Myths about funding harm education

Leadership, May-June, 2004 by Sonny Da Marto

Dear Colleague:

California schools have had to fight for adequate funding for decades, even during the good times. Now that everyone in the public sector is making sacrifices year after year, the fight for funding has intensified. This year, California's budget took a bigger hit than any other state, down 9 percent from 2003, according to a National Governors Association survey.

The problem for education is the public has a very sketchy understanding of how their schools are funded. For example, some believe that because of Proposition 98, public education has been exempt from cuts. In our article on page 8, "Modern myths about school funding," authors Brett McFadden and Stephen Rhoads write, "In some policy circles, K-12 education is sometimes referred to as the 'pig at the trough.' Education's insatiable appetite gobbles up most of the food, leaving less for everyone else. Those of us in public education know these things to be false." The authors explain where school funding originates, how it compares to other local government financing and where it stands compared to non-education funding statewide. This information is essential to all school leaders, who should be able to answer to the public when funding concerns arise.

Unfortunately, more and more districts are facing fiscal insolvency every year. The article "Staying solvent" (page 12) outlines the characteristics of successful districts and indicators of districts facing financial failure, and offers solutions and resources.

California schools are growing by about 38,000 students each year, requiring 8,000 new classrooms annually, and about 73 percent of the classrooms in California are more than 25 years old and in need of modernization, according to the CDE.

This March, voters approved $10 billion in bonds for new construction and modernization. School leaders are working to build quality, cost-effective schools that enhance student learning. At the same time, they must stay current on laws and requirements that constantly change. The remaining articles in this issue of Leadership address those facilities concerns by providing lessons learned from districts that have successfully navigated local building booms. We also look at recent changes in the laws affecting school construction and labor compliance.

While this information may seem overwhelming, it is important to remember the bottom line--student learning. "Study after study concludes that there is an explicit relationship between the physical characteristics of school buildings and educational outcomes," writes the Council of Educational Facility Planners International.

In its report, "High Expectations, Modest Means" the Public Policy Institute of California said that while we have world-class standards, we also need "serious discussions of what the state can expect students to learn given the resources it is willing to provide its public schools." Information is key to more serious discussions.

Sincerely,

Sonny Da Marto

ACSA President--"Leadership Matters!"