase in offshore production of 

manufactured goods (once a mainstay of American industry), and a general reduction in the availability of unskilled jobs, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a productive future life for far too many.  Clearly, the information age is requiring a different set of skills than did the industrial age.  But, why is there such disparity in school performance between students of different races?  Apparently ignoring the fact that oppression inflicts long-term consequences on the oppressed, Herrnstein and Murray opined, “cognitive inequality was largely explained by genetic inequality.” 
The subsequent flood of responses to Herrnstein and Murray’s position generally rejects this conclusion.  Those attacking on scientific grounds tended to cite what Harvard sociologist, Christopher Jencks calls “labeling bias,” where a researcher concludes that the data presented is really a proxy for something else, whether such conclusions can be substantiated or not.  Those attacking their conclusions on social grounds cite racism.  Consider Asa Hilliard’s review, 
Here we have the dangers of the misuse of one type of high-stakes standardized test exposed. The authors see IQ as intelligence, and they see intelligence as the causal factor for poverty and for affluence, or low- and high-class status. This means that the low class does not have the mental capacity to be improved, and therefore, charitably; they should be neglected. 

Clearly, the collective economic future of the United States will be threatened if substantial portions of American workers are under-skilled.  Future changes to the American social landscape reinforce the need to address achievement gaps effectively and immediately.  In her book Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research and Practice, Dr. Geneva Gay states, 
The best avenue out of poverty is an education that allows for meaningful work.  When a person is working and productive it enhances our nation’s collective resources.  As the American demographic continues to change, people of color will comprise an increasingly greater percentage of the workforce.  The U.S. Census predicts that by the year 2025, 38% of America’s population will be people of color. 

An effort to quantify the gap over the past thirty years was undertaken by Larry Hedges and Amy Howell.  Their evidence from national samples between 1965 and 1996 suggests that black-white differences in achievement are large but are decreasing over time – slowly.  About one-third of the gap can be accounted for by racial differences in social class, and though the gap has narrowed, the rate of change has slowed.  Scores for blacks and whites are becoming more equal at the bottom of the score distribution, but not at the top.  Indeed, blacks are hugely underrepresented at the top and the rate of narrowing (if there is one) is very slow. 
The pattern in the schools is reflective of the pattern that exists in the larger society.  As Angela Blackwell explains,
Examples of individual advancement abound, and the cabinet of President George W. Bush rivals that of his Democratic predecessor, Bill Clinton, in its diversity.  But diversity at the top does not necessarily spell justice at the bottom.  The extraordinarily high poverty rates of blacks, Latinos and Native Americans should be of concern to everyone…The economic parallel is clear: minorities have generally done much better when the overall economy experiences a long-term boom, partly because it takes a while for recovery to reach inner-city and other minority communities.

Narrowing the achievement gap in our schools is likely to be our nation’s best chance to achieve ultimate racial equality.  But, do we have the political will to do what is necessary to close the gap?  And, if so, do we really know what to do?  An effort to understand the issues was undertaken by Christopher Jencks and Susan Mayer at the University of Chicago, in 1995.  They called together scholars from several disciplines for a yearlong study of the issues and emerged with two conclusions.  
First, the test score gap between blacks and whites turned out to play a much larger role in explaining racial disparities in educational attainment and income than many had realized.  Second, many common explanations for the test score gap, including racial disparities in family income, school resources and innate ability, did not seem to be as important as their proponents claimed…but…these conclusions were controversial, even among experts.  

In recent years, the existence of an achievement gap between black and white students in Kentucky’s schools has been well established.  It has been publicly attested to by Commissioner of Education Gene Wilhoit and is visible to anyone else who examines the record.  How we address it – what we actually do - will say more about what we truly believe about equity in our schools than any amount of possible rhetoric.  It might be useful to ask a hypothetical question:  If our government (at every level) did commit to closing the gap, what would it do?  As Jencks points out, 
…no single change…could possibly…usher in an era of full racial equality…but, if racial equality is America’s goal, reducing the black-white test score gap would probably do more to promote this goal than any other strategy that commands broad political support.  Reducing the test score gap is probably both necessary and sufficient for substantially reducing racial inequality in educational attainment and earnings. 

So, what can schools do?  Jencks says that, 
The most promising school-related strategies for reducing the black-white test score gap seem to involve changes like reducing class size, setting minimum standards of academic competency for teachers, and raising teacher’s expectations of low-performing students.  All these changes would benefit both blacks and whites, but all appear to be especially beneficial for blacks.” 

Katie Haycock of Education Trust agrees that, “To increase the achievement levels of minority and low-income students, we need to focus on what really matters: high standards, a challenging curriculum, and good teachers.”  
	The highly publicized Tennessee Class Size Study (Project STAR) found significant positive effects for all children when class sizes were reduced from an average of 22 to an average of 15.  Additionally, the benefits for children of color outweighed those for whites.  Longitudinal studies continue to confirm the lasting benefits when classes in grades K-3 are smaller, particularly for African-American children.  Charles Achilles, Jeremy Finn and Helen Bain point out, “Confusion over two terms – ‘class size’ and ‘pupil teacher ratio’ – causes problems and misunderstandings…[and they] are not the same thing.” 
With research evidence as a guide, it seems logical that we begin at the outset to reduce the achievement gap, instructing primary-grade children in classes of about 15 students – the average class size in the STAR project.  Classes of this size benefit all children, but particularly those who traditionally need some extra help.” 

