A study by an independent institute gives low grades to public schools; study’s author says that nonaccountability contributes to a broken system. Local educators and assembly member say underfunding is the problem.
By Melonie Magruder / Special to The Malibu Times
The Pacific Research Institute, a think tank in San Francisco that promotes free market business and social practices, recently released its 2007 study: “California Education Report Card: Index of Leading Education Indicators,” which does not cast a good light on California’s school system.
The report evaluates and grades several aspects of California’s public school system, including standards, graduation rates and the accountability system, and the results seem to indicate a broken system mired in bureaucracy, unaccountability and misapplied financial priorities.
Seven major categories that were graded were summarized. The State Accountability System: F-Low performing schools will take decades to raise achievement and are not subject to any accountability; California Standards Test: F-Only about four in 10 students scored at or above proficiency levels in English and math; Finance System: F-Funding per pupil has risen over the last decade but tax dollars are being wasted in programs that have not shown success; Dropout and Graduation Rates: D— Three in 10 students who enter 9th grade fail to graduate four years later. Worse for minority students; Course Difficulty: D-Fewer students are taking math and science courses or college preparatory classes compared to the national average; English Language Learners: D+-ESL students are not being reclassified as fluent in English, even after 10 years in the system; Standards: A-The one bright aspect of academic content standards is nullified because “standards have been inconsistently implemented in the classroom.”
Lance T. Izumi, PRI’s director of education services and co-author of the study, said “Our standards are good. But, basically, the measures we use to hold schools accountable in California are inadequate.”
Julia Brownley, newly elected Assembly representative for the 41st District, responded to the study: “I’m not surprised. These dismal results are because we are not making the necessary investments to make sure our students meet the high standards we have set.”
Brownley said California “may have problems other states don’t face,” such as a high population of non-English speaking students, “but even with controls for those statistics, we are low in achievement.”
Next week, the Legislature will be receiving a study commissioned by Gov. Schwarzenegger assessing California public education and Brownley said it would address the funding shortfall.
“Unfortunately, we don’t have the votes in the Legislature right now to increase education funding,” she said.
Izumi disputed the claim of under-funded California schools.
“Since 1996, the federal, state and local spending per pupil has gone up 27 percent in real dollars,” he said. “At about $11,270 per pupil, California is right in the middle of the national average of per-state, per-pupil spending.”
Even so, Izumi continued, “The question is not how much money we’re spending, but how we are spending it.”
He said he feels that part of this problem is that teacher-training programs have changed to emphasize “constructivist” teaching methods, where “the students shape their studies, rather than following a teacher-created curriculum. It’s part of the non-accountability.”
“People argue with the No Child Left Behind Act, saying that it makes teachers ‘teach to the test,’ rather than teach a subject,” Izumi said. “They just don’t want to teach to the standard.”
As proof, he cited a study on freshmen entering the California State University system.
“At Cal State Los Angeles, 65 percent of students require remedial training in math and 76 percent require it in English. Yet they graduated high school with a 3.2 GPA.”
Phil Cott, principal at Webster Elementary School, took issue with PRI’s report. “It saddens me to see suggestions that educators are not doing their job. Most teachers, principals and staff I know go above and beyond the call of duty,” he said.
“They perform in amazingly difficult circumstances that some people don’t want to acknowledge because it means you must recognize that our schools are under-funded,” Cott continued. “To suggest that class-size reduction programs have had no effect? I would hate to think that this report could be used to advance an agenda that doesn’t support full funding of public education.”
Several educational and financial reports, including one in the journal Education Week and a study by the Rand Corporation, yielded data that supported Brownley’s claim that, although California has the highest number of school age children in the nation, it ranks only 44th out of 50 in per-pupil spending.
Linda Gross is chief fund-raiser for the nonprofit Santa Monica-Malibu Education Foundation and founder of the Community for Excellent Public Schools. While she agreed that public schooling needs better accountability, she said that inadequate funding prevents many districts from employing the oversight it needs, as well as giving teachers on-going training.
“Federal and state funds give us about $5,500 per pupil,” Gross said. “Here in the SMMUSD, we up that to around $6,000 thanks to private donors and creative business partnerships within the community. Private support of public education is great, but it is a Band-Aid. The fact is, if we want quality education for our kids, we must be willing to pay for it.”
To Izumi, inadequate student proficiency is due to poor allocation of the funds that exist.
“Take a look at charter schools,” he said. “Frequently, they have less funding but higher performing students, even with students who come from poorer backgrounds. They put money into teachers and into enforcing standards. It’s not about class size.”
Voters enacted Proposition 98 in 1988, designed to guarantee funding levels for grades K-14, based on complicated formulas of growth in attendance and the economy. But, according to local educators, it is still inadequate to meet public school needs.
The PRI study can be viewed online at http://pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/2007/Report_Card/Report_Card_07.pdf