California Governor Jerry Brown wants to implement a different funding formula for California schools, depending on their test scores and the financial status of the school district. Instead of a standard metric, which would allocate funds depending strictly on the property values and taxes levied in the surrounding hones, the projected metric would divert more state funds to lower-income, struggling schools.
The double-standard on fairness, equity, and the allocation of dwindling tax revenues should be disarming, and everyone should be alarmed; yet hardly anyone is raising a cry about this proposal, except the schools that are doing well, which will see less money coming to them. Why should the school districts in the South Bay suffer more cuts than other schools? Apparently, a school's rising test scores will now turn into a financial liability instead of a blessing.
This new system comes from the same Governor who claimed that the "rich" have to pay "their fair share." Now, the "rich kids" have to "pay their fair share", too?Should they endure receiving less attention, while struggling into classes with more students than schools in nearby, less "elite" neighborhoods, where Title One funds have allowed more impoverished schools to receive more money?
Is it fair that students who live in a higher socioeconomic class must suffer with larger class sizes than lower-performing schools, just because the surrounding properties are worth more? How many residents in the South Bay are even aware that the average class size is approaching forty students in some classes, while parents in other local schools, California Distinguished Schools, I might add, are burdened with forty-six students to a class?
Is it fair to reward schools which perform poorly with more money, when the allocation of state resources has nothing to do with the scope of success or failure in the schools?
Is it fair that the governor refuses to call out the "monster in the classroom", i.e. the generous pensions and benefits which public sector unions have bullied out of school districts, and by extension taxpayers?
Is it fair that the majority of Prop 30 revenues are targeted for filling back furlough days, or bolstering the burdened entitlement liabilities in school districts? Why have our leaders refused to approach the funding issues from a cost-efficienty perspective, like eliminating the top-heavy administration in school districts and County education offices? By removing superintendents, and even disbanding the politicized and politicking school boards and employee unions, school districts can spend more money educating students, instead of wasting time and money coming up with inane testing strategies or "green technologies" which keep our schools in the red instead of in the black?
Is it fair that students are not permitted to attend the school of their choice, regardless of distance or opinion of the school district? Instead of funneling diminished funds into bad schools, parents should be allowed to choose where they enroll their children. Market forces and competition will force school districts, schools, and administrators to spend their money wisely, invest their funds efficiently, and allocate their liabilities effectively. Private schools function better, at nearly half the price, without regulations and collective bargaining agreements which cripple education.
Is it fair that taxpayers see their hard-earned dollars flushed into bureaucracies, from Sacramento to the local school, where federal, state, and even county regulations siphon away funds from the classroom?
Is is fair that the state legislature is pursuing a transportation boondoggle in the Central Valley, when the schools which are supposed to transport our students into a better future cannot even get through the year without worrying about massive cuts and employee lay-offs?
Is it fair that the state legislature holds school districts hostage every year, promising to cut more funding, then claim that they have "balanced the budget" based on rosy projections and the rosier assumptions that wealth-creators will gladly and glibly give more of their profit to a government which prioritizes prison guard unions ahead of the schools?
Good schools which post rising test scores and improving student morale should not be punished by receiving less money from the state. That is not fair. Until parents have a choice, until students have a voice, all the money in the world will not improve poor-performing, unaccountable public schools and goad them into spending the state's dwindling funds any better.
If Governor Brown cared about fairness, he should reject all funding formulas based on schools and zipcodes, enact a voucher-school choice mechanism which ties the tax dollars to the student, and then empower school districts to engage in stern negotiations with employee unions, while stripping down the size and influence of centralized school bureaucracies.