education

The governor has finally come around to reality. Reforming California's school system will require a huge investment in our children's future and we simply do not have the funds to do that this year. Arnold said this and more in an interview with the LAT editorial board.

But he also talked about investing more in some of the same government programs he once complained were bloated and inefficient.

The message has ceased to be that schools can do more with less.

Now, he said, properly reforming the state's education system could come with a hefty price tag.

Because of the need for funds, Schwarzenegger said, he would put off his plans for an ambitious overhaul of the state educational system until more money is available.

"We have to analyze and bring everyone in the education community together and look at all the reforms and look at if that means we need extra money to do all those things," the governor said.

"To say: 'The funding we leave off the table completely . . . because we don't have any money, but we want to do those reforms,' that is not the way it works."

He is sounding all the right notes at the moment with regards to his plans for his "Year of Education". The same cannot be said of his approach to the budget. He has already lined up the schools as a target for huge cuts.

This state desperately needs a big boost to our education funding. There are some greatly needed reforms and Arnold wants to make this year, the year of education. But that is going to be tough. The scope of the problems are very large and so is our current budget deficit. That said, he is still pushing forward and his blue ribbon panel has just released a proposal, complete with a $6 billion price tag. Merc:

Setting the stage for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Year of Education," a panel he appointed has proposed a sweeping set of reforms that will help define the debate, including performance-based pay for teachers, universal preschool and full-day kindergarten.

A blueprint of the recommendations obtained by the Mercury News also calls for:

• Billions more to be spent each year to educate English-learners and other low-income students who are lagging behind more affluent peers.

• A sophisticated new data system to better track students' successes and failures.

• A school "inspection system" similar to those used in New York City and several European countries. To increase the accountability of schools, the results of the inspections would immediately be made available to the public.

A lot of time, money and resources have been poured into a series of studies to investegate the California education system and ways that it can be improved. This is just one of many. They all have a common theme: we can make things better, but it will take real money. Reforms with out money don't work and just more money won't work either.

This is assured to be a subject of Arnold's upcoming State of the State speech. He has not signed off on this report, so it is unclear if he supports all of the proposals.

This year was supposed to be the year of health care reform. Next year was supposed to be the year of education, or so pronounced he of the grandiose titles and ambitions: Arnold Schwarzenegger. And you know what, we really need to have our state government make some headway on those issues. Unfortunately, we have a big pressing problem, the huge budget deficit. Health care negotiations have bogged down as the budget gap has risen.

Now Arnold is calling a fiscal emergency. Even prior to that came this LAT article:

Legislative leaders said Thursday that more taxes would be needed to fill a projected $14-billion budget gap next year, and the state Senate president said a healthcare overhaul -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's priority this year -- will have to wait.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said lawmakers would have to consider raising a host of taxes, including those on Internet purchases and on foreign companies that do business in California.

"We've got to close those tax loopholes," Nuñez told reporters at a news conference. "We can generate billions by doing that."

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said some sort of tax increase would be necessary, mostly likely in a ballot measure for the public to consider. He said he doubted Republicans would provide the votes necessary for the Legislature to raise taxes.

Raising taxes in California requires a 2/3rds vote and the Republicans are simply calling for more cuts across the board. Those two desires are incompatible, thus there will be a predictable bloody battle to get the budget down.

Nunez thinks they are close enough on health care to call a vote next week. Perata is signaling that he won't go along and is pushing a water bond. Arnold wants cuts, health care and the moon. Republicans don't want anything but a smaller government.

Yes, I am pessimistic this Friday, but I think it is understandable when looking at the situation. The system is dysfunctional right now and I am not confident that they will be able to do the hard work to fix the fundamental problems.

I know I have been quiet the last few days, really it has to do with a slow news cycle when it comes to California state politics and quality of life issues. Today, it is time fore a link filled post, everything remotely tied to our usual topics of discussion.

• The issue of the state ordering flex-fuel vehicles then just running them on gas is back in the news. Sen. Dean Florez is holding a hearing to find out who knew what, when in the Schwarzenegger administration.
• Mary Nichols, the new head of the Air Board is selling off her stocks to comply with ethics laws.
• The Democrats in the legislature placed a bill on Arnold’s desk to increase payments to disabled workers. Will he sign it? Or will he say this issue needs to be studied some more like he did last year?
• This year is health care. Arnold has already declared that next year will be education. Stay tuned, it should be another interesting year. Loads of studies and polling has been completed this year, and will be fodder for next year’s policy battles.
• Speaking of health care, there is about to be a veto fight with respect to an expansion of health care coverage for children. Bush has threatened to veto it. If it does not happen, it will make the numbers much more difficult for reform here in California. Arnold and all of the Democratic legislators here have been pushing for its passage.