Lowering the student-teacher ratio by adding Title I and other special programs has not shown success, and paradoxically, may have increased the gap it was intended to reduce.  Achilles, Finn and Bain advise, 
To people who say that the lack of classroom space is a problem (and it is), a response is, ‘Think space and be creative with technology’…Define the problem as space, not classrooms…[and remember] grade retention is expensive, and smaller classes result in less grade retention…[and] teachers in small classes quickly identify learning problems that go undiagnosed in regular classrooms. 
 
Allan Odden identifies two, more economical, research-based strategies.  First, dramatically reduce class size to allow for individual or small group (two or three students) tutoring.  Second, combine individual tutoring with class size reduction to 15 for just language arts/reading instruction (where students are placed in ability groups across grades) in kindergarten through Grades 3.   
The most recent calculations from the STAR study were presented in, “The Enduring Effects of Small Classes.”  Looking at the amount of time students spent in small classes and its future effect, Jeremy Finn, Susan Gerber, Charles Achilles and Jayne Boyd-Zaharias were able to substantiated three conclusions.  
First, on average, students in small classes perform better than do students in regular classes or regular classes with teacher aides in each grade on all tests of academic performance…although we did not find as many significant interactions with race/ethnicity or urbanicity as found previously.  Those interactions that were significant or approached statistical significance were all in the direction of greater small-class advantages for students who usually have lower performance, i.e., minorities or students attending inner-city schools.

Second, both the year in which a student first enters a small class and the number of years (s)he participates in a small class are important mediators of benefits.  For students who began small classes in kindergarten or Grade 1, there was a significant advantage in reading and mathematics.  For those who attended small classes in both kindergarten and Grade 1, the small-class advantage was greater, putting these students from approximately 1.3 months to 3.4 months ahead of their counterparts who attended full-size classes.  The pattern was repeated in Grades 2 and 3…

Third, there were few if any academic benefits associated with a full-time teacher aide.”  

It is instructive to note that class size was an important issue in the 2001 New York Supreme Court case, Campaign for Fiscal Equity v. State of New York.  The court heard evidence on class size and rendered the opinion that an appropriate class size (not specifying a number) was one factor in the court’s definition of a “sound basic education” as required by New York’s state constitution.
Avoiding the question of whether schools caused the gap, Harvard economist and Senior Research Associate, Ronald Ferguson suggested five conclusions from the data.  First, teachers do have lower expectations for blacks than whites.  Second, teacher’s expectations have more impact on the success of blacks than whites.  Third, teachers expect less of blacks than whites because past performance and behavior have been worse for blacks.  But, he found no evidence that teachers’ expectations differ by race when they are asked to assess children who have performed equally well and behaved equally well in the past.  Fourth, by basing their expectations on past performance and behavior, teachers unwittingly perpetuate the gap.  Fifth, exhorting teachers to have more faith in black children’s abilities is unlikely to make a difference, but professional development programs in which teachers actually see disadvantaged black children performing at high levels can make a difference.  
Ferguson also argued that a teacher’s own test score may be the best indicator of the teacher’s ability to raise the children’s scores – although there is no definitive research on the topic.  The push for higher quality teachers does seem to present a reasonable approach, but for one sizable problem.  If teachers were screened by requiring higher cut scores on teacher preparation exams, then it is likely to reduce the number of blacks who qualify.  This is both a political problem and a pedagogical problem.  There seems to be some evidence that black children perform better for black teachers, but that data is weak in comparison to the data on the correlation between the teachers’ own scores and their student’s scores.
Clearly, teacher quality is a crucial issue.  But, teacher quality is no longer simply a matter of knowing one’s content – although that, too, is vital.  Today’s teachers need to be competent in their understanding of the various cultural factors that students bring with them when they enter the schools.  Ronald Ferguson points out that the average black child arrives at kindergarten with fewer academic skills than the average white child does.  Then, schools may actually do things, probably unintentionally, that reinforce the difference.  
…if instruction is appropriately stimulating and responsive to children’s progress, teachers’ expectations may be neither self-fulfilling nor sustaining.  The more inviting and responsive instruction is to children’s own efforts to improve, the less teachers’ initial perceptions and expectations will predict later success.  

Dr. Geneva Gay argues that efforts to improve education “…need to be diversified according to the social variance of students, attending deliberately and conscientiously to such factors as ethnicity, culture, gender social class, historical experiences, and linguistic capabilities.”   
Aside from the issue of what schools can do, there is a larger obligation on the part of our elected officials to protect and nurture the public trust as it applies to our public schools.  At the state and federal level much of the rhetoric is aimed at the issue of what schools can do.  This is, of course, absolutely necessary, but insufficient.  The school-level focus does not in any way excuse those at higher levels from exercising their responsibilities.  
In their “Memorandum to the President” Chester Finn, Bruno Manno and Diane Ravitch addressed a different kind of gap – the one between our leaders’ 
rhetoric and their actions.  Succinctly put, they advise President Bush that the mandate for a unified education reform agenda is clear, “Do what it takes. Spend what it costs.  But fix the schools.  And start now.” They offered seven principles to guide the needed changes, including,
Offer freedom in return for results [allow local flexibility for spending but insist on results]; Prevention beats remediation [federal funds should focus on initial success in schools]; Power to the People [be wary of monopoly providers]; Fund children not institutions [America’s obligation is to its children, not the system]; Stop funding failure [federal programs that don’t show results should be replaced]; Inform, inform, inform [provide timely accurate information about results]; Use the bully pulpit to empower and inspire [Celebrate great teaching, shame those who hold to the status quo, and remind parents that they are their children’s first and most important teachers]. 
 
Many school administrators predict the public would respond negatively to any move toward revenue enhancement.  This may be particularly true in difficult economic times.  Yet, ten years after the passage of KERA, “The highest spending districts in Kentucky allocate less than the lowest spending districts in Wisconsin.  And the poorest children in high-spending states receive an education richer in resources than the wealthiest children in low-spending states.” And, on every measure (4th and 8th grade, Math, Reading, Science and Writing), since 1992, (and likely before) Wisconsin students consistently outperformed Kentucky students.  
In the end, “Closing the achievement gap will require bold, comprehensive, and long-term strategies.”   Monitoring the progress of our public schools will continue to be an important part of ensuring that the effort is sustained.  A fair amount of time is also necessary for schools, (some only recently committed to the effort) to show results.  If adequate resources reach every child who needs them, there is no reason for the public to expect less than a dramatic reduction in the achievement gap.  But, the degree to which we 

shortchange our schools, is likely to be the degree by which we fail.  
The Kentucky Education Reform Act was the legislature’s response to the constitutional mandate to provide an adequate and equitable education for all of Kentucky’s children.  Since that time the legislature has acknowledged that substantial gaps exist in the educational results of our students.  It has moved to hold schools more accountable and has recognized that much of what needs to be done exists within the culture of each school and will cost little or no money to fix.  But at the same time it appears that the Kentucky General Assembly has failed to recognize that much of what must be done to create and sustain meaningful change will require additional funding for improved access to academic pre-school programs, lower class sizes and expanded funding for students of low economic status: funding that follows each needy child regardless of the school she or he attends.
Evidence suggests that, at least in the early years of this effort, Kentucky returned to its traditional pattern of talking the talk while resisting any sweeping changes or revenue enhancements.  In 1999, the Kentucky Board of Education’s first effort established a Minority Student Achievement Task Force to review achievement data, investigate promising research and develop a set of actions and 
timelines for schools.  In October 2000 the task force released a final report that called for a ‘no excuses’ foundation, high expectations for all students, focus on student success, the valuing of each individual, safe learning environments, accountability at the school level, high quality teachers, and class size reductions, so that no child is left behind.  
Since 73% of Kentucky’s African-American students reside in five districts, the task force called for partnership sites in which to focus initial implementation of the plan. Pilot schools were identified and promised unspecified support from the department of education to implement and test strategies.  The district pledged to “do all that it could to support” the pilot schools. The Kentucky Education Equity Task Force was then established to advise KDE on equity issues, recommend strategies for removing barriers, plan to ensure equity and to “demonstrate that it is possible to improve learning, increase academic achievement and personal success while ensuring equity…”  One of the Task Force functions was also to “monitor the implementation of model equitable schools’ projects funded by the Department of Education.”  In the final analysis, however, there was no funding.  Model sites received no help and very little communication from the Department of Education.  Instead, the schools underwent an equity audit, and by September 2002, pilot schools were asked to report to KDE what they had been doing.  It became clear to pilot participants, somewhat after the fact, that the real opportunity was for KDE “to learn from these initial efforts and inform future legislation and implementation plans.”  
If there are sweeping changes occurring to assure that every child received the services he or she needs, it is not apparent at the school level.  There exist in Kentucky’s schools certain identifiable groups of students who are denied Title I and other services – not because they do not need it – but merely because of where they live.  Providing the tangible support for all schools and all children in every one of those schools is the constitutional mandate and should be the paramount objective of the public schools.  So far, it’s not. 
African-American leaders emerged to lobby the General Assembly for some action on the widening achievement gap.  This effort was largely instrumental in the passage, in 2002, of Senate Bill 168, sponsored by Louisville’s Senator Gerald Neal.
Senate Bill 168 set aggressive targets and monitoring for improvement but offered nothing to support children who may need extra time to learn such as 

through full day kindergarten programs.  Neither does it provide support for teachers who must become better trained and more culturally responsive.  The accountability it provides is necessary to focus the attention of all of Kentucky’s educators, but it is not sufficient to assure the success called for in the law.  
Taken as a whole, Senate Bill 168 is myopic and anemic.  The approach is not nearly comprehensive enough and will likely produce an insufficient result for Kentucky’s children.  Given Kentucky’s historically paternalistic attitudes and tendency to marginalize the powerless, and noting that Senate Bill 168 is completely devoid of resources that might actually teach a child to read, one must at least question if it was passed as an appeasement to certain legislative and social leaders.  If this were true, in a political sense, Senate Bill 168 would carry the added benefit of appearing to be aggressive while costing the legislature nothing.  Even the ultimate penalty for a school failing to meet its targets is benign; the school simply loses decision-making authority over its own professional development funds. 
The situation in 2003 is similar in some respects to 1988, when revenue shortages bred budgetary turmoil in the Commonwealth.  In a speech to the Louisville Rotary Club, Robert Sexton reminded business leaders of what would be needed to successfully reform Kentucky’s public schools and improve economic conditions in the state.
…Although those who’ve been hoping for improved Kentucky education are still hopeful, their optimism is probably something like Vince Lombardi’s, who said: ‘We never lose, but sometimes the clock runs out.’  Which leads to the current situation in Frankfort, where the clock ran out some time ago.  Sometimes it’s necessary to be diplomatic when talking about the Governor and the Legislature.  But this time, they’ve spared us the need for delicacy…

The Speaker of the House says the budget is a ‘disaster.’  Another legislator calls it ‘a thousand broken promises.’  A Senator says it’s ‘not Kentucky first, it’s Kentucky fiftieth.’  And the Governor agrees that his budget is awful and says, ‘I’m not responsible for the mess we’re in.’ …He says education and jobs are his top priority; then he doesn’t propose funding education adequately…It seems now that the prospects for breaking away from Kentucky’s history and uncompetitive economic condition, and the prospects for an improved Kentucky economy, for better standard of living, are slipping through our fingers.  

…The inadequacy of the budget forces us to talk more about money, and the lack of it, and the need for more of it, than we are now or ever have been comfortable about.  So much more than money is needed and we know that.  But we might as well also tell the truth: You don’t get something for nothing – better schools aren’t free.  

It is going to cost some money to do this right.   The good news is that much of what must be done is free, only needing to be nurtured in every educator’s heart.  But caring for the legitimate needs of each and every student will mean recognizing those students who are presently missed when funding is distributed within each school district.  Schools must take extra care to assure equitable practices, fair policies and administration, respect for every individual, and a fundamental respect for every child - regardless of what adults may believe about other adults.  While overt racism at the individual level has largely been driven underground, institutional and private racism still abide.
It is significant that throughout the Rose case - from the Department of Education personnel, to the district school Superintendents, to the attorneys and judges, nowhere is an African-American found.  And with the somewhat less rare exceptions of Alice McDonald, Debra Dawahare and Martha Layne Collins neither can one find a woman.  (State Treasurer, Francis Jones Mills was also named in the original complaint but did not figure in the suit.) This is significant since it serves as one more example of how Kentucky’s African-Americans are frequently beholden to Caucasian males to do the right thing in support of the poor and people of color. 
While the language of the Supreme Court does establish education as a fundamental right in Kentucky, attorneys seeking to use that language to argue cases outside of the financial realm tend to run into brick walls.  A recent interview with Lexington attorney, Edward Dove, who has tried two cases citing the Rose opinion and its establishment of education as a fundamental right in Kentucky, revealed frustrating results.  
When I've raised that issue…[in a case where] basically… [my client] lost that fundamental right to an education under Rose [because the district condoned more than forty instances of harassment.]…what [Judge] Hood said in that opinion, and that was KCG. v. Franklin County Schools, was that, it's only a funding statute…It doesn't mean any more than funding… It got kicked back to Judge Graham…and Graham dismissed it basically because…he didn't find that his fundamental right to an education had been violated.

Now the problem is, what do you do about it… You have no recourse in the state of Kentucky, if you're deprived a fundamental right…The Kentucky Constitution has no remedy for a violation of Kentucky law.  You can not sue a school district for a denial of the fundamental right of education. You couldn't sue them in federal court because those judges aren't going to entertain it.  Hood made that clear…. You could sue for being arbitrary and capricious and have an injunction… but what attorney's going to take it, because there's no attorney's fees? … You have no judge that's really going to say, put a million into education…

You know, you think about who brought the action in the first place…Combs…I mean, somewhere, the politics were just right for him at that time to get this done.  You couldn't do it now.  I don't see Debra [Dawahare] picking up the shield and doing it now… If you believe what Judge Hood and Keller said, that Rose only stood - that a child's fundamental right to an education was dicta, meaning that it was just there as support - it wasn't law.  The holding on that case is that it's got to be equity and funding. 

Now, with…[Rose] saying that [there's] a fundamental right to an education - I'm reading that as…that's the law of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.  And… Judge Hood read it, and what Judge Keller reads it as, is that it's a fundamental right, but, it's a fundamental spending right… it doesn't go to educational opportunity." 

As demonstrated, the Rose decision established for the first time that education is a fundamental right in Kentucky and that it is the General Assembly’s responsibility to ensure an efficient system of schools.  It was also demonstrated in the case, that in an efficient system, wide disparities could not exist.  Evidence was presented that showed unequal and insufficient educational opportunities for the poor as compared to the affluent.  It was also shown that poorer schools tend to produce a poorer product. African-Americans are over-represented among the poor in Kentucky, but nowhere in the case is the issue of race specifically mentioned. 
So, in large measure it becomes a matter of political will.  Do we have the will to really look at ourselves, say what we believe to be best for our common good, and then build a school system that would produce that result?  Do we really think Kentucky’s children worthy enough to stand among the best-educated 

students in America?  If so, we should set our sights on that objective and provide adequate resources: resources that are as great as our expectations.
The mere perception that closing the gap will have a draining effect on school resources will encourage more parents to gravitate toward an increasing array of private options for their children.  The apparent diminution of programs for gifted children and the arts will concern many suburban parents, may convince them that we are not really serious about maintaining high standards for all children, and will likely encourage political backlash from those who may yet oppose the full integration of every student into our schools and everything that means. 
The issue of political will remains relatively unexplored in this manuscript.  Still it is generally seen as a necessary ingredient for systemic change.  In the Rose case, political will was generated in the General Assembly through public engagement and the development of broad-based support, nurtured 

