Education

Governance structure—traditionally a local affair Usually elected school board decides policy for school district State board of Ed is appointed by governor With elected state superintendent, selects curriculum and textbooks for K-8, sets statewide standards and testing for K-12

Education Reform After Racial Integration “Social” Integration Funding reform Standards/outcome reform

Primary and secondary school funding Schools traditionally funded by local property tax In California, since 70s and Serrano v Priest decisions, most funding from state, not local property tax still, substantial differences remain between local communities Especially if considering special bonds and private sources of income

Digression: prop 13 Limits property taxes to 1% of assessed valuation Limits assessment increases to 2% per year. Prohibits state lawmakers from imposing new taxes without a 2/3 vote of the legislature. Prohibits local governments from enacting most new taxes without a 2/3 vote of the electorate.

CA Decline By late 80’s, with booming immigrant child population, CA slipped in ranking of per student spending Will communities continue to support education when funding is disbursed to the state as a whole, not just for their community? Will (older) whites support education for mostly immigrant and minority kids?

Partial Recovery In late 90s, spending increased—especially for class size reduction 2003 overturned the super majority requirement for ED bonds to 55% CA still below national average, but not by so much

California Standards Reform: API Since 1999 all schools receive a score between 200 and 1000, and a ranking from 1 to 10 Goal is for each school to reach 800 Schools below target qualify for grants, but eventually admin change or closure

“Standards reform”: No child Left Behind 2001 states must devise yearly tests for 3-8, one in schools must show adequate yearly progress for all subgroups schools not showing AYP for two consecutive years must provide parents with choice of another school in district then must offer tutoring then must take “corrective action” all students “proficient” by 2014

Critique of NCLB Feds did not provide enough money to accommodate those in failing schools Teachers hate “teaching to the test” But in CA, statewide scores have mostly been improving

Other issues 2000 voters rejected school vouchers for 2 nd time 2006—first use of high school exit exam

Higher Ed 1960 Master Plan UC—top 12% (plus top 4% of each school), CSUs—top 1/3, CCs— most students not keeping up with growth—since 2003 UCs turning down qualified applicants Fees increasing at all levels—is this OK? Still a bargain compared to other states (if not countries)