Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Sponsors

Books

Schwarzenegger’s Budget Gets a Pink Slip from Californians: We Want More for Our Schools

classhands.gif By Lisa Schiff

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) recently released its annual survey of California residents and their attitudes towards public education. While Californians are most worried about jobs and the overall state of the economy, public education still ranks high on the list of important issues, coming in second. In fact, education is the area that our fellow residents are most concerned with shielding from the Governor's budget cuts.

The PPIC finding of the high placement of public education among the list of priorities, however, is not a simple show of support. Rather, the study has identified the types of serious concerns residents have about our public education, concerns that are all the more significant in light of how important those same residents feel public education is to our state. In other words, because public schools are critical, the problems we see facing them are critical too. People are concerned with the quality of schools, the drop-out rate, funding levels, how well current funds are being used, and the lack of leadership at all levels in Sacramento.

One of the most interesting aspects of the PPIC studies, and this one is no exception, is the way in which they disaggregate their survey respondents, creating cohorts along a variety of socio-economic, political and regional factors. A refreshing marker of the quality of this study is that parents of children enrolled in public schools are also identified as a discrete group.

This is significant, because presumably respondents who are directly involved in the public schools system have additional, different experiences and information upon which their opinions are based. For instance, while there is consistency across all respondents calling for improvement in the overall quality of the system, public school parents tend rate the schools their own children attend more favorably than the entire system than general respondents rate their local schools.

The ability to go back and forth between these vantage points, as well as having an overall agglomerated view, is incredibly valuable in understanding how different segments of the states view our public education system as a whole and what the different specific issues are that various groups are concerned with. This kind of data lets us clearly see how people can have such contrasting experiences and expectations of similar public systems. For instance, African-Americans, Latinos, and people living in the Los Angeles region all see the high-school drop-out rate as more significant than other groupings. (p. 11)

Additionally, such data allows for more effective strategic thinking in approaching statewide education initiatives, by helping us make sure that we speak to how such approaches address the issues of greatest concern to various populations throughout the state. Such a cohesive approach that can unify different groups is essential, as the changes our public schools need are broad and deep, requiring extensive structural revamping particularly at the state level that will only happen with widespread, grassroots pressure.

It’s time to start thinking in terms of coordinated statewide organizing and advocacy efforts to put the pressure on our elected officials--especially those who keep telling us how much they support education--to make schools a priority and get them appropriately and securely funded as such. Along those lines, the PPIC study reports that both the Governor and the Legislature get failing marks from survey participants in terms of how they are handling education. While the Governor is seen less harshly by Republicans than Democrats, members of both parties were equally strong in their negative views of the Legislature.

This may seem ironic, since the Governor is as ready to decimate the public education system as he is to make meaningless pronouncements, such as calling 2008 the “Year of Education.” But while there is a brutal irony to Schwarzenegger’s actions, only the most naïve among us could have expected anything of a different sort. In the case of our legislators with whom we are likely to have tighter connections, there is an assumption that they will sincerely champion the issues we hold most closely.

That expectation, as far as public education is concerned, has gone noticeably unfilled. The PPIC study determined that there is recognition of the need for additional (and better managed) funding for education and that those resources should come from increased taxes on the wealthiest residents. This data could and should be a gift to elected officials fighting to protect education in Sacramento. Hopefully they, and the Governor, will take it to heart.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is a member of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco and the PTA and is a board member at the national level of Parents for Public Schools. This article originally appeared in Beyond Chron and is republished with their permission.

Posted on May 15, 2008

Comments

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker