Financing California: K-12 Education - Free Educational videos for Students in K-12 | Lumos Learning

Financing California: K-12 Education - Free Educational videos for Students in k-12


Financing California: K-12 Education - By Lumos Learning



Transcript
00:01 this program is a presentation of U . C T
00:04 V . For educational and non commercial use only .
00:25 Yeah , yeah . Okay , here we are at
00:36 the end , the last panel , but near and
00:41 dear to many of our hearts , that's the K
00:44 to 12 education panel . And I'm very pleased to
00:48 introduce the moderator of the last panel , Um ,
00:52 Dr Meyer , a gun who many of you know
00:56 from her voice , probably from her person to ,
00:59 but also mainly her voice . She's the host of
01:02 the radio programs Tech Nation . And also , I
01:04 think biotech Nation on KQED , which is a weekly
01:07 program focusing on the impact of technology , science ,
01:11 media and the Internet . And Dr Gun is a
01:15 mechanical engineer by training and worked at many of the
01:18 most innovative organizations , like nasa . Um , Rolls
01:24 Royce . That was a kind of an interesting one
01:26 , uh , in the , uh , in the
01:29 nation and in the world . And I think as
01:32 I understand it , that's part of her interest in
01:35 K to 12 education . Because if you can't maintain
01:38 innovative organizations like that without , uh , smart kids
01:43 coming out . So we I recently heard her moderate
01:47 a panel at the Commonwealth Club who's one of our
01:49 , uh , co sponsors here . And she did
01:52 a remarkable job . And the most important thing ,
01:55 though , is that she promised to uplift us in
01:59 this final session and keep us , uh , give
02:03 us some energy because it's the end of the afternoon
02:05 , and we've heard a lot of gloom and doom
02:08 for the last three panels . So now , anyway
02:10 , she's at least gonna keep us going . So
02:12 thank you , Dr John . Well , I'm really
02:16 glad to be here , and I do also have
02:19 an interest in education . I'm a professor over in
02:22 the business school at the University of San Francisco ,
02:25 which is Jesuit institution . And , of course ,
02:28 the Jesuits have ethics in every course , even ethics
02:30 as ethics . So if you say ethics , I'll
02:32 show up . You know , that's the way it
02:34 is . And I'm the managing director of the new
02:38 biotechnology programs we have in the business school , which
02:41 combine for the first time . Uh , not just
02:44 science and information technology and business and legal and and
02:49 ethics and , uh , everything else under the sun
02:53 and social responsibility . And you can't talk about one
02:56 without the other . And so all of this is
02:58 really interesting to me , Um , in in terms
03:01 of you've got to get there through education , and
03:03 we're really pressed about that first thing . I would
03:05 like to say this . I'm really delighted that the
03:07 last session went over because I was going to protest
03:11 vehemently that we were the longest session at the end
03:15 of the day . Thank you very much . Who
03:17 was doing that ? I'd like to know , but
03:19 now we , you know in the end will be
03:20 all right . The next guarantee I have for you
03:23 is that we will end at 4 . 45 .
03:25 And that 4 . 46 you will have a glass
03:28 of wine . That's another guarantee . And , uh
03:31 And so just to tell you it's a little bit
03:33 like everybody else is we're not having any slides .
03:35 People are speaking individually . Then we'll have a little
03:38 con fab among ourselves in front of you and questions
03:42 to the audience . But at the very end ,
03:44 we're going to ask each of our Panelists to give
03:47 their final word . So we have a final perspective
03:50 from each of them , and that's what we're looking
03:52 at . Um , first of all , I'd like
03:54 to start out for his initial thoughts with Norton Grub
03:57 . He's a professor , uh , in the School
04:00 of Education here at U C . Berkeley . Um
04:03 , he's interests include the effects of resources in schools
04:07 certainly . Uh uh , important right now . And
04:11 his teaching includes the economics of education . So there's
04:14 no doubt we're looking forward to what he has to
04:17 say . So , Professor , grab , thank you
04:25 very much . I am indeed Norton Grub . I'm
04:27 part of the School of Education . But I'm also
04:30 part I'm also the faculty coordinator for something called the
04:33 Principal Leadership Institute , which is a program . We
04:36 think it's an innovative program , uh , to prepare
04:39 urban principles for the Bay Area . And some of
04:41 what I'm gonna say is going to come from that
04:43 . Can I get rid of this ? We're going
04:45 to have a low tech presentation , and you're gonna
04:48 use your listening skills to divine what I have to
04:52 say . So someone I believe it was someone in
04:55 the room and congratulated me with being part of K
04:58 12 education because K 12 education has supposedly been level
05:03 funded in Governor Brown's new budget . Um , that's
05:06 not my understanding at all . The budget has a
05:10 $2 billion deferral of prop . 98 money so that
05:15 money is going to get deferred from 2000 11 12
05:19 2 , 2012 13 . And who the hell knows
05:22 what's going to happen with it after that ? Um
05:24 , education is not like building roads . You can't
05:27 wait a year and then just restart it because the
05:30 kids are going to come in August . So that
05:32 looks like a cut to me . And we're going
05:35 to do away with another billion dollars or so ,
05:37 of course , of living adjustments . So it looks
05:39 to me like we have a $3 billion cut in
05:41 K 12 education , even though everybody has said ,
05:44 Oh , education K 12 education is not being cut
05:47 . Uh , so , you know , I think
05:49 that we're in for cuts all around , and we
05:51 could do a little bit about who gets the bigger
05:53 cuts , but I don't really think it's worth doing
05:55 that . I think that , um , the cuts
05:58 are severe , uh , in any event . But
06:01 this real story about K 12 education is not particularly
06:04 this year's cuts . Its 30 years of cuts ,
06:07 um , starting with Prop . 98 Prop . 13
06:10 back in 1978 where we slowly drifted from fourth or
06:16 fifth in the country and spending per capita down to
06:19 , um , something like 46 per capita . And
06:22 over that period of time , if you take a
06:24 look at our nape , scores the scores on the
06:26 National Assessment of Educational Progress . They also drifted from
06:30 down from the top four or five states to the
06:33 bottom two or three states . So , as John
06:35 Merrow put it in a little in a little PBS
06:39 program that was entitled First to worst , California has
06:44 really nosedived in in the both the support for and
06:48 the quality of its education system . So the issue
06:51 is , as many of the speakers at this conference
06:53 have said , a long run problem that we need
06:56 to get out of . It's really been a problem
06:59 in K 12 education , 30 years in the making
07:01 , and it may take us 30 years to get
07:03 out of it . So I'm going to focus on
07:05 three issues that I think are necessary for the long
07:08 run . One is enhancing revenues . Second is distributing
07:12 that revenue in different ways , and the third is
07:15 making sure that that revenue is spent effectively Revenue enhancement
07:19 ? Well , we haven't heard very much about tax
07:22 issues . So I'm gonna wait in and make the
07:25 bold statement that what we really need to do is
07:28 to have a firm tax base in this state .
07:31 Uh , and , um , And until we do
07:35 , K 12 education will always be at risk .
