Exploring California’s education

Thursday, October 22, 1998

Exploring California’s education

PUBLIC: Be aware of your responsibility as a taxpayer to public
schools; help improve the system by voting on Nov. 3

Classes are in full swing, but you’re not the only one with
school on the brain. Education is rapidly becoming the most
explosive political issue in this country, and it is certainly the
most important topic the candidates face in California’s Nov. 3
election. A spate of ballot measures here ­ Propositions 187,
209 and 226 ­ have sought, on the surface, to improve what by
consensus is the abysmal state of our public schools. As disturbing
as their insidious racism may be, they suggest another dangerous
political trend ­ the desire for any excuse to fritter away
our commitment to public education itself.

Amid all the rhetoric about "getting big government off our
backs," it’s worth examining why the public sector is in the
education business to begin with.

Why should I have to pay for somebody else’s education?

Part of living in a democracy is that a portion of whatever you
earn goes to support the general good. That means that you have to
pay for schools your family doesn’t personally attend, just as you
have to pay for roads you don’t drive on, libraries you don’t read
in, parks you don’t walk in, and so forth.

It amazes me that people who are so quick to criticize the
government for funding things such as education will put their
unblinking faith in its wisdom at other times. For instance, about
3 cents of your federal tax dollar goes to educational spending, as
compared with 15 cents for interest payments on the national debt,
and 16 cents for the military. How often do we demand "results" or
"accountability" or "efficiency" in these sectors before forking
over our wages?

Doesn’t California already spend more on education than any
other state?

Yes. But divide this budget by a population that’s also the
highest in the nation, and you get a per-capita spending figure
that quickly drops close to the bottom of the list. I firmly
believe that there’s a direct correlation between the amount of
money you spend on a public service and the quality of that
service. But the prevailing attitude is that we can solve poor
performance by cutting funds, or simply shuffling them around.

Imagine these philosophies being voiced by Pentagon brass, and
they suddenly sound ludicrous. Another popular strategy is to focus
on setting "higher standards" ­ more testing, stricter
promotion requirements, etc. These diversionary tactics simply
raise the bar, gather predictably discouraging data and set up more
elaborate ways to punish failure, while withholding the raw
materials necessary for success.

So why are things so dismal?

Many people believe the downward spiral began with the passage
of Proposition 13, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year.
Proposition 13, styled as a "taxpayer revolt," capped property
taxes at 1 percent of a home’s value. It also dictated that the
value of a home could not be reassessed unless the home changed
hands, in which case the appreciation would be calculated at no
more than 2 percent per year.

In other words, a person who’s been living in the same house
since 1978 is still paying property taxes at 1978 rates.

More perverse still, Proposition 13 applied to business as well
as residential properties, insuring that wealthy corporations
­ which often stay in the same buildings for generations
­ would receive the lion’s share of the tax relief. (As it
stands now, businesses provide a slender 8percent of the total tax
base.)

This measure massively reduced tax revenues that normally would
have gone to public services. And which services shouldered most of
the burden? You guessed it ­ the schools.

We all can see the consequences. UCLA, for instance, has to hit
up big business for the funds it’s no longer getting from the
government. Of course, the private sector is likely to earmark
those funds for things that are good for the private sector
(contracts to make spiffy cosmetic repairs to the campus, or
computers that tap into the advertising potential of cyberspace) as
opposed to things that are good for education (scholarships,
faculty salaries, dormitories). So, construction rolls bravely on.
Meanwhile, registration fees have quintupled since the passage of
Proposition 13. Limited class availability is making the five-year
B.A. the norm. Enrollment caps, even for seminars, are creeping
toward 30 people.

Couldn’t a voucher system do better?

An idea that is gaining currency is that, instead of funneling
tax dollars directly to the schools, we should give each family a
coupon to redeem at the school of their choice ­ public,
private or parochial.

Great: imagine telling a family with a combined income of
$32,000 a year, "Here’s $2,000 (the figure recently suggested by
Congressional Republicans) ­ go send your kid to Marlborough"
(annual tuition: $14,600)! Voucher programs would basically be a
nice little refund for those who could already afford private
tuition.

Families who couldn’t would have to turn back to the public
schools, whose funding by that time would have been gutted by the
voucher program itself.

Reaping public funds is fine, say school-choicers, as long as
those funds go to private individuals instead of the public.

What can I do?

Vote, vote, vote. Use those voter guides that show up in your
mailbox (the booklets prepared by the Secretary of State, not the
glossy advertisements) for something other than birdcage lining.
You can also check "http://Vote98.ss.ca.gov".

The educational crisis is a systemic one that can be attacked at
the federal, state and local level. Don’t think the decisions are
made outside your reach. For instance, if you cast a vote for
President in 1996, you made one very real choice about the future
of education in America: Bob Dole promised to abolish the
Department of Education. The California election this Nov. 3,
notwithstanding its minimal media coverage, is an historic
opportunity. Gubernatorial candidate Gray Davis is against school
vouchers, while his opponent Dan Lungren is pushing for them; in
the senate race, Barbara Boxer is against while Matt Fong is
for.

There’s a bond issue on the L.A. ballot ­ Proposition 1A
­ that would allocate $9.2 billion to renovate and relieve
overcrowding in schools at the K-12 and college levels, all at zero
additional cost to taxpayers.

Efforts are also underway to get a proposition on the ballot by
the year 2000 that would counteract Proposition 13.

Further educational reform is undoubtedly in the cards for our
ballot-initiative-happy state. Keep an eye on the news, but be
leery of sexy "Band-aid" programs that do things such as force
class-size reductions and wire classrooms to the Internet without
providing nuts-and-bolts resources like buildings, books and
teachers. Watch this space.

Adam Komisaruk

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]