The Standards of Quality are assumed to represent high quality standards for K-12 public education for all students in the Commonwealth. In point of fact, they represent a minimum foundation. In practice, the SOQ represent a mechanism for the state to fund their share of public education (which must add up to at least 55% of required standards) and were labeled standards of “quality” when they were established in the state Constitution in 1970. Localities must make up the difference and are left to do what they can to transform state standards (dubbed by some as “standards of mediocrity”) into standards of quality.
The State Board of Education, by law, must review and consider revisions to the SOQ every two years; and they have struggled over the past several years to have their recommendations enacted by the General Assembly. Practitioners, local school board members and members of the Board of Education understand that the SOQ represent minimum requirements, not the highest aspirations; however, legislators have denied funding for many of the Board’s proposals since 2005 (including additional assistant principals – even though localities recognize this growing need and many have funded this staff position above 100% of the SOQ requirement). Unfortunately, a growing number of lawmakers would like to see staffing requirements reduced in favor of “flexibility.” Local flexibility, when such is not tied to decreased funding, is certainly desirable, particularly in light of increasing mandates and policy changes that do not come with additional funding. But localities and local school boards cannot afford to trade funding for flexibility.
The Board of Education’s Committee on Standards of Quality is again asking for input into their review process. And most likely, educators, local school board members, parents and members of the Board of Education will agree that the standards should be updated to better reflect the changing needs of today’s students. And just as likely is the fact that all recommendations will be viewed through the lens of the reality that money is tight; however, that should not deter any of the stakeholders from presenting proposals that are data-driven and represent sound educational policy and “best practice” and will lead to more positive student outcomes. After all, politicians and policy-makers alike have made it clear that “outcome” is the endgame.
The challenge for the SOQ Committee and stakeholders will be to find a way to walk a fine line between what represents best educational practice and what is economically feasible. The aim is to create an end product that advances the goal of a quality education for all. But schools are faced each year with new mandates and policy changes that come without funding and therefore cannot help all students achieve at their highest potential if they are continually asked to do more with less.
It is as simple and as complicated as this – the standards drive funding. And legislators know that public education represents a very large pot of money. It is easy to point to such a large figure and say with pride that the General Assembly “fully funds” the SOQ. True – because they must by law fund their portion of the standards; however, while the dollar figure goes up (inflation, enrollment, etc.), the percentage of state funding in support of K-12 is going in the wrong direction – and educators know it. Virginia’s localities have been making up the difference for years. When legislators are faced with choices for state moneys, K-12 is fast becoming a “local” problem more than a state responsibility.
Let us know what you think about how the SOQ should be revised. Where do you need flexibility? How can that be achieved without sacrificing funding? What do your students need to be successful and competitive in the 21st century that could be enhanced through the Standards of Quality? Make your voices heard!