07:38 Because , of course , it is now the highest
07:39 , uh , the single highest , uh , source
07:44 of funding in California About 43% . Um , uh
07:49 , So how can we do that ? Well ,
07:51 the first thing we have to do is to moderate
07:53 or eliminate prop 13 . Um , that would have
07:56 to be done slowly and carefully over five or 10
07:59 years so that people don't have a steep bump in
08:02 their , uh , in their tax bills . That
08:04 wouldn't be great . And similarly or or in addition
08:08 , um , there are these devices called circuit breakers
08:11 which prevent property taxes from getting too high for the
08:15 elderly or for low income people . They're very simple
08:19 to conceptualize . They're not hard to put into place
08:21 . Uh , so we could do a job of
08:24 restoring or or restoring the property tax , getting cutting
08:28 back on Prop . 13 , and that would give
08:30 schools the funding base that they needed the local level
08:33 to actually determine their own futures . I was pretty
08:37 amused when Warren Buffett , the sage of Omaha ,
08:42 came into the state to advise the Republicans on what
08:44 to do about taxes , and the first thing he
08:47 said was , Well , obviously you have to get
08:50 rid of Prop . 13 and he was promptly written
08:53 out of the state on a rail or the next
08:57 plane , whatever it might be , because he ,
09:00 of course , had touched the third rail of California
09:02 politics . But until we start talking about that ,
09:04 I don't see that we're going to get out from
09:06 under the revenue problems we've been in for such a
09:10 long period of time . Then we need to look
09:12 at increasing other taxes , not as Governor Brown has
09:15 it , by either maintaining or increasing rates , but
09:18 by broadening base is broadening the base for the sales
09:22 tax and broadening the base of the personal income tax
09:25 that does a couple things . One . It makes
09:26 the taxes , um , fairer . It makes them
09:30 less regressive . Second , it makes them more efficient
09:34 or non distorting , Um , not to have higher
09:37 tax rates , and I think it also makes the
09:40 tax structure less volatile . One of the problems in
09:43 the state is that we've had a very volatile tax
09:45 structure which goes way up and boom times and way
09:48 down in in , um in recessions , and that's
09:51 not good for rational planning . So if we could
09:55 broaden the basis of these taxes , that would be
09:57 great . And then the third point I want to
09:59 make , um , is to reverse the decline in
10:02 corporate taxes . Um , I don't if we think
10:05 of our tax structures and ability to pay structure ,
10:08 which we sometimes like to do . The corporations and
10:10 the state benefit from public education . They've been among
10:14 the first to insist that they need a well educated
10:17 workforce . Uh , and they ought to be paying
10:19 their fair share for reasons I'm not clear about ,
10:21 they're not doing that . So we have . We
10:23 have several different ways to go in terms of restoring
10:26 a tax base . Now , you know , some
10:29 of you remember fondly Alexander Haig , who was secretary
10:33 of Defense , Uh , and his comment at one
10:38 point . I may be dumb , but I'm not
10:39 stupid . Well , um , I may be done
10:42 , but I'm not stupid . I do realize that
10:44 the political acceptability of these revenue raising measures is really
10:49 quite low . However , um , you know ,
10:52 you can't both claim that you want a better education
10:56 system , a better schooling system and say you don't
10:59 want to raise taxes or restore a revenue base .
11:02 You've got to take your pick . So I think
11:04 we need to start talking about sensible ways in which
11:07 we can restore the tax structure , the tax base
11:10 for education in the country . A second thing I
11:13 want to talk about , but just briefly because this
11:15 is the kind of stuff that puts people to sleep
11:17 , is revising the state's financing formulas . Everybody agrees
11:21 that the finance formulas in K 12 education are impossible
11:25 to understand . Uh , they're incredibly confusing . They
11:28 are an overlay of little changes and little improvements and
11:32 deep movements over the years . Um , and so
11:35 we really need to do something about the complexity of
11:39 the state's school finance formulas . Now there have been
11:43 two big commissions doing a lot of research on this
11:47 in the past decade . One was the Master Plan
11:50 Commission of 2000 and 123 which some people in the
11:54 room sat on , including me and which came out
11:57 with what I thought was a splendid school finance structure
12:00 . Uh , unfortunately , that reported at the end
12:04 of 2000 and three . And I believe , uh
12:08 , the disastrous election in which we had 220 candidates
12:12 occurred in March just after the report . So the
12:16 report was dead on arrival , as they say .
12:18 And then there was another set of research called getting
12:23 down to Facts , coordinated by Stanford University and then
12:26 several summaries of that as if summaries would somehow say
12:30 something new and different . So this is an area
12:33 where , unlike most areas , that academics like to
12:35 talk about , no more research is needed . We've
12:38 done plenty of research . We need to get to
12:41 some actions . Um , so three or four different
12:44 actions we need to think about one is the state
12:47 has a tremendous number of categorical grants grants for very
12:52 specific kinds of spending and that this hampers the ability
12:56 of districts and schools to spend money as they will
12:59 in ways that are consistent with their perceptions of their
13:01 needs . Uh , and their students . We started
13:05 in 2009 to reduce the number of categorical funds ,
13:09 but there's a long way to go and almost everybody
13:11 agrees . I think that categorical categorical need to be
13:16 cut . A second issue is that local districts need
13:19 to be given their own revenue base . One of
13:22 the terrible things that happened in the wake of Prop
13:24 13 was that districts lost the revenue base that they
13:29 had to actually think about . How much money should
13:32 we spend of the citizens money ? What should we
13:34 spend it for ? How can we spend it wisely
13:37 ? As the fraction of revenue declined , Power went
13:41 to Sacramento following , of course , the golden rule
13:45 . He who has the gold makes the rules .
13:47 Now , you know , if , uh , let
13:50 me see , uh , the sponsorship of this ,
13:53 uh , of this conference is not responsible for the
13:55 next statement . If you were in a state with
13:58 a terrific , uh , education establishment in the state
14:04 capital , that would be a great thing to do
14:07 . But between term limits for legislatures and problems in
14:13 the California Department of Education , due in part ,
14:16 as far as I can figure out to civil service
14:18 requirements , we don't have a lot of people in
14:20 Sacramento who have a lot of knowledge or a lot
14:22 of history or a lot of understanding about what really
14:25 happens in schools . So sending power to Sacramento has
14:29 not been a great thing . Uh , and we
14:31 need to , uh , sort of claw it back
14:33 to the local level , uh , to the district
14:35 and school level , as far as I can figure
14:37 out where , um Where , Uh , where ?
14:41 Um uh decisions can be made much closer to the
14:45 locus of of students . Um , in the Master
14:50 Plan Commission , we first considered a supplement of the
14:53 state income as as a way of restoring a local
14:56 tax base that didn't really work very well , so
14:59 we recommended greater use of parcel taxes . There's no
15:02 great resolution , although I'm going to point out one
15:05 more time that if we lifted the Prop 13 limits
15:08 that would restore a base for local districts to have
15:11 a third kind of issue is that state funding needs
15:15 always to be equalized for differences in tax bases among
15:18 jurisdictions . But there's another idea that's cropped up that
15:22 has a lot of promise , and that is to
15:24 use weighted students as a way of handing out money
15:27 where the weights are greater than one for certain kinds
15:30 of students who you think have greater needs . Low
15:33 income students limited , uh , English language learners ,
15:37 special ed students . But you can toss in other
15:40 kinds of things . You know , you may want
15:41 to have another wait for gifted students or for high
15:46 school students relative to elementary school students . You can
15:49 wait things as you will , but but the point
15:52 is that again , achieving equity in many different ways
15:56 can be done by revising some of these formulas .
15:59 And then my own favorite , which is not really
16:02 popular , is having adjustments for the cost of education
16:05 differences across districts . Because , of course , the
16:08 cost differences , uh particularly for for personnel , are
16:12 very , very different in urban districts than they are
16:14 in in rural districts . So there's all kinds of
16:16 ways . There's all kinds of policies on the table
16:19 that people have been articulating for quite a while about
16:22 improving the state's funding formula . Uh , and ,
16:26 um , I think it's time to take a consensus
16:29 and and run with it . The third thing I
16:32 wanted to talk about is making money matter . Most
16:35 educators and most reformers in California and everywhere else believe
16:41 in something I call the money myth . Oh ,
16:43 this is the point where I get to sell my
16:45 book . The money myth ? Uh , yeah .
16:49 I didn't come to talk . I came to sell
16:50 books . Um , And what the money myth really
16:53 runs back to the early years of the 20th century
16:56 . Um uh , l would cover Lee who is
16:59 , you know , known to Some of us who
17:00 love the history of school finance said the question of
17:04 sufficient revenue lies back of every other educational problem .
17:07 And he said that in 19 , oh , five
17:09 . But the fact of the matter is that neither
17:11 in the US nor in the U . K .
17:13 Is there a very good relationship between spending money and
17:16 student outcomes for reasons I can go into more detail
17:19 than you probably want to hear about . But it's
17:22 basically that money is necessary for some resources in schools
17:25 . But a lot of those a lot of that
17:27 money gets wasted or spent on resources that actually have
17:30 negative effect . So if money goes for positive ,
17:33 neutral and negative effects on outcomes , you have something
17:38 like a zero average . Um , so , uh
17:42 , we need money may be necessary , but we
17:45 need to worry about what , sufficient to make it
17:49 , uh , to make it effective . One of
17:52 the things I want to point out is that we
17:54 ought to shift from focusing on dollars revenues and expenditures
17:58 to focusing on resources of different sorts teachers that can
18:02 educate kids , leaders who have some sort of vision
18:05 and , uh , will for instructional improvement . Um
18:09 , something like a school's climate is a resource that
18:12 you can show makes a great deal of difference both
18:15 to kids , test scores and to their progress through
18:19 the high school . Stability is a resource , and
18:22 it fiendishly difficult to get stability of students of teachers
18:27 , of superintendents of principles in urban districts in particular
18:31 . So we need to worry not about money but
18:34 about resources . Some of those resources need to be
18:37 bought , for example , higher salaries for teachers ,
18:41 because that gives a district bigger pool of teachers from
18:44 which to choose , and it reduces turnover among teachers
18:48 and teachers who are stable . Lee in a district
18:51 , uh , turn out again in the wonderful statistical
18:55 methods in the money myths . By one today ,
18:57 uh , stable teachers really do enhance learning , but
19:02 there's other kinds of resources . One good example .
19:06 Our compound resources and a good example is the failure
19:09 of class size reduction in the state of California .
19:12 We reduced class sizes , but we forgot to provide
19:15 adequate facilities . So kids were taking classes in broom
19:18 closets . We forgot to keep the level of teachers
19:21 up because a lot of districts ended up buying ,
19:26 uh , emergency credential teachers . And most of all
19:29 , we forgot to give teachers training so that they
19:33 would teach in small classes in different ways . If
19:35 you teach the same way in a small class ,
19:38 you're not gonna have anything different go on than if
19:40 you have a large class . Uh , and then
19:42 we have other kinds of resources that I call complex
19:45 and abstract like stability . Uh , like , um
19:49 , pedagogical , uh , facility of teachers , like
19:52 the leadership of principals and assistant principals and the like
19:56 . So there's lots of different ways in which we
19:59 can think differently about resources in school and their connections
20:02 to money . Because some resources cannot be bought ,
20:05 uh , some can be bought , but some cannot
20:07 be bought but have to be constructed by leaders and
20:11 teachers and school communities working together . So what might
20:15 help schools and districts make money matter ? I'm just
20:18 gonna riff a series of possible policies . One is
20:22 returning decision making to the school level , Uh ,
20:25 where , uh , where school people can see what
20:28 the issues are and what the problems are . Some
20:31 districts in the state have instituted school site budgeting ,
20:34 and that's been a good way to do that .
20:36 A second is to improve the ability of school leaders
20:39 and teacher leaders to think about resources . When you
20:42 look at most principles , programs , they don't actually
20:45 include very much about resources , or when they do
20:48 , they treat it as an accounting problem . You
20:50 know what the budget numbers are and they need to
20:52 know , I think , be able to think about
20:55 resources in much more flexible ways . A third way
20:58 would be to institute something I call waste on it
21:00 over time . Okay , uh , waste audits in
21:05 which you examine how you're spending money and what of
21:08 that is getting wasted ? This turns out to be
21:10 a very simple , straightforward exercise that identifies lots of
21:14 waste . 1/4 would be to engage in resource audits
21:17 , not fiscal audits . Resource audits to see of
21:20 a number of effective resources are in place . Another
21:24 one would be to develop sources of information at the
21:27 state level about what's effective , because if you go
21:30 down the path that I'm outlining , teachers and teacher
21:33 leaders and leaders in schools need to be aware of
21:36 what's effective and what's not . And now they don't
21:39 have any such thing available to them . And finally
21:43 , a different approach to reforming schools . We spent
21:46 a lot of time engaged in what I call program
21:49 itis , investing in little programs like after school programs
21:53 , a better math curriculum , a little Saturday class
21:57 , Um , you know , little discrete programs that
21:59 we think are going to be particularly effective . These
22:03 are almost never absorbed into the core of the school
22:07 . What we should be thinking of instead of little
22:09 programs , little self sufficient programs is enhancing the capacity
22:14 of the personnel in schools , whether their teachers or
22:17 principals or counselors or any other kind of personnel .
22:20 And that would really create the ability to have schools
22:22 that are , in fact , effective in using money
22:25 . Well , thank you . Okay . Okay .
22:31 Well , I just I think I just figured out
22:33 why Warren Buffett is worth so much money . He
22:35 comes from a town where a really great house cost
22:38 $150,000 . So he's got a lot left over .
22:42 So I'm not . I'm sorry . I would challenge
22:45 everybody to not just go to the same old sources
22:48 of revenue that we've seen before . I know .
22:51 I was described recently a school district where they left
22:54 the computers on all night and they were using that
22:57 with a local university to do grid computing on their
23:00 science . And they ended up with a with a
23:02 six figure income just by leaving their computers on all
23:06 night . And we look some creative revenue generation ,
23:09 I'll be a lot more happy as an engineer than
23:12 , um , Then I will . Or I can
23:14 move to Omaha , Nebraska , which is a great
23:17 place to live . So , uh , at any
23:19 rate were so we would like some some really new
23:21 things here . Now our next speaker is Gary Hart
23:24 . He's a former state senator , 20 years as
23:28 a state legislator , so he knows his way around
23:30 Sacramento , also former California secretary for education . While
23:35 legislator uh , he authored major legislations , numerous ,
23:39 which included in education , including school finance . So
23:43 he's got a very long term view here . So
23:46 , uh , Senator Hart , thank you . And
23:51 thank all of you for hanging in when I noticed
23:54 that we're going to be the last panel on an
23:57 all day Friday session , I figured the audience would
23:59 be declined by . The nutrition rate would be more
24:01 than 50% . So you guys have hung in well
24:04 , and I'm going to do my best to be
24:07 concise and not overdo my time . Uh , I
24:12 just wanted to first build on a couple of points
24:14 that Norton made reference to , uh , one in
24:17 terms of K 12 education and its funding , and
24:21 he highlighted that . But let me just put it
24:23 a little bit differently . California today ranks $2500 less
24:30 per child in the national than the national average of
24:33 educational expanding . Its really quite substantial . That translates
24:37 into about 70 $75,000 per per classroom . So ,
24:42 uh , even though there's less harm to the K
24:45 12 brown budget , uh , don't think that K
24:49 12 education isn't hurting , and no one's made reference
24:51 yet to , uh , you know , a couple
24:53 of factors that really make education particularly challenging here in
24:57 California . One is that a quarter of our students
24:59 are English learners , much more than twice the national
25:03 average and These are Children that require special resources special
25:07 attention , Um , also and stand actually made reference
25:10 to this and his presentation on health care . We
25:13 have a higher , impoverished population than do other states
25:17 . And and poor Children , um , require more
25:21 resources as well . So in addition to not having
25:24 as many resources as other states , we have these
25:27 . We have these special challenges . Um , we
25:30 have something called Proposition 98 . References have been made
25:33 to it somewhat longer only by some of our friends
25:36 in higher education that K 12 education has protection ,
25:39 but higher education does not . It's not much in
25:42 the way of protection if you look over the last
25:45 20 years , and I think there's a growing sense
25:47 among people in Sacramento who are proponents of K 12
25:50 education . That's a Proposition 98 has not been a
25:54 good bargain for , um , elementary and secondary education
25:58 in California , largely because the initiative is very much
26:02 closely linked , particularly in some of the follow up
26:04 measures to the passage of Proposition 98 . It's linked
26:07 to the state of the economy , and when we
26:09 have recession , uh , K 12 education suffers along
26:13 with everyone else and Unlike other states that have a
26:16 strong , stable property tax base , we really lose
26:20 ground in these recessionary , Um , in these recessionary
26:23 times , um , I wanted to also touch on
26:31 the revenue side because Norton made reference to it .
26:34 And he's correct that there wasn't too much else that
26:36 said about it , Uh , just a couple of
26:38 points to sort of , if not disagree , but
26:41 maybe flush out a little bit . Some of his
26:43 ideas , um first is the parcel tax . We
26:47 have a mechanism now by which , uh , communities
26:51 can increase their funding for K 12 education by a
26:55 two thirds vote for a parcel tax as opposed to
26:59 an ad valorem tax . Um , there are significant
27:02 proposals that have been around for some time to reduce
27:05 that two thirds vote to a 55% or to a
27:09 simple majority vote . A recent P P . I
27:12 C poll indicates that there is public support for that
27:15 . More than 50 . I think it's about 53%
27:18 support a reduction in that parcel tax . Um ,
27:22 and I think that's something that really ought to be
27:24 at the top of our agenda in Sacramento in terms
27:27 of of revenue enhancement there are problems with parcel taxes
27:32 . Organizations like the C T A . Feel that
27:35 if you have a parcel tax , there'll be less
27:36 pressure to support public education . Maybe at the state
27:40 level , there are Serrano implications with partial taxes if
27:43 they really take off . But it seems to me
27:45 , in terms of better alignment , to Norton was
27:47 making reference to and trying to get more money into
27:49 the system . A parcel tax makes a lot of
27:53 sense That reduced vote another area and also made reference
27:58 to this was revisions in Proposition 13 . I'm not
28:01 as bold as he is if I heard him correctly
28:04 of basically changing the residential , um , portions of
28:09 Proposition 13 . I don't think that's uh , even
28:12 with circuit breakers is going to go anywhere . But
28:15 I do think the split role , which has been
28:18 talked about a lot , is something that deserves deserves
28:22 attention again . The public policy poll indicates that if
28:27 you ask people in California , are you willing to
28:29 have increased taxes for um , for education for K
28:33 12 education , People say yes , but the tax
28:38 that they the only tax that they're willing to support
28:41 is the business tax , not the sales tax ,
28:43 not the income tax but a business tax . It's
28:45 not flushed out any more than that . You could
28:48 increase the state's corporation taxes , uh , by 50%
28:52 . It wouldn't generate that much money . But if
28:55 you were to re impose a property tax , a
28:58 higher property tax for commercial properties in California , that
29:02 could be a significant revenue enhancement for education . And
29:06 I think that that's something that's , uh , you
29:09 know , politically doable . One other area that I
29:11 wanted to make reference to , particularly in response to
29:14 what was said earlier today from our corrections folks ,
29:18 um , that we there's really not much that we
29:20 can do in the correction side . And I guess
29:23 I take some exception to that . And what always
29:26 sort of sticks in my craw Is that the average
29:30 salary for a prison guard who basically is doing custodial
29:34 work ? It's important . It's not work that I
29:37 would want to do , but it's basically babysitting custodial
29:39 work . Um , for someone who engages in that
29:43 kind of work , they have to have a high
29:44 school diploma . They engage in two or three months
29:47 as I understand it , of training to be a
29:50 prison guard and after five years of service , the
29:54 average pay with furloughs and what is in place today
29:58 is in excess of $70,000 . In California . Take
30:01 a classroom teacher in California with five years of service
30:04 and five years of college education . Their average pay
30:08 is less than $50,000 a year . I think that
30:11 those kinds of comparisons we need to be talking more
30:14 about when we're talking about prison costs . It's not
30:17 something that we're going to be able to address tomorrow
30:20 , but in terms of long term , um ,
30:23 changes in structural benefits in terms of what our priorities
30:26 are , it seems to be a direction we we
30:28 ought to be taking a look at . Reference was
30:30 also made an important reference to sentencing here in California
30:34 , Um , and someone said that a sentencing commission
30:37 , if I heard them are changing our sentencing laws
30:39 , is a non starter . My understanding is there
30:42 was a bill a year or two ago in the
30:44 Legislature that passed in the Senate , calling for the
30:47 creation of a sentencing commission that was again passed by
30:51 the Senate but was defeated in the Assembly and it
30:54 was defeated largely not because of the prison guards ,
30:57 but because of the D . A s and the
30:59 police chiefs , and I really think that we need
31:01 to , um , start linking some of these areas
31:06 to , uh , education and we need to have
31:08 the education and business community . You understand that some
31:11 changes in these sentencing policies are appropriate for us to
31:14 be able to move on this front , and I
31:16 don't think it's impossible . It's not going to be
31:17 easy , but it's not impossible . Uh , lastly
31:21 , uh , Professor Raphael made reference to just sort
31:25 of again stuck with me that someone who is ,
31:27 if I understood him correctly in a level for high
31:30 security prison who's a geriatric prisoner who has to get
31:33 out of his cell , is accompanied by two guards
31:38 . Um , and I think of what we do
31:40 in terms of class size in California means basically ,
31:42 you know what what a what a professional client ratio
31:47 is . We have no problem with increasing class size
31:50 in California , but these work rules , as relates
31:53 to geriatric prisoners we can't touch . So I think
31:56 there are some areas as it relates to redirection of
31:59 costs , particularly in corrections that we ought to be
32:02 taking a look at , um , let me just
32:05 say a word about what's happened in recent years with
32:07 K 12 budgets in terms of expenditure reductions , because
32:11 they have been significant one , our our pay ,
32:14 uh , salary reductions for , uh , for for
32:18 teachers and other employees . Um , but it has
32:21 also been instructional days . Um , we've had a
32:25 significant reduction in many school districts of instructional days of
32:29 , uh , of usually a week from 180 to
32:32 175 days . And we've had class size increases ,
32:36 uh , particularly K three , uh , eroding the
32:41 reduction in class size that existed here in California ,
32:44 Going back to the Wilson years . We have not
32:48 yet got to . The point of what we did
32:50 back in Proposition 13 is to reduce , uh ,
32:53 you know , of course , offerings , particularly in
32:55 , um , you know , in secondary schools ,
32:58 vocational education or or CTE classes or arts and music
33:03 . But if something doesn't happen , uh , those
33:05 are probably likely to be next on the chopping block
33:08 . We've also seen significant reductions in adult education .
33:12 These are courses in basic literacy and education for adults
33:16 . Um , and we have also seen reductions in
33:20 in bus transportation . One of the other points that
33:23 I you know I wanted to make is we talk
33:25 about trying to improve academic performance among our students .
33:29 And what does research tell us that you know ,
33:31 that actually works ? There are three or four things
33:33 that I think there's some consensus do make make a
33:36 difference . One is time on task the amount of
33:38 time that students have exposure to instructional , uh ,
33:42 time . This is particularly important for low income students
33:46 . So these reductions not only in the school year
33:49 but also in summer school , where the effects may
33:53 be even greater for low income students , um ,
33:56 is , uh is quite substantial . We also know
34:00 that early childhood education is a very important has a
34:04 very important correlation with later academic performance if it's sustained
34:08 over a period of time . Fortunately , we have
34:10 not had cuts in our , uh , preschool budgets
34:13 here in California . Although Governor Brown's budget provides ,
34:17 um , you know , some cuts in those areas
34:19 they are devastating cuts , but they are cuts of
34:22 , uh , of , uh , of some concern
34:25 . We know that teacher quality is important , and
34:28 we know that high expectations , where you have clear
34:31 goals and you're working towards measuring how students are are
34:35 working to achieve those goals . Those are other things
34:37 that are are important . Um , what I worry
34:42 about is if the situation doesn't change and we don't
34:44 have really a significant jump on our economy or some
34:47 revenue enhancements , um , we're going to be staying
34:51 the course , probably with some of these cuts in
34:53 terms of teacher salaries and , uh , reduction in
34:56 student exposure to instructional time that are going to have
34:59 a significant impact . I think , on low income
35:02 students . There are some other things that we'll probably
35:05 be hearing more about in terms of budget reductions there
35:08 sort of high visibility items , but they don't necessarily
35:12 generate a lot in terms of cost savings . Um
35:15 , those things include some test consolidation . We do
35:18 a lot of testing here in California . Uh ,
35:21 too much testing , um , and some consolidation .
35:23 And it's something that I know . Mike cursed ,
35:26 who is the new president of the state Board of
35:27 Education ? Governor Brown are supportive of , um ,
35:30 I think that's probably a good idea , but it's
35:32 not going to save us a lot of money .
35:36 There's some talk about district consolidation . You know ,
35:38 we've got , you know , 1000 school districts here
35:40 in California . Um , and there could be some
35:43 significant consolidation similar to what happened back in the 19
35:48 sixties . But again , that's probably not gonna save
35:50 us a whole lot of money . And as Norton
35:53 made reference to , we may have some more block
35:55 grants . Uh , it's gives local school districts more
35:58 opportunity to engage in strategic , uh , funding .
36:02 But it's not a huge cost savings , uh ,
36:06 an area that I have always felt . And we
36:10 want to just make brief reference to that I think
36:12 is right for attention If we want to try to
36:14 reorganise and try to bring about some cost savings in
36:17 our education system . We have this curious system that
36:21 exists in American public education of what is called step
36:24 in column , where teachers get not only the cost
36:26 of living increase when times are good , But they
36:28 also get , um , increased salary based upon a
36:31 number of years of service , and they get increased
36:34 salary based upon the number of college credits that they
36:38 take . Um , this was instituted back in the
36:41 19 thirties , when a lot of most , uh
36:44 , teachers did not have college degrees And so this
36:47 was an incentive system that was set up . It
36:49 makes absolutely no sense today in terms of improving the
36:52 quality of teaching performance . To say , if you
36:56 take , uh , more college classes on your own
36:59 , a complete laissez faire system that that's going to
37:02 have any kind of measurable effect upon student performance .
37:05 And we are investing more than a billion dollars a
37:07 year in these kinds of enhancements for salaries , uh
37:13 , for a system that just doesn't make any sense
37:15 at all , what we need to be moving towards
37:18 is some kind of a career ladder where there is
37:20 more careful evaluation of teachers . We have it in
37:23 higher education with associate professors and full professors . Someone
37:27 was saying last night that here at Berkeley , there
37:30 are like , 12 different steps of full professors .
37:32 We have nothing like that in K 12 education .
37:34 We don't have what I know exists in the CSU
37:37 system , where we have salary differentials for engineering professors
37:41 and , uh , math professors . Um , we
37:43 have tremendous shortages and special education and and and math
37:47 and English learner teachers . Yet we have no salary
37:51 , you know , differential . Uh , so this
37:53 is something that I think is long overdue . And
37:55 I think there's some potential savings . Let me just
37:57 close by mentioning , in addition to a couple of
38:00 the points that Norton made reference to that were on
38:02 my list , uh , a new student weighted formula
38:06 for school finance . Uh , some other areas just
38:09 very briefly , uh , that I think a rap
38:11 , right for attention . One is trying to target
38:15 Money's more effectively , and the trade off here ,
38:19 if we don't have more money , is , I
38:20 would say , some expansion in class size for some
38:23 of our other classes because we have no indication that
38:27 there's a correlation between class size and academic performance unless
38:30 you have very low class sizes . So here ,
38:32 a couple of ideas in terms of trying to re
38:34 establish our priorities . We are , we know from
38:37 the research that we are able to identify in the
38:39 late elementary and middle school years , uh , very
38:43 likelihood , large likelihood of which students are going to
38:46 drop out . And yet we have no sort of
38:48 intervention strategies . We have these very high dropout rates
38:51 of 25% . If we were to have smaller class
38:54 sizes for kids who at risk of dropping out .
38:56 Um , having councillors , having social workers for those
38:59 students , Um , I think that that would be
39:02 a worthwhile investment . I would also love to see
39:06 when we talk about the remediation issue for students that
39:08 are going on to college to have a writing class
39:11 that every , uh , student in high school would
39:13 take that would not have a class size of more
39:15 than 15 . It would mean larger class sizes for
39:18 other classes , but one writing class where students actually
39:21 had their writing reviewed by someone and had an opportunity
39:25 for kind of a give and take . That ,
39:26 uh , is essential if you're going to become a
39:29 good writer is something we ought to consider . We
39:32 have a program here in California called Early Assessment Program
39:37 . Uh , that is instituted in the 11th grade
39:40 for basically a California State University system where we try
39:44 to identify students who are likely to be remedial students
39:47 when they enter . Um uh , the CSU system
39:51 as freshmen and when they are shown by this assessment
39:55 system to be not on target to , uh ,
40:00 avoiding remediation , uh , we are beginning to work
40:04 to have in place senior English classes that will correct
40:07 that , uh , that program is , I think
40:09 , proving to be very successful . And we ought
40:12 to have that program for U . C students and
40:14 for community college students as well . So the senior
40:17 year , which so many people believe is kind of
40:21 a wasted year for students , is a much more
40:23 targeted year so that we can begin to address some
40:26 of these remediation issues . Last point to make is
40:29 technology . Um , I don't know a lot about
40:32 technology , but I've got to believe that technology can
40:35 help in terms not only of possibly some potential savings
40:39 , but also this whole issue of student engagement .
40:42 Our biggest problem in our secondary schools is students are
40:45 turned off . They are not engaged in their learning
40:48 . And it seems to me this technology revolution that
40:52 we've had that students are so enamoured of and spend
40:56 so much time on there's got to be a way
40:58 of capturing that kind of of learning in our particularly
41:04 in our secondary system . So these are just some
41:07 ideas that I think in addition to trying to get
41:09 more money in the system , to try to change
41:11 the system somewhat , and I think if we were
41:14 to sort of link these , uh , these things
41:16 , uh , that it might be a way that
41:19 we can sell this to the public . The last
41:22 sort of hopeful comment that I would make , uh
41:25 , is when I was first in the Legislature back
41:28 in the mid 19 seventies . Ancient history . Half
41:31 of the voters in California had Children in our public
41:35 education system . Today , that's down to somewhere .
41:38 I think between 20 and 25% we have half as
41:41 many voters who have kids in school . And there
41:44 was a prediction 30 years ago with this demographic trend
41:48 that , um , voters support for public education would
41:53 decline substantially . And that really hasn't happened . Uh
41:57 , as these public , uh , p p I
41:59 C polls are indicating , uh , more taxes for
42:03 education . K 12 education is the last thing that
42:07 people want to see cut . There is a strong
42:09 sense that people believe , and they know that education
42:14 is really extremely important in terms of the American dream
42:19 , equal educational opportunity in terms of prosperity of our
42:22 society , and that somehow what we have to do
42:25 is to we don't have to necessarily , I think
42:28 , uh , educate the electorate that this is important
42:32 . They understand that it's important . What we have
42:34 to be able to do is to show to them
42:36 away by which we can increase these resources and how
42:39 we can improve the system at the same time .
42:42 That's it . Thank you . Mhm . Thank you
42:48 . I'm , uh I'm glad you brought up innovation
42:51 because I've been my latest grind has been how hard
42:56 this is gonna be to get innovation in technology in
42:59 the schools . Given that our illustrious new governor ,
43:02 who I voted for both times he ran , uh
43:07 , now at 74 years of age , said he
43:09 couldn't imagine what all those people were doing with cell
43:14 phones . So he's going to take them all away
43:17 . And I've been watching the news . You know
43:19 what ? I've been watching the Internet , and I've
43:21 been watching it again and again . And so about
43:24 was that 60% of the government employee state employees have
43:27 cell phones and he wants to get that down to
43:29 about 15% . And but there's been no analysis of
43:34 how , how how expensive it is to keep the
43:37 landlines in . If you've got a telephone switch ,
43:40 you know how much it is sending them to their
43:41 desks have to be at their desks . The more
43:44 more features you have , all the how expensive it
43:47 is . There's been no cost analysis of that .
43:50 I would be more excited if you said , Let's
43:52 see if we can't give everybody a cell phone and
43:56 get them retire all the rest of this stuff .
43:58 So there is a huge thing in the educational system
44:01 about having to your your experience of detailing for me
44:06 , Gary . All the various things you might tweak
44:09 and change whatever . Let's not forget , we have
44:11 a last millennium system and , uh , and engineering
44:15 . That means build a new one . You have
44:16 to transition there , but you got to build a
44:18 new one . And that may make a huge difference
44:21 in , uh , in the accounting end . Uh
44:23 , next . Let's have Dr Kim Rueben . She's
44:26 a senior fellow at the Urban Institute . She's the
44:28 director of the state and local program , uh ,
44:32 the Urban Brookings Tax Policy Center at the Urban Institute
44:36 . Her , in addition to other accomplishments , her
44:39 masters is in in economics from the London School of
44:42 Economics and a PhD in economics from MIT . So
44:45 welcome , Dr Rubin . Hi . And , um
44:54 you know , very excited that you're all still here
44:57 and I'm going to make some comments about education .
44:59 And as you can probably tell from my biography ,
45:01 I am a budget person . So for my last
45:04 five or six minutes , I'll probably go beyond education
45:07 and talk a little bit more about California's budget and
45:10 what we can and cannot expect , I might say
45:13 things that I think are probably not politically feasible ,
45:17 but there'll be different things than what Norton covered .
45:20 Um , so I actually think not to say that
45:23 education hasn't been cut or is not being cut in
45:26 this budget . But if you look at the proposal
45:29 , I think it actually does seem like it was
45:32 cut less than a lot of other programs , at
45:34 least on paper . Um , that's not to take
45:37 away from the fact that there's been a 13% decline
45:39 over the last few years and the fact that there
45:43 have been real cuts and changes in what's going forward
45:46 with K to 12 . Um , I think there
45:49 have been some good things . I like the fact
45:51 that Governor Schwarzenegger actually consolidated a lot of the categorical
45:56 programs . I think that gives districts and flexibility ,
45:59 And I think a lot of the points that have
46:01 already been made by Gary in Norton are right on
46:04 that . Basically , giving districts more flexibility and letting
46:09 them actually have more control over how they think they
46:12 can most efficiently spend money is really a positive outcome
46:17 . And I think the state should do more ,
46:19 especially as it's getting more money in to think strategically
46:23 about how it wants to refill education spending as it
46:28 goes back up . So rather than just saying ,
46:30 Okay , we're going to put this money back in
46:33 all sorts of ways , we're going to re establish
46:35 these categorical programs . I think first , for the
46:38 short run , we should have more strategic thoughts about
46:41 what should be in that flex item . I'm not
46:43 really sure why adult education should be part of a
46:47 flex item that's mainly about school district funding . Um
46:51 , I'm not really sure why Class size reduction for
46:53 ninth grade goes into the flex item , but K
46:56 23 class size reduction doesn't I think so . There
46:59 could be some strategic thinking in the short run about
47:02 what should be going on with that money . Then
47:05 I actually think that Prop . 98 might not be
47:08 much of a guaranteeing the bad budget times . But
47:11 when budgets are expanding , especially as the economy recovers
47:16 , it means K to 12 gets a certain amount
47:19 of money or a K 2 14 gets money .
47:21 And as that money comes back , I think it's
47:23 critical for us to think about what our priorities are
47:27 . Are we just going to give it out to
47:29 all the states in terms of the revenue limit money
47:31 ? Are we going to do something with categorical money
47:34 , or should we think about whether that money should
47:36 be earmarked to try and improve educational attainment safe for
47:40 the low income students ? I was also going to
47:44 bring up the whole waited student student formula , uh
47:48 , and think about the fact that we probably want
47:50 to be more strategic . I think we need to
47:52 think as a state about what our outcomes should be
47:56 , what , what it is we're trying to achieve
47:58 . And I think what we're trying to achieve and
47:59 what we should be trying to achieve is improve student
48:02 achievement , not just increasing the amount of money that
48:05 goes to schools . Um , both of the people
48:08 who talked before we talked about how we've dropped in
48:11 our relative ranking of spending for schools , I was
48:14 going to bring up a different number , which is
48:16 basically doubled the amount we're spending per people since 1996
48:22 . Um , and we haven't seen any change in
48:24 the nape scores over that period . Now , granted
48:27 , some of that might have to do with the
48:28 fact that we have a changing student population . But
48:31 I kind of think rather than just say okay ,
48:33 we need to spend more money on schools . I
48:35 think we need to think about how we spend money
48:37 strategically . The beginning of that has to be How
48:40 do we , uh , pay teachers when we're talking
48:45 about education spending And when we're talking about a lot
48:48 of what state and local governments do , we're talking
48:50 about compensating people . And so I think we actually
48:54 have to think hard about how it is that we
48:57 have our salary structures set up in K to 12
48:59 . Education doesn't make sense for us to have the
49:02 step column system that doesn't seem to have anything to
49:05 do with quality in the classroom . Um , I
49:08 think there is some evidence that you get some return
49:10 to sort of about four or five years of education
49:14 , but I don't see a lot of return overall
49:16 for more experience . There is little evidence of any
49:19 evidence that more education actually leads to better student achievement
49:23 . And so it's not clear why this is how
49:25 we're rewarding teachers . It's also not clear why we
49:29 have very back loaded pension programs . It might be
49:34 that you want to encourage people to stay , but
49:36 it also might be that there are certain teachers who
49:38 aren't really that effective , and we don't necessarily want
49:40 to give them incentives to stay in teaching rather than
49:44 go off and do something else if they might be
49:46 more effective doing that . So I propose that California
49:50 , like some of the other states , um ,
49:52 Wisconsin has just proposed having some sort of merit pay
49:56 . I think California should try and get different ways
50:00 of evaluating who are the most effective teachers who are
50:04 less effective teachers and maybe reward them for that .
50:08 Something that could happen that was proposed by a couple
50:11 of researchers . Marguerite Rosa has proposed this . What
50:14 if you actually can evaluate which teachers are most effective
50:17 and give them more , give them the option of
50:19 earning more salary , but say that they actually have
50:22 to teach more students . So we're going to expand
50:25 classes for the most effective teachers , which will mean
50:29 that you could actually expose more Children to the people
50:33 who we think are doing the best job . Some
50:36 of this can be based on value added measures from
50:38 test scores , but I think we want to go
50:40 beyond that right . There have been all sorts of
50:42 studies and , um , evaluations in place that show
50:46 that there are different ways that people know who are
50:49 effective teachers . If you interview principles . If you
50:52 interview students . The Gates Foundation just actually came up
50:55 , has a new program underway where they've actually shown
50:59 that if you talk to students about what's going on
51:02 in their classroom , you actually have pretty good evidence
51:05 about which students and which are doing well and how
51:08 they're going to do on exams based on whether they
51:11 think they're engaged and learning within the classrooms . So
51:14 if we can do something with how we , um
51:18 , reward teachers , I also think we probably want
51:21 to do something where we move to paying for teachers
51:25 at the school level rather than at the district level
51:28 right now . Within big districts , you have negative
51:31 incentives for how teachers are appointed to schools based on
51:36 seniority . So you can actually have all your experience
51:38 teachers not in the schools that actually have the most
51:42 at risk students . Because if you price a teacher
51:46 at an average price , then the teachers don't have
51:51 incentives to stay in different schools . So partly ,
51:54 I think what we want to do is focus on
51:57 what it is we're trying to achieve in education .
51:59 And from my perspective , I would like to see
52:01 more resources , not necessarily dollars but resources focused on
52:08 high poverty , low achieving students if we want to
52:11 try and bring them up my little to have a
52:15 couple minutes . So my little aside about the state
52:18 budget in general . So the part of it that's
52:20 very sad is we've sat here and heard people talk
52:23 about the four biggest programs in the state budget ,
52:26 and everybody thinks we need more money in all of
52:28 them , which might be true . Um , I
52:32 wasn't gonna show pictures . I don't know if you
52:34 can see this . This is a picture of the
52:35 structural deficits in California for the last 15 years .
52:40 So even before we hit the budget , the economic
52:45 downturn , California was running structural deficits . In some
52:50 ways , it's not the case that we're only cutting
52:53 things now . We've been overspending , the amount of
52:55 revenue we've been bringing in as a state , and
52:58 I think there needs to be some hard lessons about
53:01 how much money we should be raising in taxes and
53:04 how we want to spend that money . And part
53:06 of that is going to have to be thinking about
53:08 things like , How do we compensate our public sector
53:11 ? What are we doing with pensions and other retirement
53:15 benefits and making some hard decisions ? And some of
53:18 this might be providing more tough love to voters about
53:22 the fact that you can't have three strike laws and
53:25 class size reduction and Prop 13 and Prop 98 and
53:30 not raise taxes and still have a level of spending
53:34 that they want . You know , the P .
53:35 P . I . C . Polls every time they
53:37 come out , I just find it very disheartening because
53:40 we always get the same message . Voters don't want
53:43 to cut spending , don't want to cut spending ,
53:45 but They don't want to raise taxes and the taxes
53:48 that they're willing to raise , or things like business
53:50 taxes , which only raise 9% of general fund revenue
53:54 . So business taxes cannot be the answer , and
53:58 in some ways it's trying to square this circle and
54:01 get things more on track . I think is going
54:03 to be the hard lesson . Now it's what we're
54:07 talking about isn't sustainable . Right now , we're spending
54:10 about 14 to 15% of personal income on state and
54:14 local programs , which is about our historical level .
54:20 If health care costs keep going up and we want
54:23 to spend more on schools and we want to spend
54:25 more on higher education , it just doesn't work .
54:28 At some point , something has to give . And
54:31 I think what's gonna need to happen is there's gonna
54:34 need to be a reshuffling of what we're gonna do
54:36 is the state in California and I'll stop . Yeah
54:40 , right , you know , And listening to this
54:47 , um , there's a couple things . One is
54:49 that I hate it when everyone takes out adult education
54:52 . I know we're K through 12 . We talked
54:54 about higher education , but I want to talk about
54:57 adult education just for a second just to remember that
55:00 we're living longer and longer , thanks to biotech and
55:02 everything else . If we happen to get that health
55:04 care , we're gonna most many of us will be
55:06 living much longer than we ever imagined . Um ,
55:09 and the idea that will be changing jobs , not
55:12 just because of other economic factors , but that we're
55:16 seeing people come back later and later to adult education
55:20 and they change . And the final thing that I'm
55:22 hearing and I want us to remember , uh is
55:25 the magic of education . I mean , I'm engineering
55:28 scientists , so , you know , we like to
55:30 measure things where we can . We like to have
55:32 all of that . But if you came over to
55:34 my house for a spaghetti dinner and we had a
55:35 great time of spaghetti was great . You can't go
55:38 back in and measure every little thing about how that
55:41 all came out to a great spaghetti dinner that we
55:43 always remember for the rest of our lives , which
55:45 included being together . And they're given an example from
55:49 from just Wednesday night I was teaching . I teach
55:52 a class one of the classes I teach . The
55:53 graduate level is global information systems . And I had
55:57 , uh , one of the assignments they had to
55:59 go out and find . Ask some questions , find
56:01 some global data . And part of the thing is
56:04 to put your presentation up and put a world map
56:06 up of what you found across uses . They're pushing
56:09 them constantly to What's the information out there ? And
56:12 a young man stood up and he said , Uh
56:18 , well , I I In my life , I've
56:20 lost four friends to suicide . I've lost three friends
56:25 to accidents , and I've lost three friends to cancer
56:29 , and I really thought that there was something wrong
56:33 with me . And then I looked at the male
56:36 mortality figures and he flashed him up on the screen
56:39 . And he said , And this is what it's
56:41 like for males in the United States , and this
56:43 is like males around the world . And I looked
56:46 and he said , You know , I found a
56:48 lot of solace in that I found a lot of
56:51 comfort and we were just like , Oh , sometimes
56:55 you get classes like this . We need to move
56:57 along to the next person . And unbelievably , one
57:01 of the students in their came to me afterwards ,
57:04 wrote me a very , uh even I I talked
57:07 to her and strident letter left afterwards , and she
57:09 said he did not include a world map and you're
57:12 being harsher on . And I was like , I'm
57:14 supposed to tell this guy , you know , the
57:16 world back And I said , Look , he's going
57:18 to get marked down because the assignment said You got
57:20 to do a B C D Didn't do d N
57:22 E . This was a success . This is what
57:25 we were talking about . And the magic of a
57:28 student or set of students in a classroom with the
57:30 teacher can't be measured in a lot of the ways
57:33 we're measuring them now . So I do want to
57:36 be cautious about looking at our systems and looking at
57:39 them perhaps a different way for what we want to
57:41 fund , how we funded , how we measure it
57:44 and and just measuring teachers and may not exactly be
57:48 the right formulation for the right district and in the
57:51 right situation . Everybody's in now . Our fires final
57:54 speaker today is that Tom Tomorrow he's a professor of
57:59 education policy and director of the Center for Applied Policy
58:03 and Education at U C . Davis . He's currently
58:05 working on a study tracking local responses to state deregulation
58:10 of 40 categorical programs and education . Yeah , thank
58:25 you . If you , uh I'm gonna try not
58:30 to sound like an echo in here after what everybody
58:33 else has said about education , and I'm gonna do
58:38 my best to try to say something different . Although
58:42 , certainly what , uh , the other speakers have
58:45 said came and Gary and Norton very much echo my
58:50 own sentiments and very much what I was going to
58:54 say and what I , um the comments that I
58:56 wanted to make , But let me see if I
58:58 can add something to this , Uh , that is
59:00 maybe bring some new information to it . Or maybe
59:04 a different perspective . One . Of course . I
59:07 wanted to talk just a bit about where we are
59:10 . Um , on now , you know , we're
59:13 we're facing this $26.7 billion budget deficit , and obviously
59:19 the first thing that state has to do is dig
59:21 itself out of that because until it does , uh
59:25 , it's very difficult to move ahead and to consider
59:29 any kind of new initiatives . And as others have
59:32 pointed out , um , much of this deficit at
59:37 least $21 billion of it is responsible is the result
59:43 of , uh , prior failed legislative solutions . And
59:47 that is a people having kicked the can down the
59:50 road all these years and that these basic , as
59:52 Kim said there , these fundamental structural problems , uh
59:56 , in in the state revenue system that they have
60:00 sort of band aided over the years . And so
60:02 , uh , and they really began after Prop .
