History of IDEA
Jeannie Oakes, Founder and Former Director
Youth Voice in School Finance
NEW REPORT: Los Angeles' road to A-G for all
Without Dollars and Sense Powerpoint
Past Educational Opportunity Reports
Two Proposals That Won’t Fix the School Budget Crisis
- 03-29-2010
-
By UCLA IDEA Staff
Themes in the News for the week of March 22-26, 2010
Two school-finance fixes were under discussion this week, but neither one addresses the core funding obstacles that keep California schools stumbling from one budget crisis to the next—from canceling summer school to firing teachers to shortening the school calendar to widening the much-discussed “achievement gaps,” and on and on.
The proposals in question might airlift some dollars or flexibility to certain financially stranded schools, but they do not build toward a rational, coherent school funding system that California desperately needs. Given the state’s dire circumstances, they are too weak in the short term, and over time they can easily make matters worse.
First, is Gov. Schwarzenegger’s suggestion to suspend the state’s numerous mandates that direct schools to spend more than $400 million in specific areas. Some of these programs contribute enormously to students’ education, others could become better if schools had more flexibility, and still others are undoubtedly wasteful (NPR).
The suspension might allow some districts to drop or revise programs in order not to fire teachers or to pay the utility bills. On Monday, state Superintendent of Instruction Jack O’Connell said that 126 districts will be unable to meet their financial obligations and 22,000 teachers received pink slips (NPR). However, with $18 billion already cut from the state budget, and more cuts on the horizon, Schwarzenegger’s “temporary” solution—one that adds no new dollars to the system—could go on for years (ABC).
The second proposal emerging this week could add more revenue to some schools, assuming that the current level of funding is not diminished. Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, introduced a bill that would change the state’s constitution to allow local districts to pass a parcel tax with a 55-percent majority, a change from the current two-third requirement. “If the state cannot adequately help the local schools, then they have to help themselves,” Simitian said. (New American Media, Californians for Improved School Funding).
An EdSource study of 486 parcel tax elections from 1983 through last June and found that 261 passed with a two-thirds majority. If the 55-percent rule had been in place, however, 423 would have passed (Oakland Tribune).
However, parcel taxes, regardless of whether they are easier or harder to pass, do not correct the problems of an unequal, inadequate, or inefficient school-funding system. Disparities between wealthy and poor districts are exacerbated by parcel taxes, and poorer neighborhoods have to take on a higher burden and level of sacrifice in order to raise money comparable to wealthier districts.
Clearly, desperate financial circumstances have prompted policy makers to explore new strategies for avoiding painful cuts to California’s public schools. The emergence of these strategies demonstrates that appeals for relief are making their way from local communities to Sacramento (San Jose Mercury News, San Luis Obispo Tribune, Pasadena Weekly, Alameda Times Star). Yet, this week’s piecemeal policy suggestions should not be mistaken for positive and systemic education reform.
Send this
Print this
