HELIOLITH

Schwarzenegger wants to slice $4.8 Billion from CA Schools Mid-year.

So the governor wants to take away money that we had planned to receive - and in some cases have already spent… this while EdVoice.org reports that California (”CA”) was ranked 46th in per-pupil funding!

When I search the publication they referenced (Education Week), all I could find was this: “In 2004-05, the last year for which national figures were available, California spent about $8,000 per pupil, 33rd among the states.” I contacted Edvoice to ask about the discrepancy, but haven’t heard back. Regardless of the exact spot in the bottom third of states, knowing we’re the richest state makes it rather unfathomable, and unconscionable to most.

Education Week also reports that

A report commissioned by the state’s legislative leaders last year concluded that California needs to invest up to $25 billion more a year in education. A panel appointed by Schwarzenegger said it would cost the state $6 billion to $8 billion more just to fix its convoluted financing structure, which includes a complex system of mandates and doesn’t always send funding to the most needy students.

At the same time, ABC news gives us some important background facts,

Forty cents of every dollar in the state’s budget goes to fund education — that’s kindergarten through 12, including community colleges. That’s roughly $57 billion. That money is guaranteed thanks to Proposition 98, passed by voters in 1988. However, the governor wants to suspend that guarantee to help balance the budget.

That’s good background, but it doesn’t adequately address the problems with that proposition in itself. Tying something critical to something that’s ephermal (the variable state revenue) is not recommended.

Many blame our 1978 voter initiative “Proposition 13 which states that

SECTION 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed One percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

As Wikipedia mentions, this has been called the “third rail,” a politically untouchable subject. Not that our current conservative governor would dream of doing so. An editorial piece (author unknown) in the LA Times gives a critical piece of information:

California has an arcane, outdated, crazy method for funding school districts that began after Proposition 13 passed in 1978. Districts with the same needs get different amounts per student simply because that’s how it was done 30 years ago. High school students in kindergarten-through-12th-grade districts get less money than those in high school-only districts. About 50 of the wealthiest areas of the state get more money than other districts, even though their students are less likely to need it. (emphasis mine)

According to the California Dept. of Finance,The state’s GDP is at about $1.7 trillion (as of 2006). Taxing this further is apparently not Arnold’s first plan of attack. It’s easier then to take it away from our children, at least those not rich enough to guarantee their education with private schooling, and a subsequent spot in the increasingly wealthy upper class.

Not that many public schools aren’t extraordinarily effective and academically super-charged environments. I work at one. There are definitely specific materials and resources, both in the form of goods and services (aids, counselors, technology, reading specialists) that would facilitate my ability to usher each of my students into the university. Those that argue that school spending and performance aren’t necessarily tied aren’t using all the facts at hand. Obviously money can be spent foolishly. A little money spent wisely has a big impact. More money spent wisely can have an even bigger impact. Constraining what’s available can only hurt the children who will populate and rule the future we live in. Isn’t the wisest path to raise the new generation as high as we can possibly afford to?

I can only interpret based on the governor’s actions, that he doesn’t share my views. Apparently not only is Arnold planning to take a scalpel to our already anemic budget, but he’s going to play some sleight-of-hand tricks as well. The SF Chronicle quotes Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, who disagrees with Schwarzenegger’s plan and says, “The first law of holes is very important. If you’re in one, stop digging.” Stopping digging is a good first step, but if you can’t pay the bills on essential services, most people would look for a way to increase revenue. The Chronicle also reports that CA’s credit rating is going from stable to “watch negative” at least according to one agency.

The LA Times’ Mark Paul suggests Californians want “Something for Nothing,” explaining that a large majority reject cuts in school and healthcare spending, while many also reject increases in taxation. (He isn’t as concrete about the 2nd figure). He also argues,

California gets more out of its public servants than almost any other state. Teachers in our secondary schools instruct the largest classes in the nation. Elementary school class size is above the national average. Only three states have a higher inmate-to-prison-guard ratio. In health, the second-largest budget category, California spends less per MediCal beneficiary than any other large state.

He also cites the U.S. Census who reports that, “Only two states have fewer state employees per 10,000 residents than California.” Mark Paul’s broad and deep review of the issues is scathing and direct. He ends by observing that, “Our tax system isn’t built for an economy that delivers most of its rewards to the very rich.”

In my eyes, there’s no reason why the country’s richest economy shouldn’t pass on its wealth to the children and make our state the top per-pupil spender in the nation. I’d like to see funding spread equally across districts and children, and taxes raised the point where each child has everything they could conceivably need to guarantee a seat at a University of California school. As far as my teacher’s salary, I don’t need a single penny more, I speak for the children. The children are clearly not represented as well as the governor’s wealthier business-world supporters who prefer the stick to the carrot, and would squeeze educators in the areas where the students are performing the lowest are most in need.

TAKE Action

If you live in California, Email or Call Your Assemblyperson via EdVoice

The California Budget Project has a detailed analyses of the proposed cuts in pdf format on their website.