60:04 13 in K 12 education . They were compounded with
60:10 the Serrano decision and equalization provisions and limits on school
60:16 districts in terms of their own ability to generate revenues
60:21 . And so it's It's a problem that has really
60:23 been growing and growing and growing , and now it's
60:26 finally sort of come to to the point where it
60:30 just can't be covered up any more . Now ,
60:32 on the one hand , you know , you could
60:34 say that $26 billion is a lot of money ,
60:37 and for most of us , it is . On
60:39 the other hand , if you think about the state
60:43 and the state domestic product of being $1.9 trillion 25
60:48 billion is not . At least I don't think it's
60:51 a huge amount of money . You may disagree with
60:53 this , but really , it's only 1.4% of the
60:56 state domestic product , and you would think that 1.4%
61:00 is not a disaster . I mean , it's certainly
61:02 well within the means . It's well within the capability
61:05 of the state to cover that kind of deficit .
61:08 Uh , which , of course , raises the next
61:11 question that you know what we're spending on education right
61:15 now on K 12 education now , which is down
61:19 under $40 billion . It's not a very substantial part
61:24 of the gross state product , certainly not compared to
61:27 the countries . I mean , we like to talk
61:29 about California as being one of the eighth largest economies
61:33 in the world . But if you look at those
61:35 other large economies and what their gross domestic a share
61:40 of education spending is of the gross domestic product ,
61:44 it's much closer to 5% . Um , and so
61:48 and so the question is whether we're really under invested
61:51 . Now people have made have talked about and and
61:55 and it certainly is true , and I'll talk a
61:57 little bit more about this later on that the California
62:03 is not necessarily undertaxed . California has a very progressive
62:09 taxing system . California Californians are taxed above the national
62:13 average in all areas except property taxes and property taxes
62:18 . California is about 14% below the national average .
62:23 Um , so what ? What does the governor's proposal
62:26 ? So I won't dwell on this much because people
62:29 really talked about it . Obviously , there are reductions
62:32 . There's about . Over the last 23 years ,
62:34 three years , there's been about $800 per pupil reduction
62:39 . Um , and so the challenge , of course
62:41 , is for the state to be able to ,
62:44 uh , maintain at least the current levels , although
62:48 current levels are pretty depressing . But to maintain those
62:53 , um , and of course , that , you
62:56 know , depends upon whether or not the state ,
62:58 uh , is going to or whether the tax extensions
63:02 are going to be approved . Now the tax extensions
63:06 , uh , mean that two thirds of the Legislature
63:08 has to approve them , and then the majority of
63:11 the voters have to approve them Now , whether that
63:13 chain of events how likely that chain of events is
63:16 is anybody's guess . Whether whether people understand the severity
63:21 of the problem is who knows if the if the
63:26 tax extension doesn't pass , we will reduce on average
63:32 per pupil expenditures by another 330 daughters . So again
63:36 , we're really headed , headed , downhill , Um
63:39 , even at a greater rate and before , if
63:42 that is to is to happen . Um , there
63:48 are other problems with the governor's current proposal , which
63:52 people have alluded to . One , of course ,
63:55 has to do with the deferrals . Uh , California
63:58 started this business of , of , of , of
64:00 , of deferrals . And the reason these deferrals became
64:04 popular because it was a way of of , Well
64:07 , it was smoking mirrors . Uh , and so
64:10 what you could do is you could move money into
64:12 the next year and pretend you didn't Pat didn't spend
64:15 it this year . That wasn't this year's money .
64:17 Uh , we started back . I think it was
64:21 in 2001 when we did the first deferrals , and
64:25 it was a small amount of money . Just a
64:26 few million here and there are 10 million or something
64:29 . And now we're up to , um , you
64:32 know , to something like $9 billion in deferrals now
64:37 , uh , for school districts , that's real money
64:40 . Because , for example , Stockton , it means
64:42 they're going to have to go out into the open
64:44 market , and they're going to have to borrow money
64:46 to get through this . Because most districts have spent
64:49 their reserves down , they can tap into the reserves
64:52 as a way of , uh , backfilling for these
64:56 lost revenues . Deferred revenues . And so they're going
65:00 to have to come back , and they're gonna have
65:01 to go borrow money . Stockton , for example .
65:04 Estimates going to cost some additional $250,000 in borrowing to
65:10 be able to pay that off . Well , you
65:11 know , you multiply those numbers across 987 school districts
65:15 in the state , and it's it's real money .
65:18 Um , so So there are There are problems .
65:22 Um , so , uh , other proposals from the
65:26 governor Um uh , everyone here has talked about the
65:31 categorical programs in California . Uh , when I first
65:36 got to know Gary , I I went when I
65:38 finished my PhD here at Berkeley , Uh , I
65:40 went up to work for the Legislature , and my
65:43 job was to be a consultant to a joint Senate
65:47 assembly committee that was conducting oversight of categorical programs in
65:52 education . At that time , there was something like
65:54 17 or 18 categorical programs that amounted to about 14%
66:00 of education , spending the night in 1 4002 .
66:05 There were by last count , depending on how you
66:08 count it . 100 over 120 categorical programs representing about
66:13 34 to 35% of K 12 education spending , which
66:18 meant that there was an encroachment on the unrestricted dollars
66:23 and there was less money in the unrestricted share of
66:26 money going out the districts and a greater share of
66:29 restricted money . Now , the question with these categorical
66:34 is , of course , is , uh did they
66:38 ? What was the purpose of these categorical dollars ?
66:41 Uh , the Serrano court basically , uh , exempted
66:48 categoric ALS obviously from from equalization , because categorical monies
66:53 were intended to meet special needs and special purposes for
66:57 district . So they were targeted to students with special
66:59 needs , like special education districts that had huge transportation
67:03 , extraordinary transportation costs and things like that . And
67:07 so they were exempted . But soon it looked as
67:10 though these categorical dollars were being used by districts as
67:15 an end run around Serrano and so the Legislature could
67:19 provide monies to some districts . And , um ,
67:25 the educational benefits of some of these programs were never
67:30 evaluated , so no one really knew what the impact
67:32 of these categorical is was or what the educational benefit
67:36 of these categorical programs were . And so , uh
67:39 , so these just sort of grew and grew and
67:40 proliferated . Well , uh , as as others have
67:43 said , the , uh , the legislature decided ,
67:48 uh , in the in 2008 , uh , 2000
67:53 and 8 , 2009 budget that they did this in
67:55 February to essentially consolidate 40 categorical . That amounted to
68:00 about $4.5 billion in state spending . And the idea
68:06 was to give flexibility . School is so school district
68:09 could take the carry over funds from these from previous
68:12 years . And they could take the current money and
68:15