SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 26

(Originating in the Committee on Education)




Expressing the intent of the Legislature to endorse the Process for Improving Education: Update of Master Plan for Public Education which will ensure that a thorough and efficient system of schools is provided for all public school students in the state and will continue the substantial progress that has been made to improve education in the state.

Whereas, The constitution provides that there be a thorough and efficient system of schools; and
Whereas, In a civil action before the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, the system of schools in West Virginia in 1982 was found to violate the thorough and efficient and equal protection provisions of the Constitution of West Virginia and a Master Plan for Public Education was approved by the circuit court as a guideline for correcting these violations; and
Whereas, The circuit court opinion detailed a set of programmatic standards in terms of the resources or inputs considered at the time to provide a high quality system of education and the Master Plan for Public Education developed with approval of the circuit court by a committee appointed by the West Virginia Board of Education and State Superintendent of Schools also details the programmatic standards in terms of the curriculum, personnel, instructional materials, facilities and equipment that would constitute a high quality educational system, including specific statutory and funding changes necessary to implement such a program; and
Whereas, The order of the circuit court approved the Master Plan for Public Education as a comprehensive description for a high quality system of education necessary to establish a foundation for learning in West Virginia schools which may be construed as a recommendation to the Legislature as an example of a thorough and efficient system as defined in the circuit court opinion, and the Master Plan for Public Education further describes the Plan as a living, breathing document which will be revised as needs change, and simply a road map to take public education from where it was in 1982 to where it must be when a high quality system of public education is provided; and
Whereas, The Legislature, although it was not a party to the civil suit which resulted in the circuit court opinion and although it did not participate as a body in the development of the Master Plan for Public Education or endorse it as a legislative plan, has construed the Master Plan as a recommendation and proceeded in a fiscally responsible manner to weigh the competing needs for improvements within the educational system and other state programs against the burden imposed upon the taxpayers and has addressed many of the deficiencies noted in the circuit court opinion; and
Whereas, In the years intervening since the adoption of the Master Plan for Public Education, much progress has been made to improve and equalize education throughout the public schools of West Virginia, such as:
1. An ongoing state level program for facility improvement based on need, rather than local property wealth as established through the School Building Authority.
2. High quality education standards covering all aspects of the school program and methods for determining that the standards are being met as established by West Virginia Board of Education policies 2510, 2520 and 2320.
3. A Basic Skills Computer Program which provides hardware, software and staff development for the instruction of basic skills for students in grade levels kindergarten through six.
4. A S.U.C.C.E.S.S. Initiative which provides quality technology tools for the preparation of students in grades seven through twelve for post-secondary education or gainful employment.
5. A Curriculum Technology Resource Center established to provide teacher access to the most current technology hardware and software.
6. A Center for Professional Development and Principals Academy established to provide teachers and principal with the most current, innovative and effective strategies in the teaching/learning process.
7. Faculty Senates established and funded to provide teachers and other school staff more involvement in the operation of schools and provide them with additional funds for instructional materials, supplies and equipment.
8. An Underwood-Smith Teacher Scholarship established with incentives for teaching in under served areas.
9. Class sizes established for kindergarten through grade six, and a daily planning period and duty free lunch established for teachers.
10. An increase in the ratio for professional instructional personnel from 49 to 50 per 1000 students in adjusted enrollment.
11. Substantial increase in salaries for teachers and school service personnel.
12. A statewide property reappraisal that more equitably recognized the increases in property values among the counties and made additional money available to support education.
13. The development of the capability for distance learning whereby classrooms can receive instruction by satellite from remote locations; and
Whereas, In the years intervening since the adoption of the Master Plan for Public Education, many positive results emanating from the changes listed have been realized, such as:
1. More than $840 million has been spent in the school construction program of which $541 million is state funded school improvements to build 55 new schools, provide major additions and renovations in 42 schools, and provide 800 minor additions and improvement projects in over 400 schools. Over seventy percent of the state's school children are in new or recently renovated school facilities.
2. Thirty-four of the state's 55 school districts scored above the fiftieth percentile in all subject areas tested on the Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition test instrument, a nationally norm-referenced achievement test that compares achievements of West Virginia students to a nationally-normed sampling of students.
3. West Virginia's fourth and eighth grade students made greater gains than the students of most states on the 1996 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) State Math Assessments in both grade levels. The state's performance on the NAEP was one of the most improved of the 43 states participating in the assessment.
4. Each year, more students are taking advanced placement tests and more are scoring higher.
5. Each year, more students are participating in the Scholastic Aptitude Test and American College Test to determine their ability to go on to higher education.
6. The Curriculum Technology Resource Center houses 675 video tapes in all major subject areas with unlimited duplication rights for teachers, schools, counties and Regional Education Service Agencies. The center also provides comprehensive training on the integration of videodiscs across curriculum areas with teachers receiving the necessary equipment and appropriate disks for their schools.
7. The Principals Academy and seminars provide training for over 1600 principals and assistant principals. Of the 24,405 professional educators over 17,500 educators participated in staff development activities provided by the Center for Professional Development and the Department of Education.
8. Faculty Senate representatives have participated in statewide seminars on school governance, including the establishment and operation of Faculty Senates, to provide a greater voice in their schools. Each Faculty Senate is authorized to expend funds appropriated directly for Faculty Senates in ways it deems most effective, to establish a process for members to interview new prospective professional educators and submit recommendations to the school principal, to nominate outstanding teachers for local and state recognition programs and to submit recommendations regarding assignment and scheduling of service personnel and the master curriculum.
9. Local School Improvement Councils were created in every school to provide community, parent and school personnel involvement in improving the operation of the local schools including the ability to request waivers of state and county board policies.
10. The majority of educators in West Virginia (58.7 percent) hold a master's degree or higher by the time they attain 11 - 15 years of experience. The typical educator has approximately 17 years experience and has attained at least a master's degree.
11. Approximately 445 academically outstanding college students who plan to enter the teaching field have received a scholarship through the Underwood-Smith Scholarship Program. 12. The average class size for all grade levels is 20.7 students. State Code limits class sizes in kindergarten through grade 6 to no more than 23 in kindergarten, 25 in grades 1 through 3, and 28 in grades 4 through 6.
13. For 1997-98 West Virginia has 14.5 students for every classroom teacher employed, a lower ratio than many other states. This compares to 17 students for every classroom teacher in 1981- 82.
14. Salary equity was provided for teachers and service personnel so that the salary schedule of the lowest paying school district is no more than ten percent lower than the average of the salary schedules of the five highest paying districts. In fact, the professional salary schedule of the lowest paying district is 95.51 percent of the average of the five highest professional salary schedules and the service personnel salary schedule of the lowest paying district is 90.71 percent of the average of the five highest service personnel salary schedules.
15. Average contracted salary for teachers has increased from $22,842 for the 1989-90 school year to $33,396 for the 1997- 98 school year -- a 46 percent increase.
16. Average contracted salary for service personnel has increased from $14,255 for the 1989-90 school year to $18,417 for the 1997-98 school year -- a 22 percent increase; and
Whereas, In the years intervening since the adoption of the Master Plan for Public Education, the progress which has been made to improve and equalize education throughout the public schools of West Virginia has been recognized and several awards have been received as a result, such as:
1. Microsoft Partnership provided West Virginia with $2 million of software.
2. West Virginia was one of ten national sites selected to receive the IBM Reinventing Education Grant.
3. National Science Foundation awarded West Virginia $4.1 million for comprehensive teacher enhancement in the teaching of the sciences.
4. Several schools have been identified as National Blue Ribbon Schools by the United States Department of Education.
5. Two schools have been recognized by Redbook magazine as schools of excellence.
6. Five West Virginia school districts were highlighted as being in the top 50 districts in the country offering "excellent educational value" by Expansion Management magazine.
7. More than 40 teachers or principals have been recognized by the Milken Family Foundation as outstanding educators. These educators have received over one million dollars.
8. West Virginia was one of five states to pilot the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS).
9. West Virginia has been recognized for its rigorous instructional goals and objectives.
10. A West Virginia Teacher of the Year has been selected as the National Teacher of the Year.
11. A West Virginia physical educator was selected as the National Secondary Physical Educator of the Year.
12. West Virginia's "School Aid Formula" has been recognized by Education Week's "Quality Counts" report as one of the most equitable formulas in the nation in per pupil spending second only to Hawaii who has only one school district. Additionally, the "School Aid Formula" has been considered to be one of the most equitable formulas in the nation as verified in a 1993 study of "Step 7" prepared by the Education Commission of the States and the Southern Regional Education Board.
13. West Virginia was given the highest marks of all states for two consecutive years by Education Week's "Quality Counts" report, a state-by-state report card on public education; and
Whereas, In response to continuing action in this case in 1997, the Governor, the Legislature and the West Virginia Board of Education collaborated in the establishment of the Commission on Educational Quality and Equity to examine the issues raised by the court decisions and craft solutions within the boundaries of fiscal responsibility that would build upon and continue the progress underway to improve the quality and equity of education in West Virginia; and
Whereas, The definition of a thorough and efficient system of schools provided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia includes certain legally recognized elements in terms of the general areas of knowledge, skills and attributes which should be developed in every child as the result of a thorough and efficient system of schools and certain implicit supportive services which enable the capacity of schools and school systems to produce these results; and
Whereas, The definition of a thorough and efficient system of schools provided by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recognizes that the results are of primary importance and, therefore, the Legislature finds that equity should primarily be determined by whether students throughout the state have met the performance standards, although students, schools and school systems may need different resources to enable them to achieve a thorough and efficient education; and
Whereas, The provision of a thorough and efficient system of schools as defined by the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia requires a dynamic and fluid process which includes continuous improvement in educational standards for performance and processes, assessment, accountability and capacity to develop, as stated in Pauley v. Kelley, "as best the state of education expertise allows the minds, bodies and social morality of its charges to prepare them for useful and happy occupations, recreation and citizenship, and does so economically"; and
Whereas, In the years intervening since the adoption of the Master Plan for Public Education, many things have changed which affect the provision of a thorough and efficient system of schools, some of which include the environment students enter upon graduation from the public schools and the knowledge and skills they need to succeed, especially the increased importance of continued post-secondary education and training following high school graduation, the use of technology for instructional delivery, access to information and information management in the classroom, an increased focus on the results of the educational process as a measure of educational quality, and an increasing level of educational expertise for improving the rigor and relevance of academic instruction through expanded types and uses of educational resources and resources outside of the classroom, and such change will continue to occur; and
Whereas, The Commission on Educational Quality and Equity has recognized that deficiencies exist and must be addressed in a systematic fashion which enables the Legislature, the Governor and the State Board of Education to work in cooperation to correct these deficiencies in a fiscally responsible manner, and has recommended a Process for Improving Education including:
1. Establishing standards for student performance to measure when a thorough and efficient system of schools is being provided, and determining standards for school and school system processes and practices which enable student performance.
2. Improving assessment and accountability processes which show policy makers where improvements are needed in schools and school systems, including, a system of education performance audits to:
a. Assess student, school and school system performance and the processes which should be in place in schools and school systems to enable student performance,
b. Review school and school system improvement plans,
c. Conduct on-site reviews of school and school system performance and compliance with the standards,
d. Provide information to the State Board for accrediting schools and approving school systems, and
e. Enable the targeting of resources at the local level, and if necessary with additional assistance from the state level, to increase the capacity of schools and school systems to increase student performance, including early detection and intervention programs to improve student performance, by making additional technical assistance, programmatic, monetary and staffing resources available to assist underachieving schools and school systems to improve student performance before conditions become so grave as to warrant more substantive intervention.
