| 
| 
| |
| Prop. 76: Broken Promises, Misplaced Prioritiesby Jonathan Elkin, Michael Nunez, and Albert Yang; Center on Education and Learning; Roosevelt Institution at Stanford University According to national results released on October 19, California�s fourth and eighth grade reading scores rank second-to-last in the nation. Math scores are only slightly better at fifth and sixth from the bottom. Meanwhile, California�s per-pupil education spending has fallen from above the national average throughout the 1970s to 11.5 percent below average in 2004-2005�currently ranking our state a dismal 35th in the nation. In fact, from 1996 to 2004, California has spent only $5,000 to $7,000 a year on each pupil in the public school system, while spending an average of $80,000 annually on each juvenile housed in the California Youth Authority. Our children deserve better. Indeed, most of us already have our priorities straight. In a 2003 survey, Californians ranked education as the top priority for state spending. We believe in public education�s promise to provide all children with the skills and knowledge they need to work hard and achieve their dreams. Proposition 76, on the ballot this November, would continue to break that promise to California�s children by starving funding from our already emaciated school budgets. In 1988, California�s voters passed Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a meager ration of funding for public education based on 1970s spending levels, with modest yearly increases to cover inflation and student population growth. In December of 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger made a one-time deal with education advocates to spend below Prop. 98�s minimum guarantee for the year, with a promise to return to the target rate in future calculations. But the governor has yet to repay that debt, and this year education spending has fallen to $3.8 billion below the required annual minimum. If Prop. 76 passes, the state will permanently count this year�s low spending level as the new minimum�effectively continuing to shortchange our schools by at least four billion dollars annually. Despite the governor�s backpedaling, our state is taking a few slow steps in the right direction. In April of this year, California commissioned an adequacy study to determine the level and types of funding necessary to achieve state and federal standards, while looking for ways current funding can be spent more efficiently. A whopping three years after a similar study was authorized, Governor Schwarzenegger has finally followed the lead of at least 30 other states and appointed a commission to lead California�s study. However, he has refused to fund the project, requiring private charities such as the Hewlett and Gates Foundations to pick up the tab. One promising example of a possible funding reform is the concept of weighted-student funding, which would allocate funds directly to schools or districts for each student in attendance, using a slightly higher level for each child requiring special-ed, English-language learning, or other extra services. Since the system was instituted in San Francisco in 2002, the district�s test scores have increased every year. Though former Secretary of Education Richard Riordan proposed a statewide variation of the plan last year, the idea fell from the radar after his beleaguered resignation. Last year, Governor Schwarzenegger, who supports Prop. 76, superficially acknowledged the appalling conditions of low-income California classrooms. By settling the Williams v. California lawsuit, he tossed a meager $1 billion for facilities and textbooks to the bottom 30 percent of performing schools. We can and must do more. Students, parents, teachers, and politicians all know that California needs school finance reform for our children to succeed. But Prop. 76 only perpetuates misplaced priorities and ignores much-needed efforts. In the context of real possibilities, Prop. 76 would choke off funding for real reform, allowing Governor Schwarzenegger to continue breaking his promises to California�s children.
|
The Roosevelt Institution is a nonpartisan, nonprofit national think tank devoted to bringing students' policy ideas to the policy process. The opinions expressed on this site are exclusively those of its members. DC Headquarters: Roosevelt Institution / 2100 M St NW Suite 610 / Washington, DC 20037 || (202) 833-1359 |