It’s time for lawmakers to call ‘Olly Olly Oxen Free’ and pass the budget
California’s Legislature is playing children’s games with unbelievably high stakes – the very future of our state. The players, adults who really should know better, have turned the budget process into a game of “Hot Potato,” tossing decisions back and forth, avoiding the tough choices that must be made.
The apparent goal of the game is simple: escaping being held responsible for the decisions we elected the players – our legislators – to make. The immediate losers of this game are our children, who have already had to endure the effects of many cuts in service: health care, child care, and the more than $18 billion cut from education over the last three years. The long-term losers will be all of us, as the cuts shortchange our state’s chances of growing the well-educated workforce we need to prosper in the future. The nearly 1 million PTA members across California have said loudly and clearly: adequate funding for education is a top priority. PTA is deeply troubled that some of our elected representatives in Sacramento still do not seem to be listening.
Public education is a fundamental responsibility of the state — and our children cannot be asked to bear the brunt of any more budget cuts. Endless budget cuts break our promise to provide a free public education to all our children, to provide to all of them the opportunity to reach their full potential.
Breaking our promise to provide a quality public education has heartbreaking consequences that stand to cheat children out of the opportunity to contribute as much as their talents allow. For instance, the state and the PTA have both singled out closing the achievement gap as a priority. Research has clearly shown that the gap widens during long breaks from school. Budget cuts have already shortened the instructional year at many schools, and threaten to shorten it even more. The reality reduces the state’s oft-repeated priority of closing the achievement gap to an empty statement.
We know that children learn best when they are healthy, yet we cut crucial services that help them to stay healthy. Our budgets reflect our values more faithfully than our words – and we must insist on a budget that invests in the future by investing in our children. We won’t win in the global game of economic prosperity without a well-educated workforce.
It’s time for all of us to call out “olly, olly, oxen free,” and ask our legislators to come out of hiding. They must stand up, and put one foot in front of the other until they are all in the middle of the aisle, so they can do their job to protect the more than 9 million children in California!
We cannot postpone our call for action, just as our children cannot postpone their childhoods. This is not a partisan effort or a political strategy. This is a call to our legislators to fulfill their basic responsibility to do the best for all the citizens who elected them.
Anyone who has ever played games with children quickly comes to appreciate the way even very young children insist on playing by the rules. They are great enforcers of fairness and truth-telling.
It’s time for the grown-ups in Sacramento to remember what they knew as children. It’s time to stop playing games with the budget and with our future.
Jo A.S. Loss is president of the California State PTA, a nonprofit, nonsectarian, and noncommercial organization with nearly 1 million members throughout the state, including more than 250,000 in the Los Angeles area. Loss lives in Castro Valley and serves on the Castro Valley Unified School District Board of Education. For more information about the California State PTA, visit www.capta.org.







In 1994 59% of California voters passed proposition 187, which was later overturned by the courts. I think this is the starkest evidence that the definition of playing by the rules is not obvious or universally agreed upon. I really have no idea how to come to a larger consensus on this issue. Political machinations aside, I do believe it represents real values by real people.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Jo, thanks for your role as an advocate for reason. About thirty years ago, voters put their trust in their representatives in Sacramento to take care of California’s kids. By passing Proposition 13, voters wrote their communities out of the funding equation for education, though few realized it at the time. This means local funding cannot ride in to the rescue. We are counting on Sacramento to look out for our kids. Right now.
It is vital for California parents to understand how incredibly SKIMPY California’s education system already has become relative to the US and the world. (See http://ed100.org/californiaskimps for a summary.) Let there be no confusion. This is not a matter of cutting fat or a moment for “belt tightening.” On a per-student basis California already makes do with 30% fewer adults in schools than the rest of the US. Things are not OK, and making it worse is a rotten idea.
Cutting education in a way that makes it worse is a dumb idea even from a purely economic perspective. Our economy is powered by knowledge workers. (See http://ed100.org/knowledge) If students learn, the economy grows. (http://ed00.org/international ) If they don’t, we all pay. (http://ed100.org/costoffailure)
This is a moment for two things to happen: (1) Sacramento partisans need to do their thing and make a deal; (2) Voters need to roll back their dependency on Sacramento. The current system blocks communities from funding their schools. After 30 years of blocking local political will to fund education, California funding per student has dropped to the lowest in the country in real terms. It is time to restore a local role in education funding, utilizing a responsible matching fund model to ensure equity. (There are models for that: see http://ed100.org/localfunding and http://www.fullcirclefund.org/EACH )
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I don’t have a problem with experimenting with school funding. I’ve read the referenced plan and it seems to me that local funding is exactly that. I think it’s a low risk experiment as I think it’s designed to not make current funding any lower. But it’s far from obvious that it will actually increase funding for districts. The state matching dollars have to come from somewhere. And it’s not at all clear that we’d be able to come up with a better solution than a proposition-98-like model where funding can be suspended. Equity is inherently a global issue, but we have practical limits and for schools that means the state. I’m just not convinced we can come up with a system that somehow gets around that fact that as a state we’re split on how much we value equitable school funding.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity