The state of education (in California)

Hello everyone,

Allow me, please, to lament the state of public education, then offer a small suggestion.

It seems to me that the efforts to reform public education in California (and maybe throughout the nation) is the equivalent of trying to buy a Lamborghini with a dollar you found in the street, then demanding the Lamborghini vociferously, then legislating for the Lamborghini with penalties for not providing it but no money to buy it, then suing the Lamborghini company for not providing the car, criticizing the car dealership for not selling the car for a dollar, restructuring the dollar, publicizing how others own Lamborghinis, trying to substitute a Ford for a Lamborghini--which still costs more than a dollar, criticizing everyone who suggests that a Lamborghini really costs more than $100,000, then attempting a government takeover of the used car dealership that doesn't sell Lamborghinis.

Of course, the dollar to Lamborghini price is hyperbole, but the idea is similar.

A study by Stanford University suggested that it may cost more than a trillion dollars to get every school in California to an API of 800 or more. Then they quickly distanced themselves from that idea, suggesting that more efficient use of current resources would allow for lower expenditures. Still, the increase would have to be in the billions.

Since it is difficult to impossible to get the State to fund education the way it should be funded, we are left with a system that tries to reform on the cheap--blaming teachers and administrators for their failure to buy a first-class education at tramp prices.

Garfield, certainly, is fairly swimming in money, federal, state, and private. But what does that money do for us when we can't budget until just before the school year begins? or reduce class sizes for lack of space? or use the money in the way that seems best to the Garfield community? or start the school day at a reasonable hour? or provide sufficient parking? or give B-track a coherent semester? or do more than pay lip service to giving English language learners the individual attention that they need? or have sufficient bilingual teachers to teach students in their primary language when they need it? or prevent violence? or motivate more parents to be involved in school? or maintain our facility without disrupting instruction? or stop truancy? or provide psychiatric services to the students who need it? or stop drug use? or end gang activity?

If you read through the entire list, you know that it would take a huge influx of money to be able to do all the things we need to do.

So we keep trying to do it on the cheap.

Does that mean we should give up?

By all means, no.

But we could make it easier for us all to do our best.

We could relieve stress rather than cause it.

We could share our resources rather than hoard them.

We could allow for a multitude of visions rather than demand our own.

We should be grateful for volunteers rather than demand them.

We can demand more from our students even while recognizing the extreme difficulties they often work under.

I noticed a long time ago that listeners cared little if a pianist is playing in the key of C (easy) or Cb (difficult). If someone chooses to play in C, we should not find fault with their transposition; we should just enjoy the music.

By all means, let us transpose if necessary. And if someone doesn't know how, transpose for them--or teach them how.

It won't buy a Lamborghini, but who needs a Lamborghini if one has music?

Jeff Combe






California Education Reform Meltdown
by: K. Lloyd Billingsley, March 21, 2007

SACRAMENTO, CA ~Last week the capital was abuzz over Getting Down to Facts, the massive series of privately-funded education reports coordinated through Stanford University. The responses to these reports missed some key realities.

The reports confirm that California education is a mess, burdened with a complicated and counterproductive system of finance. To bring every student up to speed under current conditions would cost more than $1 trillion per year, according to one estimate from which the researchers have distanced themselves. According to another, to bring California students in line with the goals of the federal No Child Left Behind Act will require spending increases of 53 to 71 percent.

The full text of the report is at the link below:

http://irepp.stanford.edu/documents/GDF/GDF-Overview-Paper.pdf