School study calls for cash, local control

[Peter Farruggio <pfarr@cal.berkeley.edu>]

Another article about the recently released set 
of studies on CA schools.  This one highlights 
the debate coming up between the pro-austerity 
Neo Liberals and those who want to increase school funding.

I just read one of the reports on "beating the 
odds" schools, and was shocked by its crudity.  I 
crashed out a document with their chapter on 
"evidence" from the field, and my own critical 
preamble about their findings and method.  It's 
21 pages long (simple MS Word doc).  Let me know 
if you'd like to see it and I'll send as an attachment.

This report looks important (Lessons from 
"Beating-the-Odds" Schools: Successful California 
Schools in the Context of Educational Adequacy) 
because it will likely be used by the governor 
and his big business masters to oppose tax 
increases for more adequate school spending. 
They'll argue for more "efficient" use of 
existing funds and bash teachers who resist teaching to the test.

Pete Farruggio
***********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Here's the Chronicle article:


School study calls for cash, local control

<mailto:nasimov@sfchronicle.com>Nanette Asimov, 
San Francisco Chronicle         Friday, March 16, 2007


California would have to spend at least $17 
billion more on education each year as one step 
toward helping most low-performing schools reach 
academic targets -- but even that substantial 
boost would leave some of them short of the goal, 
says a new analysis of the public education system.

The yearlong study says a 40 percent increase of 
$17 billion must be accompanied by a radical 
change in the "irrational" and "inflexible" way 
California distributes the money to schools.

"Getting Down to Facts" -- billed as the most 
comprehensive look at the education system ever 
conducted in California -- is being offered as a 
blueprint for bipartisan cooperation in fixing 
the schools. It was commissioned a year ago by 
Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democratic 
lawmakers and state schools Superintendent Jack O'Connell.

Yet a partisan split is already in evidence.

"We need to focus on critical school reform 
before any discussion about more resources," 
Schwarzenegger said in response to the financial 
portion of the two-part study released Wednesday and Thursday.

But O'Connell said the two should happen in 
tandem, and declared two new "Rs" for education: "reform and revenue."

Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez sided 
with O'Connell: "If money alone guaranteed a good 
education, then Paris Hilton would have a Ph.D.," 
he quipped. "But ultimately, these reforms need 
to come with resources. You can't do one without the other."

The nearly $3 million study, funded by private 
foundations, relies on the research of more than 
30 experts. It says two changes are essential to 
improving student achievement:

-- Schools with high-needs students require a lot more money.

-- Local education officials -- not the state -- 
need to decide how that money is spent.

The report confirms that California spends about 
30 percent less per pupil on schools than most 
other states -- and 75 percent less than New York does.

But when the researchers tried to determine how 
much more California would have to spend for 
every school to achieve the state's target score 
of 800 on its Academic Performance Index, they 
reached wildly different conclusions ranging from 
a couple billion dollars to more than a trillion.

So economist Jon Sonstelie of the Public Policy 
Institute of California tried a different 
approach. He interviewed 567 teachers, principals 
and superintendents and put them in charge of a 
hypothetical school with a hypothetical budget 
that was up to 50 percent higher than in real 
life. Without raising salaries, participants had 
to decide how the money could best maximize achievement.

They lowered class size. They added a few 
administrators. They hired a lot more support 
staff. They increased collaboration time among 
teachers. And they lengthened not only the school day, but the academic year.

Sonstelie developed equations to predict the 
relationship between resources and student 
characteristics, adjusting for regional salary differences.

The result: Spending would have to grow $17 
billion -- from $43 billion (in 2003-04 dollars) 
to $60 billion -- for even half of the schools to 
hover in the desired 800-point range of the Academic Performance Index.

But where would the money come from?

The 40 percent increase would mean cutting other 
state programs by 10 percent -- or raising taxes 
by 8 percent -- Sonstelie said Thursday as he 
presented the findings with schools chief 
O'Connell, education director Marshall Smith of 
the Hewlett Foundation, Chairman Ted Mitchell of 
the governor's education committee and fellow researchers.

Sonstelie pointed out, however, that $17 billion 
is an estimate that could change as other reforms 
are put in place. And everyone -- Democrats and 
Republicans alike -- says a wholesale 
transformation of the public schools is essential.

"Our system is broken, and only major fundamental 
change can fix it," said Mitchell, adding that 
the committee of education experts that he chairs 
will spend this year figuring out how to 
translate the study into public policy next year.

One essential change, all agreed, was the need to 
let the state's nearly 1,000 school districts 
make their own spending decisions.

Currently, California restricts much of the 
education money it hands out, prohibiting 
districts from spending it except as prescribed. 
Money to reduce class size, for example, can only 
be used for that purpose. The same is true with 
money for drug prevention, preschool for American 
Indians, vocational education and more than 100 categories of funds.

The state runs a compliance unit just to make 
sure schools don't spend vocational money on 
teachers, or anti-drug money on the cafeteria, said Mitchell.

The new idea, which other states have adopted, is 
to give school districts more money for students 
with higher needs, and the freedom to spend it as they see fit.

"We won't disagree with that," said Mary Bergan, 
president of the California Federation of 
Teachers. "But we want teachers to have the main 
voice over how the money is spent."

Smith, of the Hewlett Foundation, said it could 
take five to 10 years to carry out a plan. But 
once in place, the results could be "tremendous," he said.

Others were hopeful, too -- even traditional 
adversaries of the education establishment.

"This is a historic opportunity," said attorney 
John Affeldt of Public Advocates, who has sued 
the state on behalf of low-income students three 
times in recent years, for better education at 
high-poverty schools, better-educated teachers 
and an end to the high school exit exam.

Affeldt said he expects disagreements along the 
way. "But I'm not waiting in the wings to file a 
lawsuit. I think there's some momentum here."

The study -- at 
<http://irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm>irepp.stanford.edu/projects/cafinance.htm 
-- was paid for by the Hewlett, Gates, Irvine and Stuart foundations.

E-mail Nanette Asimov at 
<mailto:nasimov@sfchronicle.com>nasimov@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/16/BAGIHOMGNF1.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle