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
Flawed Assumptions Distort Education Funding Debate
- 05-21-2010
-
By UCLA IDEA Staff
Themes in the News for the week of May 17-21, 2010
Attempting to close a $19.1 billion deficit, Gov. Schwarzenegger released his revised budget proposal last week. Two false assumptions are likely to undermine the debates and negotiations over money designated for California schools.
First, it is being implied or stated outright that the funding proposal will not further impact education. Second, many people don’t know or ignore the fact that support for education includes much more than what flows directly to schools.
The governor’s May revise stated that public education would be fully funded under Proposition 98 (Education Budget) (San Francisco Beyond Chron) (California Progress Report). What it failed to mention was that the Proposition 98 guarantee has dropped dramatically with falling state revenues leaving education funding far short of 2007-08 levels. Over the last two years, education has been slashed by $17 billion.
Also, instead of helping schools recover from prior devastating cuts, the governor’s budget does not restore funding that the state owes schools to cover cost-of-living adjustments and other obligations (Los Angeles Times) (San Francisco Beyond Chron).
But the education budget contains only one portion of cuts that impact students’ learning. One can’t rightfully debate the actual damage to education without considering cuts to other services for students and their families.
The proposal would cut state-subsidized childcare and completely eliminate CalWorks, a program that helps 1.3 million people, including 1 million children (Los Angeles Times) (California Progress Report). Cutting it would make California the only state lacking a welfare-to-work program (Los Angeles Times). Vital supports for children’s learning are at risk, including after-school programs, childcare, nutrition and many more services beyond the classroom walls.
Within the last year, other traditionally tax-averse states such as Arizona, Nevada and Oregon have raised revenues to support children. California has not raised taxes, in large part due to the legislative two-thirds majority required for such increases (San Francisco Beyond Chron). Even before the recession, California ranked near the bottom of all states in per-pupil spending and it now spends about $1,000 less per student than it did in 2007 (California Budget Bites).
Correcting false assumptions might be the first step toward saving California public schools. Political leaders and voters should know that the proposed budget provides fewer resources to educate students—not the same or more. And they should follow the trail of harm that begins with cuts to programs that are crucial to families and children—even if these funds are not a direct part of the school budgets.
Print this