3. Ensuring that schools and school systems appropriately and efficiently utilize the resources at their disposal to improve the teaching and learning process and establish plans to meet or exceed the standards established for a thorough and efficient system of schools. When schools and school systems fail to meet the standards or make sustained progress, the State Board of Education has a constitutional duty to intervene to correct the deficiencies, and to provide additional assistance to meet the standards if it is determined that insufficient capacity exists at the local level.
4. Increasing capacity to correct the deficiencies in student, school and school system performance which are discovered through the assessment and accountability processes to ensure the provision of a thorough and efficient system of schools. Planning at the school and school system level will be required to strategically target resources to the teaching and learning process to improve student, school and school system performance and ensure that existing resources are used in the most efficient manner. When deficiencies in student, school and school system performance are detected, the plans must be revised to correct the deficiencies. When the capacity to correct the deficiencies does not exist at the local level, the Legislature and the West Virginia Board of Education have ultimate responsibility to assist in the provision of additional capacity. To increase the ability of the West Virginia Board of Education to provide timely assistance to schools and school systems to help build their capacity to correct deficiencies discovered through the assessment and accountability processes, the Board will be given authority to direct funds accruing in the General School Fund to address specific improvement needs subject to review by the Legislative Oversight Commission on Education Accountability. The West Virginia Board of Education is further required to work in collaboration with the Legislature and make specific recommendations for strategically targeting resources to improve student, school and school system performance; and
Whereas, The disparity of excess levies among the counties continues to exist and continues to cause inequities in education resources and unfairness in taxpayer burdens. Local excess levies currently contribute approximately $238 million in funding for education. The Legislature recognizes that the excess levy problem must be addressed and has attempted on two previous occasions to do so by proposing a statewide excess levy and has mitigated the effect of excess levy inequities through statewide program financing. At the present time, the Governor's Commission on Fair Taxation is considering the system of taxation in West Virginia in its totality, including property taxes. Awaiting the outcome of this study is a prudent and fiscally responsible decision.
Whereas, The Legislature finds that the Process for Improving Education which was recommended as an update of the Master Plan for Public Education:
1. Builds upon and continues the progress underway to improve education in West Virginia,
2. Provides for an appropriate focus on results and accountability as directed by the Supreme Court Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
3. Embodies the spirit of the Master Plan for Public Education as a living breathing document that would be revised as needs and educational expertise change, and
4. Provides ongoing mechanisms for discovering deficiencies in the system of schools and targeting local and state resources to improve performance in a timely, efficient and fiscally responsible manner; and
Whereas, The Legislature finds that the Process for Improving Education establishes a dynamic and fluid process of setting standards, adopting and implementing assessment tools, establishing and enforcing accountability measures, and where indicated, increasing capacity to meet the standards and the process will result in the provision of a thorough and efficient system of schools; and
Whereas, The Process for Improving Education will provide complete, objective and reliable information to the West Virginia Board of Education, the Legislature, the Governor and the public on the quality of education that is being provided in the public school system and on the system's efficiency in expending tax dollars and will enable the Legislature and the West Virginia Board of Education to target resources in a fiscally responsible manner to increase the capacity of schools and school systems to alleviate substandard performance; and
Whereas, A primary responsibility of the Legislature is to establish the fiscal policies of the state through its sole powers to tax and appropriate money for the many functions of state government, including payment of the debt, providing for schools and providing for the judiciary, which are constitutionally preferred, and providing for the health, safety, welfare, infrastructure, environmental, higher education, cultural, economic development, natural resource management and other services of government which affect the quality of life for all of the citizens of the state including its youth and their capacity to benefit from a thorough and efficient system of schools; and
