Publisher's Column

I Got Mail From Meg Whitman, Did You?

By Vernon Billy - April 29, 2010

A few days ago I received a nice 8 ½x11 green envelope that prominently displayed an oversized return address of MEG 2010, Paid for Meg Whitman for Governor 2010.   I guess I was one of the lucky 500,000 Californians to receive a free copy of eMeg’s slick, green policy magazine, “Building A New California”.

As I began to thumb through the magazine, I couldn’t help but wonder if the green color of the envelope and magazine was a representation of the almost $60 million she’s contributed to her campaign.Back to the magazine.  Let’s see what new, innovative proposals eMeg –as she’s been affectionately dubbed by some in the media – has in store for the state’s education system, which she so proudly claims that she’ll “fix”.

In short, Meg’s proposals have an air of familiarity.  How unfortunate.  This seems to be a wasted opportunity to inject something new, innovative and positive into the culture of education in California. 

Let’s look at how eMeg would govern California by reviewing her education proposals outlined in her magazine.

eMeg says, “Direct more money to the classroom.  Only 60% of education spending in California actually reaches the classroom.”

Most rationale people support appropriating more money to our classrooms, unfortunately, eMeg wants to “direct” more money to classrooms, not “appropriate” new money for our schools.  This proposal seems to be a retread of previous proposals by elected officials and doesn’t focus repaying the $18 billion plus in funding that has been cut from schools over the last 2 years, nor does it consider how to adequately fund the academic needs of our students.

Instead of using her campaign as an opportunity to create a new way of thinking about education funding, she proposes to continue the bogus shell game that state government has been playing with education funding for the last few years by shifting money around, based on a questionable claim that only 60% of education spending reaches the classroom.

Does only “60% of education spending in California actually reach the classroom”?  Well, I guess it depends on what definitions you’re using for “spending” and how one would classify that spending.  Since we don’t know how eMeg is defining spending, or which funding she considers to be legitimate classroom spending, let’s turn to what we know. 

We do know that school districts spend anywhere from 80-90% of their revenue on employees, the majority of school district employees are teachers who provide direct instruction in classrooms. 1.   We also know that California has an administrator to teacher ratio ranging from 7-9 administrators per 100 teachers, which is designed to help prevent school district bureaucracy from growing out of control. 2.   And, we know that unlike any other time in California history, school district central offices have been cut to the bone over the last few years due to the state budget crisis.  In many school districts, employees are now doing their job as well as some of the work that use to be done by other (now former) employees.

In the end, it would have been more impressive if eMeg would have used her eBay prowess to develop a new, innovative vision for getting new money into our schools to rebuild important programs that have been eliminated, and suggested ways for generating new funding that can be used to build capacity of schools based on the “actual needs” of students.  But alas, this does not appear to be a part of the plan for “Building A New California”.

eMeg says, “Meg will… collapse the state’s more than 50 categorical grants…into simplified grants for special education, rewarding outstanding teachers and schools and other programs that contribute to greater student achievement…   the remaining funds will flow directly to local school districts in the form of a unified block grant….”

eMeg’s flexibility funding proposals also seem eerily similar to former Governor Gray Davis’s proposals to create block grant funding and seems to ignore the enactment of AB825 (Ch. 871 / Stats. of 2004) and the State’s recent enactment of tiered categorical flexibility. 

Under former Governor Gray Davis, the state already tried implementing block grants for rewarding outstanding teachers, arts and music and other “block grants” as proposed by eMeg.  And, as the education community always feared about block grants, when budget times got tough, these were the first category of funding to be eliminated because of their so-called flexibility.  This is not necessarily a bad idea, we’ve just been there, done that.

eMeg’s flexibility proposal to reduce the number of categorical programs is consistent with legislative action over the last several years to reduce the number of categorical programs.  But here again, she’s talking about moving money around, instead of calling for no more cuts to schools, repaying schools for the billions of dollars already cut, and the need to inject new money into schools.  eMeg could advocate all of the above and link these conversations to how we fund our schools moving forward, and talk about whether the resources we are providing schools are sufficient to achieve the outcomes we desire.

eMeg’s proposals seem to suggest that the candidate is trying to define the education discussion around containing education funding and providing schools with “flexibility.” All in an effort to avoid the conversation about the massive cuts made to education and putting the state on a path to provide schools with new funding in a manner that promotes better efficiency, accountability and addressing the needs of students who are most at risk. 3.  

eMeg says, “Meg will eliminate California’s cap on charter schools”.   

Eliminating the state’s charter school cap is far from an original idea and is essentially inconsequential.  For years, the State’s charter school cap has greatly exceeded the number of charter petitions ever developed and approved each year.  Education Code Section 47602 increases the maximum number of charter schools that may be approved in the State by 100 each year.  In the current year, this cap is approximately 1,400 with approximately 900 charter schools in existence.  It is inconceivable that this “cap” will ever be breached and is merely political pandering to charter school advocates.  Absent legislative action to convert a majority of California schools to charter schools, the State’s charter school cap is a cap in name only.

 Again, a lost opportunity to have an open, honest discussion about the merits of charter schools and how school districts could be embracing the charter school law to improve student achievement, and potentially, improve their operations.

eMeg says, “Meg will institute a system that grades our schools A-F, so parents can easily understand how well their children’s school is performing.”

Let’s look at the current alphabet soup for school progress that parents must decipher – Academic Performance Index (API), Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), School Accountability Report Cards (SARC), Deciles, and Program Improvement (PI).

Really…what does giving a school yet another label accomplish?

Lastly, towards the end of “Building A New California”, eMeg says, “If you have ideas on how we can move California forward, please contact our campaign.” 

Okay, I have some ideas. 

First, stop with the political platitudes.  Be courageous and innovative and push for reforms and proposals that the economic and social times necessitate. 

Second, funding flexibility does not negate the need for adequate school funding and a rebuilding of basic education funding.  Advocate for paying off the State’s education credit card.  Give local communities the authority to approve parcel taxes with a majority vote and end the funding shell game that currently is played in Sacramento.

Third, focus on closing the achievement gap for African American and Latino students.  If you believe charter schools are good, promote opportunities for regular public schools/districts to use elements of the charter school law to help these students and break the yoke of over regulation that may stifle school district operations and student achievement.

Fourth, advocate for policy reforms that will help cities and counties be stronger partners with schools.  Many of the problems facing our students are the result of non-school related factors such gangs, drugs and homelessness.

By positioning yourself in this way, you can retain your Republican “street cred” as these ideas support local control; elevate the lowest performing “students” so they don’t end up in a correctional facility or taxing the State’s social service programs.  This would help to reduce the State’s debt; and allow schools to be more competitive.

Next up….Steve Poizner’s and Jerry Brown’s education proposals.

Editor's Note:  Vernon M. Billy is president of Governmental Solutions Group, LLC (GSG) a Sacramento-based consulting and legislative advocacy firm. GSG serves public and private education organizations, non-profit organizations and private sector companies.