with care.  Along with the Supreme Court, this support gave legislators the political cover they needed to act.  I believe it also reminded them that they alone were in charge of public education, not that they did not know, but perhaps they had forgotten.  They had built the Department of Education, entrusted it with the creation of our common pedagogy, and ultimately began to view the department as part of the problem.  They funded it to a level that allowed them to still protect their other interests, particularly not raising taxes.  What we got was what we had - before reform.  When it became apparent that the public was open to reform, the legislature got on board, heavily - as though they had been there all along.  
To paraphrase University of Kentucky education professor, Dr. Jane Lindle, ‘If all that was needed were potent legal arguments made on constitutional grounds, the Council’s case could have been decided in 1954.’  The legislature’s strong policy shift was made possible by the collective nature of the effort.  Without the galvanization of the various interest groups there would have been no change.
As University of Virginia Association Professor, James E. Ryan wrote for the Yale Law Review, the question is “whether a sufficient number of suburban parents and legislators can be persuaded to allow urban minority students to share their schools…” He speculated, “They can be, if the case is made correctly and sufficient attention is paid to how integration would occur.”  Opinion polls continue to show support for integration.  In order to make the case, “school finance and school desegregation scholars and advocates must begin to work together” and “examine much more thoroughly the evidence gathered in both fields of research.”  He predicts that, “persuading parents and legislators to work toward greater integration will be something of a battle, but…it is the right battle to fight.”
Part of the fight will surely require the re-education of a generation of Americans; not school children, but their parents who have been taught (largely by educators) that family background factors were the primary determinate of future success in school.  This belief, reported broadly, starting with the Coleman Report in 1966, and reinforced by three decades of policies and practices, is very much a part of many people’s beliefs about just how much schools can do to effect a positive future for all children.  David J. Hoff reported for Education Week on the Web a conversation he had with Boston College’s Albert Beaton who helped analyze the Coleman Report.
It changed the way we thought about the whole issue of equality of educational opportunity.  Instead of proving that the quality of schools is the most important factor in a student's academic success--as its sponsors had expected--the report written by the sociologist James S. Coleman of Johns Hopkins University found that a child's family background and the school's socioeconomic makeup are the best predictors. 

Rose and the Achievement Gap

Absent an unprecedented legislative turn toward adequate support for the schools in their quest to meet the increasingly lofty standards for all students, litigation remains a real possibility for the future.  How is that litigation likely to be structured?  Who would sue?  How will plaintiffs structure their cases?  Can the opinion in Rose be effectively extended to address the achievement gap?  I asked Professor Carolyn Bratt of the University of Kentucky College of Law to speculate about a legal strategy for such a hypothetical case.
I have had people from the African-American community who have wondered whether you could take Rose and make it apply.  My reading of Rose is that there’s enough language…and it’s broad enough that you could use it as a basis for arguing that the state has an affirmative obligation to get rid of any achievement gap.  It’s whatever it takes to do it, money, programs, special teachers, whatever. 

 If a case were to be made, who could sue?
Certainly, based on Rose, you might be able to use some school districts to come together to do it.  I have always believed that parents who have kids enrolled in a particular school system would be appropriate plaintiffs and then join with them groups [of interveners] to come in on their side and say, ‘We support what they’re doing.’  

What I would want, as a lawyer, are individual plaintiffs whose kids are in the elementary, junior high and high school so we were covering the whole gamut.  I’d want ones whose kids represent the kinds of problems we’re going to be alleging existed.  That means that you have to pick your plaintiffs very carefully.  You wouldn’t just take the first one.  You’d also want parents and kids who don’t present side issues that you don’t want to 

get into.  So you spend a lot of time on who the plaintiffs are going to be.  

Finding the ‘right’ plaintiffs is based in large measure on the legal arguments that would be presented.   Those plaintiffs reflect the disparities that will be alleged.  But what’s the legal strategy?
You would start with Rose.  And what I would look at as an attorney to see what I could do with formulating a legal argument that these disparities that we see, based on race, come within Rose’s command and have to be fixed.  I would be looking not just at the outcomes, which are the test results, but I’d want to look at the inputs, too.  I want to look at everything from teacher pupil ratio to where are students in the system?  

Examples of such disparities will not be hard to find.  Increasingly, school administrators are examining data to determine results.  And almost as frequently that data is being disaggregated, most commonly by race, sex, and condition of special need.
It’s my understanding, and I don’t know if it’s true or not, but I’ve been told that there’s an overrepresentation on minority students in the special education programs.  One has to wonder what that’s all about.  And so I would want to look at things like the experience of teachers in the various schools particularly the ones that are having the poorest performances.  Are we seeing a lot of new teachers being assigned there and not the older master teachers so that there really isn’t an equality of input if the best teachers are being assigned to the schools that are getting the best results?  

It’s my understanding, too, that African-American kids, and Latino kids are more likely to be dropping out of school at higher ratios than white kids.  Why is that?  Is that not…an outcome of these lousy test scores that by the time they get to be sixteen they’ve been failures for so long that they then choose to leave the school system?

