Beginning
I am writing to advise you of my
deep concern about the prospects for cuts to education in the coming budget
year.
It is my understanding that the Governor’s budget proposes very deep funding
cuts to public schools across California as part of the upcoming budget.
I am writing out of great concern over the proposed budget cuts to public schools that are part of the Governor’s budget for 2008-09.
As the state budget crisis gets greater public attention, the potentially devastating impacts to schools is also becoming clear.
The looming budget cuts to schools as a result of proposals by the Governor have motivated me to write to you about my concerns.
Middle (for Republican representatives)
In budget fights over the past many
years, there have been occasions when Republicans have not ceded the education
issue to Democrats. Republicans believe in good public schools too and have
previously spearheaded the effort to protect basic school funding. In the early
1990s, it was the Assembly Republican caucus that provided the necessary signatures
on a petition to demonstrate that a two-thirds vote required for Prop 98 suspension
could not be secured.
Opposition to school cuts by you and your colleagues should again be championed
given that such cuts undermine an important priority and don’t achieve
your stated budget goals. Republicans want permanent, lasting solutions to the
persistent structural funding gap. The Legislative Analyst pointed out last
fall that cuts to Prop 98 and school funding creates nearly immediate repayment
obligations and out-year fiscal pressures. It was precisely this kind of burden
that exacerbated the repayment of schools in accordance with Prop 98 a few years
ago following the first and only suspension of the minimum guarantee for schools.
In addition, the suspension of Proposition
98 is strongly opposed by the people of California . According to the Public
Policy Institute of California, six in ten Californians oppose cuts to schools.
The political cost of even attempting suspension of Proposition 98 puts rank
and file Republicans at odds with education before you even know if there are
the adequate votes necessary to achieve the two-thirds vote required in each
house. Publicly supporting suspension is not worth the short-term fiscal gain
given the resulting instability to schools and lack of real structural budget
savings.
Republicans understand the phrase, “you get what you pay for,” or
“you only get out of something what you’re willing to invest in
it.” When virtually all of the research from the nearly two-dozen Stanford
led studies last year concluded that California ’s public schools are
dramatically underfunded, it is hard to argue for education cuts. The burden
state leaders are creating for themselves to close the investment and achievement
gap becomes much more ominous if we are cutting today. To hold school funding
level for a year would probably be the wrong thing to do, but actually cutting
schools only cripples our ability to make the important investments that must
be made if we are to ever have schools that give our kids a competitive edge
in the world.
Everyone seems to agree that more money alone won’t help California schools improve the kind of achievement we need to see for all of our kids. However, cutting schools will almost certainly hurt those efforts. Many from all political perspectives thought that 2008 could be a year when important reforms and improvements could be pursued by leveraging the potential for increased per pupil investment. The prospects for building on school improvement and reform are delayed exponentially with every dollar of cuts to public schools. The promise of restoring budget cuts is not the same as the pursuit of increased commitments to added school funding and the degree to which we can leverage those opportunities is night and day. A decision to cut school funding is indeed equal to a delay in the implementation of meaningful, comprehensive reform for California ’s schools.
Some have suggested that those of
us to advocate against school cuts should come up with the alternatives for
solving the budget crisis. While I could point to a number of tax loopholes,
credits and deductions the Legislative Analyst has suggested along with the
reversal of major decisions that have cost the state billions over the past
several years, the real answer is in advocating for a budget that does indeed
reflect priorities. Simply crafting a budget that reflects the priorities of
Californians rather than an across-the-board approach would result in substantially
fewer or no cuts to schools.
Middle (for Democrat representatives)
I know you and your Democratic colleagues in the Legislature believe education is a top priority as you begin to deliberate the state budget. It is a legacy issue that Democrats have fought to defend for years. In recent years, particularly during the fights waged under the Wilson administration, your party has talked about education as a “core value.” In the past when the public fully understood the stakes at issue in the annual budget fight, they galvanized behind the effort to oppose the clearly negative implications for schools. We enjoyed broad public support because your agenda was crystal clear. The last time a balance approach was used to solve the budget problems of this state, the choice was decimating public schools and suspension of Proposition 98 or a combination of new revenue options along with program cuts across many parts of state government.
I urge you to return to the “core values” that Democrats have espoused in the past to make your arguments clear to the public about what the stakes are in the budget for next year. A litany of social service programs that merely includes education on the list Democrats cite as targets for cuts is not enough to generate the outrage that should appropriately be associated with the kind of historic cuts the Governor is talking about for public schools. Standing up for schools as the preeminent issue will help the public focus on what is really at stake and fuel a defense for every other program Democrats are trying to protect. There is not a single issue that will motivate Californian’s to support a “balanced approach” to solving the budget more than protecting basic school funding. In the last Public Policy Institute of California poll on this subject, six in ten Californian’s said they did not want to see cuts to schools.
Yes, you have serious challenges to surmount in balancing the budget and the choices are not easy. However, you and your colleagues are searching for permanent, lasting solutions to the structural budget deficit and education doesn’t provide those solutions. The Legislative Analyst pointed out last fall that cuts to Prop 98 and school funding creates nearly immediate repayment obligations and out-year fiscal pressures. It was precisely this kind of burden that exacerbated the repayment of schools in accordance with Prop 98 a few years ago following the first and only suspension of the minimum guarantee for schools.
Don’t be afraid to declare that schools should not be cut. I understand that Democrats have insisted that everything be on the table and they don’t want to emulate the behavior of Republicans who are drawing a line in the sand on important potential solutions. That said, there is nothing wrong with articulating your priorities.
The governor’s proposed budget reductions would be disastrous to public schools and they are fundamentally inconsistent with the state’s goal of improving student achievement. Voters passed Proposition 98 almost 20 years ago to ensure our students and schools receive minimum funding. They strongly reaffirmed their support for the minimum funding law in 2005. Proposals to suspend Proposition 98 conflict with the will of the voters and jeopardize the minimum education funding levels Proposition 98 provides for students and schools.
Our students and schools did not create this budget problem, and their progress shouldn’t be undermined because of it. Our students and schools have been making progress. Reading scores are up 25 percent and math scores have increased 17 percent in the last four years. This progress cannot continue with the proposed budget cuts to our public schools. A state budget proposal that looks at cuts alone is not a real solution, because it doesn’t address California ’s underlying problem of inadequate and unstable revenue sources. We can not talk about spending cuts without also talking about increasing revenues.
Ending sentence
Thank you for taking the time to review the opinions I’ve expressed. I hope you will consider them carefully as you and your colleagues begin to make decisions about the 2008-09 budget.
I appreciate your consideration of my views on the budget and urge you to take every step necessary to protect basic investments, modest as they are, in California public schools.
As the budget process for the coming year gets underway, I hope you will be mindful of the thoughts I have shared with you in this letter. Thanks in advance for taking into account the issues I have raised.
I realize that you must participate
in a process that results in a budget for all Californians and there are many
pressures to protect a multitude of programs. I hope that you will take to heart
my observation of the unique and high priority education has with the public.
Thanks for considering my perspective on this as you vote on a budget plan for
next year.
There are a variety of is
ues that you must consider when voting on a final budget plan and it certainly comes with tremendous difficulty in bad times. However, I hope I have been able to raise some issues that you will consider when it is time for you to cast a vote on protecting Proposition 98 and basic school funding.