Whereas, The prudent and responsible establishment of fiscal policies by the Legislature are necessary to foster the continued growth and development which enable the state to provide a thorough and efficient system of schools and ensure that the youth of the state will inherit an increasing quality of life in West Virginia; and
Whereas, It is the intent of the Legislature to work in collaboration with the Governor and the West Virginia Board of Education through the Process for Improving Education to aggressively fulfill its responsibilities under the West Virginia Constitution to ensure that a thorough and efficient system of schools is provided for all public school students in the state; and
Whereas, The plaintiffs in their Motion to Appoint Commissioner and Reinstate Resource Evaluations, filed February 19, 1998, ask the court "to [O]rder the State Board of Education to immediately update its resource evaluation standards, and reinstate resource evaluations of county school systems as a part of the accreditation process beginning July 1, 1998"; and
Whereas, the Legislature does oppose such request for the following reasons:
1. The request to have resource standards updated and implemented in the evaluation process of school systems in the manner plaintiffs suggest is not feasible in the performance- based system suggested in the Process for Improving Education adopted by the State Board as an updated Master Plan for Public Education. The Process for Improving Education clearly recognizes that resources are important in that it specifies that process standards in terms of practices, procedures and resources need to be in place to enable students to perform, and these standards will be routinely revised and updated. However, resources alone do not guarantee the resulting performance required for a thorough education and uniform resources may be inefficient if local and student needs vary.
2. The court, in its original orders, recognized that it is the function of the Legislature, the Governor and the State Board to make education policy.
3. Since the original orders were entered in this case, the Legislature, the Governor and the State Board have acted to establish and continue a thorough and efficient system of schools consistent with the improvement in educational expertise.
4. The original Orders of this Court as well as the Master Plan can best be characterized as "input driven" models which attempt to establish in great detail the inputs which the court believed were necessary for a thorough and efficient system of schools. Such a model places primary reliance on the nature and especially the quantity of resources in the system. This was the model many jurisdictions adopted during the period of the original orders in this case, but pursuant to the best educational expertise, it is a model which has fallen into disfavor in the education community today. The model is not favored for a number of reasons:
a. It assumes that a quality education will result primarily from the amount of resources the system receives without regard to student performance or need, a philosophy rejected in the education community today;
b. It assumes that the taxpayers of West Virginia have unlimited money to commit to the challenge of supplying the resources the plaintiff would demand. In fact, the cost of the original Master Plan was in excess of one billion additional dollars without any improvement in salary levels, and although the state has committed significant new resources to public education since the master plan was adopted, the estimated cost of the plan in today's dollars is still in excess of one billion dollars;
c. The imposition of a list of unfunded, and literally unfundable mandated inputs inevitably will determine the direction of our system forever. The Legislature, Governor and State Board, if obligated to meet the financial demands of such a list, will be left with no resources and no flexibility to make other needed changes and improvements in the system. All new resources inevitably will be channeled to meeting the input needs defined ultimately by a court;
d. The needs of students and systems is ever-changing thing, and may vary from place to place. Mandating a state created list of inputs will deprive the system of the ability to meet those changing and varied needs; and
e. It would be dangerous to substitute a list of resources for the give and take of democratic decision making that establishes the education policy for all the youth of the state, even if one assumes that such a list could be constructed which correctly identifies all of the elements which are needed to provide students with a thorough education, and only those elements so as not to promote inefficiencies. For example, a list which requires significant additional personnel to be employed would override a policy judgement that a lesser number of more highly compensated, better trained personnel with more tools at their disposal can achieve higher gains in student achievement.
5. The result of granting the relief suggested by the plaintiffs would be the establishment of a list of inputs against which every school and school system, state and local, would be measured. If any plaintiff was unhappy with the list established, they could ask the court to substitute its judgment for that of the appropriate authorities and ostensibly amend or create a new list. Such would be a slippery slope for the courts and a totally inappropriate use of judicial authority, but one which plaintiffs no doubt would consider.