Data shows that schools do not control all of the variables that create the gap.  For example, Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute in Washington goes so far as to suggest that the academic achievement of poor 
children would be improved by raising the social and economic status of their families.  Ronald Ferguson points out that the average black child arrives at kindergarten with fewer academic skills than the average white child does.  But will the court accept that differences in student outcomes relate to shortcomings within the control of the schools?  
Rose gives you a basis on which to argue that you don’t have an efficient school system because there’s an identifiable group of students who are going through the system who are not acquiring the skills that we know are necessary for them to be successful when they get out of school.  [And the failure to acquire those skills is] directly attributable to a lack of the kind of resources that need to be committed in order to get those children up to whatever level we’re trying to achieve.  The constitution requires it.  

I think that the critical part of that argument is to have in your hand what remedies you want so that you can say to them, ‘Here’s how you go about doing it.’  You attach the dollars to the child, or every school has to have a reading specialist.  Those kinds of things so that you’re not leaving it to those who aren’t on the ground doing the work to come up with…the remedies…

The evidence is likely to convince any fair judge that these differences do exist from kindergarten to graduation.  The gaps can even be seen at the top of the 

range as well as the bottom.  And the Rose decision was written in very broad language.
It is not a decision that is written in the stingy kind of cramped style that a Scalia or a Rehnquist would write a decision with.  They have to get to that result but, by god, they’re going to give you no room to argue anything else.  There is some very sweeping language in there.  That education is a fundamental right; we had never had that declaration – a state constitutional fundamental right to an education.  So, yes, there’s big language in there that you could play with.  

One of the factors in the favor of the Council for Better Education was the presence of judicial activism at both the circuit and Supreme Court levels.  Justice Stephens is now gone.  This is an important potential barrier to a future plaintiff.
Justice Stephens was committed to this particular case, making sure that it was decided correctly.  You know, when the Chief Justice is on a side in a case then that certainly helps the court come to a decision that is one that does more than just the bare bones minimum.

The school finance literature tends to focus on those issues of definitions and remedies.  Also important in Rose however, were procedural questions relative to separation of powers and how one goes about suing the legislature. 
I frankly thought they had problems with this case in terms of who do you sue and how do you get relief when the responsibility is the legislature’s?  I went back and looked at it and they’re saying, ‘OK, we’re not telling you how to do it.  We’re just telling you you’ve got an unconstitutional school system.  You’re going to have to fix it.

Justice Stephens had reflected on this issue in his interview with Robert Sexton and Debra Dawahare and went so far as to suggest that if he were trying a future case against the General Assembly he’d serve every member of the legislature just to be safe.
I’ve always had the sense, at least in this case that the non-legal dimensions were rather significant.  There was a lot going on besides legal arguments being made.  People were talking to people who were talking to people who needed to know and this was a political decision as well as a legal decision.  Who knows how that comes out the next time around?

The court’s still stuck with what it said, unless it’s willing to overrule itself, which it has the power to do.  It would have to do some pretty careful wording to get around some of this.  I can’t see them coming out and announcing, ‘We were wrong.  There’s no fundamental right to an education in Kentucky.’  I think that stays in place. 

As one studies this case there is an unmistakable feeling that Bert Combs networked in an uncommonly broad fashion.  There are several instances where he is revealed to be behind the scenes, including the arrangement of a $50,000 donation to kick-start the Prichard Committee.  He was shown to have had early conversations with Robert Sexton, Edward Prichard and other key individuals.  I believe it would have proved fascinating to review his phone records to determine just how extensively he networked.  The impact of his loss to any future effort is difficult to over estimate. 
The unanswered question is whether the court would be willing to go beyond a case about financial equality in terms of the funding?  Bratt speculated, 
I would think they would have to say it goes beyond that, but how much more?  I don’t know if there’s the political will power to do more.  At the time [of the Rose decision] there was the political will that there was something so wrong with our school system and the way we were funding them that it was the good thing to do to say, ‘OK, we’re going to have to go back and figure out how to fund it.’  Now there’s a great deal of pride about what we’ve done.  I go to national conventions and people want to know, ‘How did that Rose decision come down?  How come Kentucky is doing that?’  So there’s a kind of a national recognition that we did something very important here.  But, are we willing to take the next step?  Or do we just rest on our laurels and say, ‘OK we did the really hard important thing.  We don’t have to do this.’

Professor Bratt also expressed concerns about the political will as it involves the introduction of racial issues into the school finance question.
The tenor of the times right now [nationally] in terms of concerns about race relations; I don’t see the political will to address that.  Rose isn’t a case about race at all.  In some ways it’s an easier case because you have all these rural legislators who could in fact sign on to this decision and say, ‘Yeah, I’m going to be able to go back home and tell my constituents that we’ve given them a school system that fairly funded.  Now, play that through on issues of race.

Legally is there a basis to go forward?  Yes, of course there is.  But, for lawyers, the reality is to try to sit down and figure out what the reality is.  Can you actually win?  Can you do more than make the legal argument?  Can you make the case so strong and compelling that even though they may not want to reach your decision that they’re going to have to go there with you anyway?  Or do you have the political clout behind you to make it happen?  I don’t see the political clout.

