PTA unites behind an initiative to transform and fairly fund our schools
This holiday season, one item at the top of wish lists for most parents is a public school system that delivers a well-rounded education for all students – one that prepares them for college, career, and adulthood. The future of our state and our economy depends on it.
Unfortunately, school budgets have been decimated by $20 billion in cuts in just the last few years. Essential programs for students have been eliminated or cut dramatically.
One thing I see and hear firsthand when I visit local communities throughout the state is that parents, educators, and community members have had it with these cuts.
In a recent survey, nine out of every 10 local PTA leaders and members rated “adequate school funding” as extremely important – the highest response by far to any policy issue. In particular, parents and PTA members believe more funding is needed to restore the arts, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) and physical education; as well as to reduce class sizes and add back counselors, school libraries, and librarians.
Californians see something really scary happening: An entire generation of children is being denied the public education program they need to succeed in the workforce and in life.
We cannot let this happen.
That’s why the California State PTA is planning ahead for November 2012.
The November 2012 statewide ballot presents an opportunity we can’t afford to miss for our children. That’s when voters will have a chance to do something truly transformative for our public schools by passing the Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act, which was submitted to the Attorney General last week.
We’re urging everyone to unite around this measure, sponsored by the Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization. Here’s why.
First, the Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act is the boldest and most thoughtful proposal out there. It proposes to raise the most new money solely for K-12 schools and early childhood education programs – approximately $10 billion per year. Our state faces a number of serious challenges. This measure seeks to confront the most important of those: strengthening our public education system.
The new money must be used to improve students’ academic performance, graduation rates, and readiness for career, college, and life. The infusion of desperately needed resources will help schools restore and expand the educational program for all students, with more instruction in the arts, physical education, STEM, vocational and career education, and other courses that help keep students engaged in school and prepared for 21st century careers.
Funds can also be used to reduce class sizes; hire more counselors, librarians, and school nurses; or extend learning time through longer school days, a longer school year, or summer school – all components of a well-rounded education that have been cut to the bone in recent years.
Transparency and accountability
Second, the Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act proposes important reforms that ensure transparency, oversight, and accountability.
The new revenue will be placed in a trust account, and the Legislature will be prohibited from interfering with local schools and districts over how to use the funds. Local parents, educators, and staff in every school community, including charter schools, will be empowered to provide input into how the new funding is used, with local governing boards authorizing the decisions. Every school and district must report clearly on how the money is used and what outcomes are achieved.
This would be a powerful reform because it takes a giant step toward real local control – as well as meaningful parent and community engagement.
Third, the initiative will help close the achievement gap. In addition to enabling all schools to provide a more complete range of courses and academic support services, the initiative provides additional per-student funding to support low-income children and English language learners. Plus, 15 percent of the total revenue from the initiative will be targeted to expand access to early childhood education and preschool programs, which are proven to increase school readiness and help to close the gap.
To generate the needed revenues, the initiative relies on a broad-based, graduated income tax increase. Polls show that voters will support such a tax increase if they know the money goes directly to their local schools.
Californians understand that school funding has been cut too deeply. Our children cannot wait any longer for legislators to get their act together to address what our State Superintendent of Public Instruction has called a “state of fiscal emergency” for our schools.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about the “fierce urgency of now.” The time is now for all of us to get behind a bold plan that will provide real opportunities and a well-rounded education for all students.
We owe it to them.
Carol Kocivar of San Francisco is president of the California State PTA. She has served as president-elect, vice president for communications, an education commission member, and on numerous committees with the California State PTA. A past president of the San Francisco Second District PTA, Kocivar has worked as a journalist, attorney, and ombudsperson for special education. The California State PTA has nearly 1 million members volunteering on behalf of public schools, children, and families. The PTA also advocates at national, state, and local levels for education and family issues. For information: www.capta.org
While I appreciate the intention behind initiative supported by PTA, adding another mechnism to provide revenues to schools that does not even replace the funding lost through budget cuts is less than ideal. Ballot box budgeting with PTA backed initiative or any of the other school funding intiatives will cover up the fundamental problems with school funding in California.In 2012 the best outcome would be the election of 2/3 majorities in both legislative houses. Revenues could be raised in the short term to stabliize school funding. Then ideally the Legislature could tackle the big problems of revenue volatility
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m missing the point of why this new money – which truly would be replacing general fund money that has been cut for years – would be restricted rather than just restoring the money that has been cut.