6. Where the system or a school fails to meet the resource standards defined by the plaintiffs, there apparently would be a demand, enforceable in court, to supply the perceived need, no matter the cost. For instance, in the current motion before the court, plaintiffs repeatedly complain that the Legislature violated the original orders by changing the ratios in Step 1 and Step 2 of the school aid formula. The Legislature did change those ratios. However, the effect was to reduce the administrative staff in our schools and in fact the ratio for professional instructional personnel was also changed which resulted in the overall student-teacher ratios being reduced. The cost to the taxpayers of granting plaintiffs request to use only adjusted enrollment caps for personnel would be approximately 53 million additional dollars, and done without regard to student performance. Such would be the nature of the dilemma in which the court would find itself if it grants plaintiffs' request. The demand for inputs would be unending, but the tax dollars available to meet those demands is indeed limited.
7. As a result of the efforts of the Governor's Commission on Educational Quality and Equity, the State Board has adopted an update of the Master Plan for Public Education, and the adoption of this resolution by the Legislature will cause the Legislature to endorse Process for Improving Education: Update of the Master Plan as well.
8. The performance-based model adopted by the State Board, and endorsed by the Legislature and the Governor, is a Process for Improving Education which is designed to do the following:
a. Set high academic and process standards;
b. Establish reasonable assessments of student and system performance;
c. Institute accountability measures; and
d. Determine where capacity is lacking and establish a method to see that needed capacities are met.
9. A performance-based system as embodied in the Process for Improving Education is preferable to the input model suggested by the original orders of this court and the plaintiff's motion in a number of ways:
a. It focuses directly on student and system performance, instead of assuming that supplying an arbitrary list of inputs will cause high student performance;
b. It systematically determines the need for increases in the capacity of each school and school system and strategically targets the state's resources where the needs arise, unlike the input model which calls for more resources without regard to cost, specific need or student performance;
c. It recognizes the different needs and demands of schools, school systems and students throughout the state and attempts to deal with them individually, not as a homogeneous group;
d. It stresses local control and local decision making in the planning, implementation and evaluation process. The input model would have the affect of removing local control and decision making in lieu of a state mandated list of inputs the plaintiffs would have the State Board adopt;
e. The performance driven model is geared to operate within the available resources. It will determine if additional resources are needed, and make those needs known to the appropriate bodies and officials; and
f. The performance model assures accountability for student and system performance, the thing most desired by the public today.
10. The performance model will assure the provision of the needed resources, but will do it on a more strategic and targeted basis. The input model will require the spending of tax dollars on inputs which may or may not be necessary and will not assure that students and systems are performing at acceptable levels.
11. The performance model is designed to provide the public with the things they want most - high student achievement which is measurable and accountability at all levels of the system; and
 Whereas, The plaintiffs in their Motion to Appoint Commissioner and Reinstate Resource Evaluations, filed February 19, 1998, ask the court to "appoint the commissioner to oversee implementation of this Court's Order"; and
Whereas, the Legislature does oppose such request for the following reasons:
1. The "Court's Order" which the plaintiffs demand enforced encompasses the entire education process in West Virginia and enforcement of such a broad order by a commissioner would involve the usurpation of the authority of the Legislature, the State Board and the Governor, as well as the fifty-five county school boards and multiple other elective and appointed officials.
2. The Legislature and the State Board, not the judiciary, are the institutions constitutionally charged with the administration of a thorough and efficient system of schools. The court has no authority to appoint a commissioner and attempt to usurp the authority given under the constitution to the State Board and the Legislature.
3. The only basis for appointing a commissioner is the plaintiffs' assertion that the Legislature and the State Board have failed to implement the input demands outlined in the Master Plan and envisioned in the original orders of the court. As explained herein, such an input based approach to education should be considered no longer the basis of a Master Plan.
4. Even if the Court believes it has the authority to appoint a commissioner to oversee enforcement of its orders, the Court should not consider the appointment of a commissioner unless the court finds the Legislature and the State Board are not providing a thorough and efficient system of schools and further finds that the Legislature and the State Board have no plan to do so. The totality of this resolution should convince the court that not only do the Legislature and the State Board have a plan, the Process for Improving Education, the plan as it has been implemented to date is causing student and system performance to improve dramatically. Other than attempting to enforce a Master Plan that is beyond the ability of the taxpayers of this state to fund, there is no reason to appoint a commissioner.
5. The appointment of a commissioner to enforce this court's orders would have the impact of placing the entire state system of public education under court control. Such an order by this court would be a national event which would bring much undeserved criticism of the West Virginia system of public education. Major media outlets and trade publications would report such an order as indicating a failure of the system of public education in West Virginia when, in fact, most regional and national indicators of student and system performance demonstrate the system is performing at high levels of achievement. The national dissemination of the false inference that the public education system in West Virginia is failing would adversely impact economic growth and the ability of our state to attract investment and jobs.
6. The appointment of a commissioner would create a "top down", "one size fits all" approach to education in West Virginia which would defeat the goal of local control and which would magnify any error made by such a commissioner on a statewide basis.
7. As a practical matter, the plaintiffs want a commissioner appointed who will be charged with the duty of overseeing the creation of the list of inputs the plaintiffs desire. Even if the court, through its commissioner, succeeds in creating such a list, only the Legislature can raise and appropriate the funds necessary to pay for the inputs demanded by such a list. The two primary reasons the original Master Plan has not been used by the State Board or the Legislature as its primary guide to public education improvement is because it demanded over one billion dollars to implement, and because it was based on the theory of inputs when the current state of educational expertise suggests a system based on performance. The appointment of a commissioner to oversee the creation of a list of inputs which can never be funded will be of no effect and will be doomed to fail.
Whereas, The court should modify its original orders for the following reasons:
1. The court should recognize that the original litigation was conducted with virtually no real party defendant and that the adoption of the input driven model, although in the apparent self-interest of most of the litigants, has proven not to be in the best interest of education in West Virginia and is contrary to the current state of educational expertise.
2. The original order is too limited to allow the implementation of a performance model. Its almost total reliance on inputs is misplaced and restricts the type of dynamic change the Supreme Court envisioned when it ordered the circuit court to develop a plan consistent with the best educational expertise.
3. Educational philosophy has changed from the input model to the performance model as evidenced by the adoption of the Revised Master Plan by the State Board, the Legislature and the Governor, and as evidenced by the actions of other jurisdictions as well.
4. The court should give great deference to the Legislature, the State Board and the Governor in setting education policy and implementing the same.
5. The court's original order and the Master Plan are unenforceable. The money required to implement the orders and the Master Plan well exceed the ability of the taxpayers to fund. The continued existence of such orders and Plan only serve to impede the progress being made under a performance model.
6. The continuation of the input model with its unenforceable financial mandates will only guarantee that the issue of public education will remain in litigation forever; therefore, be it
Resolved by the Legislature of West Virginia:
That the Legislature hereby endorses the Process for Improving Education as recommended by the Commission on Educational Quality and Equity and adopted by the State Board which will ensure that a thorough and efficient system of schools is provided for all students in the state and which will continue the substantial progress that has been made to improve education in the state; and, be it
Further resolved, That the Legislature urges the court to grant the following relief:
1. To modify the previous orders of the court to be consistent with the revised Master Plan as adopted by the West Virginia Board of Education and endorsed by the Legislature and the Governor.
2. To dismiss that part of the case which relates to the Master Plan for Education.
3. To refuse the request of the plaintiffs for the appointment of a commissioner.
4. To refuse the request of the plaintiffs to order the West Virginia Board of Education to immediately update it resource evaluation standards, and reinstate resource evaluations of county school systems as a part of the accreditation process.