I’d like to believe that…if you can come up with the right plan and the right people you could make this happen.  I think though that when you get into the hard part about figuring out what you would do to actually eliminate this gap; everything from [some] school’s problem that [they] don’t get any extra help for doing it to having to go back in and look at policies about who’s suspended and who’s expelled and who’s allowed to drop out, then at that point you start goring people’s oxen.  You start doing things that are going to cause people who might say, ‘Yes we should close the achievement gap’ to say, ‘but, you can’t close it that way.’  And pretty soon you discover that there’s no coalition that will come together and say that this way is the way it ought to be closed.  Everybody wants you to do it over here and over there but don’t disturb what’s on the ground and being done now. 

  	Nationally, recent cases have been filed in state courts and focused on definitions of adequacy to bolster support for schools.  One case is that is notable for dealing with racial issues is Sheff v. Oneill.  The Connecticut Supreme Court used a state education clause, which included specific language regarding segregation to overturn the state system of funding.  But language specific to segregation only exists in two state constitutions (not Kentucky’s) and for that reason it is not likely that Sheff will become a useful precedent.  
Much of that national dialogue in support of strong public schools centers on the creation of the “informed citizen,” however, there has been little analysis of the specific skills needed to be one.  According to Michael Rebell, “the standards-based reform movement has now put this question into focus, and, at the same time, it has provided specific tools for determining the extent to which the schools are actually producing students who can effectively carry out their presumed societal responsibilities.”  The Council on Curriculum and Assessment in New York specifically considered the analytical skills students would need to participate in civic discussions serve as a juror and to generally carry out their duties as a citizen.  “With these new standards, courts are now in a position to probe unanalyzed past assumptions about students’ preparation to function as productive citizens.”  
For example, in CFE v. State, Justice Leland De Grasse instructed the parties to have their witnesses analyze a charter referendum proposal that was actually on the ballot in New York City at the time of the trial.  The question was whether a graduate of New York high schools would have the skills to comprehend the document.  Plaintiffs called Linda Darling-Hammond as their primary witness on these issues.  She identified the specific reading and analytical skills that an individual would need in order to understand that document.  She then related these skills to particular standards set forth in the Regent’s Learning Standards in English Language Arts, Social Studies, and Mathematics and Sciences.  She described the kinds of skills a juror would need to understand and use such as, “the preponderance of the evidence,” how to “weigh the evidence,” what kind of evidence is “credible” and the specific skills needed to undertake complex reasoning. Further she “explained how skills such as the ability to analyze statistical tables and graphs, understand concepts like ‘opportunity costs’,” and comprehend scientific studies were developed by the mathematical, science and social studies standards.

The defense countered with the argument that most Americans get their news from radio and television and that does not require high-level cognitive skills, since most voters make up their minds without actually reading the ballot propositions. They claimed that seventh or eighth grade reading skills were sufficient.
	Justice De Grasse rejected the defense argument holding in CFE v. State that, “An engaged, capable voter needs the intellectual tools to evaluate complex issues such as campaign finance reform, tax policy and global warming.”  The justice further stated, “a capable and productive citizen doesn’t simply show up for jury service.  Rather she is capable of serving impartially on trials that may require learning unfamiliar facts and concepts…”
As Rebell sees it, 
It is difficult to conceive of our society knowingly perpetuating a state of affairs in which voters cannot comprehend that ballot material about which they are voting and jurors cannot understand legal instructions or major evidentiary submissions in the cases they are deciding.  In order to function productively in today’s complex world, citizens need a broad range of cognitive skills that will allow them to function capably and knowledgeably, not only as voters and jurors, but also in petitioning their representatives, asserting their rights as individuals, engaging in deliberations with other citizens and otherwise taking part in the broad range of interchanges and relationships involved in the concept of “civic engagement.”

In the current high-stakes environment the public’s expectations of the principal have shifted toward more direct accountability in a results-oriented 

manner.  The pressure is on.  The sentiment is that only the results matter, and it is up to the principal to figure out how to lead a group of people to consensus to achieve the expected targets.  The successful school will be the one whose data reveals that all demographic sub-groups of students show steady progress toward high achievement while decreasing achievement gaps.
The trick is to close the achievement gap without lowering standards along the way.  In support of efforts to close the gap, advocates like Kati Haycock of the Education Trust, point to the growing number of schools with high percentages of low-income students that are achieving at high levels.  There is substantial question whether some of these districts have closed the gap or if they have lowered standards to produce better results.
Appropriately, the Education Trust hopes to "dispel the destructive myth that race an poverty are insurmountable barriers to high achievement."  To do so, the argument is made that if some schools can close their achievement gaps then any school can do it.  How many such schools would one have to see to be convinced that it is possible anywhere?  
  This argument is compelling at first blush, but fails when logic is applied.  The essential argument against is that it has never been accomplished on a significant scale, anywhere, for any sustained period of time and the data are, 

perhaps, a description of outliers.  Moreover, the argument loses its power when reversed, and is what logicians call a hasty generalization.  
For example, a former African-American student from the most humble circumstances rises above her family's poverty, lack of education, and violent behavior in the home, to become an outstanding student, graduating from the University Michigan with honors.  How many such students would one have to see to be convinced that sufficient educational opportunity presently exists for each and every student who chooses to take advantage of what the system offers?
  Unfortunately, the argument echoes throughout Kentucky, promoted by well-intentioned educators to prod their principals and assure their boards of education that any school can achieve - without any additional funding - if only they wanted to.  The Education Trust is committed to finding enough schools to make the generalization valid.  The problem with this approach is that it tends to provide another way out for a tax averse General Assembly, to relocate the problem, absolving themselves of responsibility - at least, in their own minds.
Viewed another way, however, the General Assembly might unwittingly open themselves up to more claims of institutional racism.  After all, nobody said that we could educate gifted children, if only we wanted to, without any extra 

resources.  The brief history is that in the mid 1970s, parents of ‘gifted’ students identified a group of children whose legitimate educational needs were not being met within the existing program.  They lobbied and they were heard.  It took a few years, but the program was established.  The gifted program was built to provide the necessary programs for an estimated student population of less than 10%. The state budget for programs for Gifted and Talented children, during the 2001-2002 fiscal year, was $7.4 million.  In addition, school districts reported to the Kentucky Department of Education that they spent another $1.9 million in local funds to supplement that amount.  This means that the total effort on behalf of Gifted and Talented children in Kentucky was approximately $9.3 million.  Low income children, children of color, children with special needs – all deserve careful monitoring and certainly need more support than our most advantaged students.  Now that it is poor children and children of color that need the legislature’s protection and advocacy – they are nowhere in sight.  
Generally speaking, the more diverse the economic base of the student population, the larger the achievement gap.  The fewer African-American students in a school, the larger the gap.  But arguments in support of closing the gap are increasingly made in the lowest possible terms.  Others have achieved.  If a given school has not, it’s only because the principal has not done what it takes.  Or perhaps, it’s because one does not really believe all students can learn - or worse - because someone actually wants one group to do better than another.  The later notion would be grossly offensive if it were not for the Commonwealth’s long history of wanting just that.
In general, the public gets what it deserves: not always, but generally.  Those who educate themselves tend to end up with the resources necessary for a comfortable life.  Similarly, people understand the qualitative differences among certain things.  For example, there is a direct relationship between the amount of money spent, and the quality of home one might purchase.  But in Kentucky’s political culture, with its dubious view of the bureaucracy, spending more on education apparently seems to many to be like dumping money down a rat hole.  It would be hard to listen to many people and not come away with the notion that Kentuckians are the most highly taxed people on the planet.  This of course, is a long way from true.  
Did Rose v. Council and KERA produce Kentucky’s ultimate funding scheme?  Did it produce a system that provides adequate resources for every school child regardless of the school the child attends?  Or, will there possibly be other challenges ahead as the national focus shifts from equity of resources to equity of student outcomes – an adequate education for each and every child?
 	Assuring the promise of Rose v. Council to Kentucky’s children will require vigilant attention from our state’s leadership.  Adequate funding to meet the increased demands is an indispensable ingredient to success.  However, viewing equity from the standpoint of dollars alone may keep us from the promise of full social and economic justice for all.  Much of the work that must be done exists in the hearts and minds of Kentucky’s educators and citizens – and does not cost a cent.  
As Ms. Dawahare observed, the original case was made with only a miniscule precedent - Wooley v. Spaulding.  Despite all of the stated reasons to doubt the success of another challenge to Kentucky’s funding system - one thing is clear.  Any future challenges will be built on the foundation laid by the Council for Better Education.  Courts considering such claims will do so with the knowledge that education is a fundamental right in Kentucky, that equity and adequacy are requirements of an efficient system under Section 183, and that the system must work for all children regardless of the school they attend.  The responsibility is not transferable from the legislature.  This is the proud legacy of the Council for Better Education.

A Modest Proposal

Kentucky’s children deserve a fair opportunity to reach high standards.  And as our General Assembly has already determined, goal setting should help.  If setting goals and monitoring our progress are good ideas (and they are), then I propose that we get the Legislature and the Governor involved.  If we were to set a funding goal as lofty as our aspirations, then nothing short of a full commitment to making Kentucky first - the highest state in per pupil expenditure by the year 2014 - would suffice. 
But let’s be reasonable.  Our past failures have kept Kentucky a relatively poor state.  Perhaps the General Assembly and the Governor would agree to commit to a goal of reaching the national average in per pupil expenditure by 2014, as evidence that the legislature is deserving of the public’s good faith.  Is that so unreasonable for a world-class system of schools?
Since the constitution placed the burden of responsibility firmly on the General Assembly, it is the legislature that should provide the leadership.  I’m suggesting real political leadership here, not just political cover, and no one should have to sue anyone for that leadership to occur.  Those legislators who are serious about high quality schools for Kentucky’s children should follow the example of Superintendent Crabbe and develop a new Whirlwind Campaign.  Or, legislative leaders might call upon the Prichard Committee to revitalize the Town Forum idea, fully optimizing today’s media capabilities to reach every county in the state.  
Aside from reaffirming the state’s commitment to an educated citizenry it provides an opportunity to showcase outstanding public school students from every county.  It would have the added benefit of creating a publicized forum for each of our legislators to state his or her intentions for our schools.  If I am mistaken, and the legislature is not the major stumbling block here, then nothing would say it louder than legislators’ public commitment to a serious and intentional effort to achieve the goals that have been set for our schools.  Then, fix the tax structure and fund the schools to a legally adequate level.