“Every school and district must report clearly on how the money is used ”
Doesn’t every district already have to do this, via their budgets, which are public documents?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Besides restoring essential funding our schools desperately need, this measure really ensures that parent input will be heard on a local level. I’m really proud of PTA getting involved in this measure, and look forward to working to get it on the ballot.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
This is great. It is the voice of parents speaking up for their children’s right to a great education. Actually make that screaming for their children. It’s time we all step forward and do for today’s kids what our parents and grandparents did for us — support public education.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Local parents, educators, and staff in every school community, including charter schools, will be empowered to provide input into how the new funding is used, with local governing boards authorizing the decisions. Every school and district must report clearly on how the money is used and what outcomes are achieved.
I would be interested in seeing a specific sample document of the proposed new budget documents and how each expenditure is explained, etc, meeting the new transparency standard.
And on this:
The initiative contains tough, effective accountability provisions that require oversight, audits and public disclosure. It requires the funds be audited by an independent third party to make sure they are only spent for authorized purposes.
Can someone explain how this is different from current law? Budgets are already public documents, and exposed in public meetings (though I would point out that people do not feel they are terribly accessible). And I thought the independent third party audit was already the law – it’s certainly common practice.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act what a novel idea! As a parent of 5 children whose ages range between 31 and 11, I have witnessed the systematic decline in the education system over the last 30 years. California’s schools have gone from first to worst. In my town the PTA paid for all the school supplies for students. The educational foundation paid for the music and athletic programs. Children and Teachers should not have to depend on the kindness of donors to fund school programs. This act is important for California’s future. Having dedicated monies set aside for schools and expanding access to early childhood education and preschool programs is a no brainer!
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In my opinion, at least the last 40 years in California has consisted of ‘one side’ trying to secure adequate and equitable funding for public education followed by a response from the ‘other side’ to circumvent that process. Back and forth its gone; it continues to this day. How do we get that to stop? Or can we?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’d still like to see that sample budget that is a model of clarity and the reports that are showing expenditures clearly linked to outcomes.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I pulled the proposed text of the “Our Children, Our Future: Local Schools and Early Education Investment Act”. It has a number of problems, and a few poison pills, too.
- The maintenance of effort provision uses 2012-13 as a benchmark. This is in one sense necessary (going back farther than the year of passage would be legally dubious), but the effect is to set a very low funding baseline. Moreover, the maintenance of effort language is flimsy. School districts would be free to use the new funds to backfill other revenue, as long as they provided an “explanation” in a public meeting.
- Although the law leaves spending decisions to local school boards, it requires boards to consult an unduly narrow constituency. “School community” is defined as “the school’s parents, teachers, administrators, other school staff and students, as appropriate.” Explicit mention should be made of other interested parties, such as voters, taxpayers, employer representatives, and higher education representatives. The law seems to adopt a charter-school view of the world, in which the interests of parents are placed above those of all voters.
- The funds cannot be used to increase salaries or benefits beyond November 1, 2012 levels. This would make it impossible to use the funds to retain new teachers by offering them reasonable salaries, for example. In some school districts, the most-senior teacher earns literally twice as much as the most-junior, though the senior teacher typically has lighter duties (choice grade levels or classes). New teachers lucky enough to be hired by a school district in the legally correct classification (probationary) may earn less than $40,000, plus benefits (which vary substantially from district to district). Those unlucky enough to be hired by a charter school, or by a dishonest district in a legally incorrect classification (substitute) may earn less than $30,000, with no benefits.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“The funds cannot be used to increase salaries or benefits beyond November 1, 2012 levels.”
It’s worth noting that in some districts that teachers offered to take salary cuts to prevent layoffs. It’s also worth noting that the cost of health insurance is increasing by roughly 10% per year. Provisions like this punish the unions and staff who made personal sacrifices to benefit students and preserve programs. It sounds nice, but again it seems to have been written by people who assume that their local experience describes all experience.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I have watched public schools in the Golden State decline since 1978, when we allowed Howard Jarvis to sell us a bill of goods. A 2/3 supermajority to raise necessary revenue has consistently proved unworkable, and our children have been the victims.
Vote to rescind Prop 13 at http://www.EndProp13.com
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity