Schools won't go unscathed in proposed budget

By Jack O'Connell

State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Posted on Mon, Jan. 26, 2004

San Jose Mercury News

Even before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's January budget proposal was released, much was said and written about how, in this tremendously difficult budget climate, schools alone would be spared significant pain. The governor, after all, promised in his campaign to protect Proposition 98, the voter-approved constitutional guarantee of stable, minimum funding for our schools and community colleges.

What was missing from the discussion was an acknowledgment that education is indeed taking a real cut, and those of us who support the proposal believe very strongly that our schools are doing more than their fair share. As the debate continues, let us be clear the cut proposed is the absolute maximum we will countenance for 2004-05.

This proposal will cost our classrooms $2 billion in the budget year beginning July 1, and could be billions more over the next several years until the economy recovers. The independent Legislative Analyst forecasts that Proposition 98 will not likely be back on track by 2007-08. Those billions lost in the interim will never be paid back to the schools. By agreeing to these cuts, education organizations made a real sacrifice on the part of schools to help get our state's fiscal house in order. But as a result, our schools will get less than voters said they should be entitled to. The agreement leaves schools with just enough to maintain the status quo by covering additional costs of increased student enrollment, plus a cost-of-living, or inflation, adjustment of 1.8 percent.

The Schwarzenegger administration has also said that the budget proposed will result in a $216 per pupil increase in school spending. But a careful look at the figures released by the governor's Department of Finance reveals that just $5 of that $216 is state general fund money that will actually go to classrooms under Proposition 98. Another $105 per pupil will go to increased payments for debt service on previous borrowing, $91 from deferred retirement payments, and $16 of the increase comes from other sources such as increases in grants from the federal government.

As Californians, we spend just 3 percent of our personal incomes on K-12 education, which ranks us 40th in the United States. According to an Education Week survey released last week, California is seventh from the bottom of all states in per-pupil funding. This is a shame, considering that during the dot-com boom, California was finally moving toward the middle of states in school funding. And importantly, the money wasn't just spent blindly. It was tied to strict accountability standards. In fact, test scores increased five years in a row, new schools were built and we began to see a narrowing of the achievement gap that has robbed so many of our poor and minority children of a chance for better futures.

Proposition 98 was approved by voters to protect schools from the very sort of rags-to-riches swings in the state economy we are experiencing now. In amending the Constitution to put schools at the top of California's spending priorities, voters approved a formula aimed at restoring our schools to excellence. It specifically calls for a healthy minimum ``floor level'' of funding even in tough times.

The $2 billion forgone will still force many school districts to choose between valuable programs and personnel. Several of us in the education community signed on to this proposal because in a budget year as difficult as 2004-05, this may be as good as it gets. If parents, teachers, principals and communities work together to stay the course with the high standards-reforms begun with such promise, I believe our schools can continue to improve. But we should not count them lucky -- not by a long shot.

JACK O'CONNELL is state superintendent of public instruction. He wrote this for the Mercury News.

Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: Janaury 29, 2004

Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.