Given the recent decision from Judge Thomas Moukawsher that has far-reaching implications for education reform, it is no surprise that legislators are scrambling and the state has submitted an appeal to the state Supreme Court. Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Educational Funding vs. Rell, which started as a quest to determine whether Connecticut students receive adequate and equitable educational opportunities, has resulted in the judiciary asking important questions of the state and the plaintiff.

The resulting ruling by Moukawsher has led some to contend he is guilty of overreach of judicial authority. However, clearly the judge recognized that money alone will not improve our schools. This realization naturally led to a more comprehensive decision that tasked legislators to rethink not only how schools are funded but how services are delivered.

It makes sense.

It also makes sense that the judge ruled the current method of paying for public schools is inadequate but fell short of prescribing a formula directing a specific level of funding. How could one responsibly prescribe funding if the path to determine adequacy or standards is unclear? If you want bang for your buck, you must know where you are going. Otherwise, any road will get you there.

Some of the topics that have garnered attention from Judge Moukawsher include educator evaluation and compensation, elementary education and graduation standards, and special education.

Define success

A good place to start is with clarifying desired outcomes of an education. After all, how is a “better solution” provided for our students without knowing desired results? The problem within our educational system is that goals and outcomes are ill defined. Currently, graduation standards are based on credit attainment in our high schools. Some argue that credit attainment alone is insufficient in determining college and career readiness.

But what does it mean to be college and career ready? Is there a common definition? If so, what evidence is used to determine college and career readiness? In other words, how is it measured? If you ask the College Board, the nonprofit organization that amasses $600 million in total yearly revenues and the creators of the SAT, they define college and career readiness by a score a student achieves on their math, reading, or writing test. Yet research has proven the best predictor of student performance in college is a student’s grade point average.

Graduation standards should reflect clearly what students should know and be able to do. Only then will we be able to accurately determine if students are meeting agreed upon expectations and be able to assess adequacy. Once the target is identified, resources can then be marshalled to help Connecticut’s children meet expectations. This seemingly simple, but complex task, is worthy of undertaking.

Educator impact

There are many influences on student achievement such as the home, peers, the school, and school administration. Yet, research is clear, the most powerful single influence on learning is the teacher. Many teachers are excellent, but current evaluation systems reflect a performance homogeneity that is simply a false narrative.

It’s absurd that people are willing to believe that 98 percent of teachers meet the same standard of expertise. Would these same people believe the same percentage of expertise exists among principals, police officers, accountants, or carpenters? As internationally acclaimed researcher and author John Hattie claims, we need a system that allows for a “…deeper representation of excellence in teachers, a greater challenge and commitment to recognizing excellence, and a coherent, integrated, high level of deep understanding about teacher expertise.”

Once there is piercing clarity on desired outcomes for Connecticut’s students, it’s the teachers and administrators in school buildings that will be best positioned to fulfill the state’s promise.

One size does not fit all

One of the best “unfunded” mandates the federal government has required is “Response to Intervention (RTI).” This mandate requires schools to establish early warning systems that respond to students that have learning and behavioral needs. For example, if a student is behind in reading, she gets more time and support to catch up. These interventions take place before a referral to Special Education with the idea that educators should respond to student needs without having to affix a label to the student.

However, the dilemma that most schools face is that funding does not support this sound concept, which puts educators in a predicament knowing the only way additional aid and support will be provided is through special education. In urban centers, the need for RTI is further exacerbated by the effects of poverty and other challenges such as meeting the needs of English Language Learners. A system designed to intervene early and often, that is properly funded and supported, will help reduce Connecticut’s achievement gap.

In short, it’s understandable the judge did not limit his focus to funding formulas. He was cognizant that how funding is used and for what purpose is inextricably linked. Some of the most significant reforms in our nation’s history have come from the bench due to the lack of “political will” to do the right thing.

This is another chance to get it right.

Tommy Thompson, the New London High School principal, testified in the case that led to Judge Moukawsher’s ruling. Last Tuesday, Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers granted the request for an expedited appeal of the Moukawsher decision.