What’s Preparation Got to Do with it?

Williams v. State of California is the lawsuit brought last year (April 2000) by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of public school children in 18 California school districts. According to the ACLU Southern California Docket, the suit charges that children who attend schools that lack "such basic and necessary learning tools as books, trained teachers, and seats for students" are deprived of fundamental educational opportunities and also that the state of California has failed to fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide "at least the bare essentials" for the education of all students. In addition, the suit challenges the "conditions of the schools for having a racially discriminatory effect on these children, most of whom are children of color" (see the Web site at http://www. aclu-sc.org/litigation/docket/williams). These conditions include lack of basic resources (e.g., outdated, defaced, or nonexistent textbooks; little or no access to computers; little or no school supplies; no library access), inadequate instruction (e.g., as few as 13% of teachers with "full teaching credentials," frequent use of substitute teachers, consistently unstaffed vacancies), overcrowding (e.g., makeshift and jammed classrooms with inadequate seats, multitrack schedules that limit course length and continuous study), and poor and/or unsanitary conditions (e.g., filthy, broken, or unavailable toilet facilities; rat infestations; leaking roofs; broken windows; and other dangers). Using data from the California Department of Education (DOE), the suit points out that in the plaintiffs' schools, children of color make up 96.4% of the student population, compared with 59% across the state. The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment that would require the DOE to establish a systematic process for identifying and remedying substandard conditions. Meanwhile, Governor Gray Davis and the State of California have claimed that public school conditions are the obligation of local school districts, not the state, and have countersued the 18 school districts named in the lawsuit. However, the California Supreme Court granted a motion in October for class certification in the case, which means that the suit can be expanded to include all children in substandard California public schools (not just students at the 18 originally named schools), suggesting that the court sees the problem as a statewide issue requiring statewide solutions (Smith, 2001). This latest decision has raised considerably the stakes involved in the case because any relief granted to the plaintiffs will now apply to every California school with substandard conditions. For teacher education, a striking and important aspect of this lawsuit is its assumption that access to fully prepared, qualified teachers is not only essential to a good education but is also a major divide in the experiences of schoolchildren from advantaged and disadvantaged socioeconomic and racial groups. This assumption is, of course, quite consistent with the agenda to professionalize teaching and teacher education, best represented in the now widely quoted first report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), What Matters Most (1996): This report offers what we believe is the single most important strategy for achieving America's educational goals: A blueprint for recruiting, preparing, and supporting excellent teachers in all of America's schools ... (p. 3) Tens of thousands of people not educated for these demands have been unable to make a successful transition into the new economy.... Those who succeed and those who fail are increasingly divided by their opportunities to learn ... (p. 11) From this perspective, equal access to good teachers with rich opportunities for all students to learn is the best path to a citizenry educated for democracy. The California lawsuit takes as a given the premise that well-qualified teachers are fully prepared and fully licensed teachers. …