Yes, I know that the Senate is still working on this year's budget, but it is not too early to take a look at the impact of how this deal was actually put together. This budget does fully fund education to the Proposition 98 guarantees and includes a cost of living adjustment. However, the $427 million increase that has been talked about, and generally praised by educators, does not come out of general fund revenue. It was cobbled together from a court case settlement ($250 million), unused money from the previous year's budget ($80 million) and money from the hijacked transportation funding ($97).

So, what does that mean? Well, the 2008-09 budget will start out with a much lower base for education. The original budget that Arnold proposed did not fund the increase in this manner. This sort of maneuvering guarantees that there will be a battle next year on exactly how much money our schools are entitled to. While educators are pleased that there was an increase, groups like CSEA are disappointed that the legislature funded it in this way. It is a relatively minor thing in the grand scheme of things, but it is important.

UPDATE 2:45 Here is the CTA release.

The California Teachers Association and its 340,000 members strongly oppose SB 98 that provides more than $500 million in tax breaks to big businesses and oil companies. The bill, which was passed by Assembly members in the middle of the night as part of a last-minute state budget deal, would reduce future funding for California public schools.

“With the state budget still showing a deficit, this is the wrong time to be offering tax breaks to big businesses and oil companies – especially at the expense of our children and our public schools,” said CTA President David A. Sanchez. “These tax breaks will reduce the minimum school funding guarantee and will mean future cuts to education programs that directly impact students. These cuts would undermine the progress our students have made.”

“We are very concerned that with this bill the Assembly has pulled the rug out from underneath public education while rolling out the red carpet to oil companies, banks and big businesses,” said Sanchez. “Educators urge the State Senate to reject this bill and to pass a state budget that fully funds education and protects our schools from unnecessary reductions down the road. If lawmakers are looking for a place to save money, they should not re-instate funding for standardized testing in the second grade. California is one of only nine states in the country that tests second graders. That’s a common-sense budget cut that will actually help our youngest students focus on classroom instruction, rather than filling in test bubbles.”

CTA supports a state budget package that fully funds Proposition 98 and provides full cost-of-living-increases to all schools and education programs.

Lowering the tax revenue base reduces the amount that goes towards Prop. 98 funding guarantees. Schools get a percentage cut of revenues and if that is lowered then they get less money. As mentioned earlier, the Senate can reject SB 98, without dooming the entire budget. They are separate bills.

At 4 am this morning the Assembly passed the budget. The Senate is hearing it right now, and is expected to pass it, though not without some rancor. The budget was passed mostly on the backs of cuts to transit funding, the poor and teachers. The Democrats appear to have caved on most issues, but not to the extent that the Republicans and Arnold wanted.

Let's run down a few details as to the actual program cuts.

• The Republicans wanted $2 billion in cuts. They got $1.4 billion
• The government will pay $2.5 billion in bond obligations. That is $1 billion more than required. Arnold had proposed $1.6 billion in early payments originally.
• $1.257 billion in gas taxes, which were intended to go to public transportation have been rerouted to the general fund. This is a one time shift. It has led many people to say that the budget has been passed at the expense of transit, which will lead to increased pollution and traffic. This may cause LA to put off plans for expanding the Expo light rail line. BART may have to delay expanding the line to the Oakland Airport.
• The Democrats had declared that eliminating the cost of living increases for the Supplemental Security Income/State Supplemental Payment (SSI/SSP) was unacceptable. They have agreed to suspend the increase for four or five months. This along with CalWORKS cuts saves $247 million.
• They have cut $25 million intended to treat drug offenders from Prop 36 funding.

For more see this run-down on CPR.

Education has been fully funded to the Prop 98 requirements and the budget also includes a cost of living adjustment. That is the good news. The bad news is that the legislature agreed to go along with the governor and eliminate a tax credit for teachers. It was intended to help off-set the money teachers spend on out-of-pocket classroom supplies. Teachers routinely spend hundreds of dollars a years on supplies for their classroom that their districts can't afford to provide. This would have allowed them to deduct the expenses from their taxes. It's a little thing that makes all the difference for our hard working teachers.

The elimination of this tax credit is all the more disheartening with the news that the Assembly has agreed to go along with $600 million in tax breaks for corporations and movie studios. Senator Perata was steamed this morning and sent a letter to Speaker Nunez.

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I am alarmed and dismayed by rumors that you are considering a half a billion dollars in tax breaks for special interests.

As you and I well know, Democrats have sacrificed funding for education, have postponed a meager cost-of-living increase for the state’s most vulnerable disabled residents – the aged, blind and disabled, and have barely thwarted deeper cuts to education and higher education. Even the increases we proposed to the state’s Prop 36 program – aimed at keeping non-violent drug offenders out of prison and putting them into treatment programs – has fallen victim to concerns about the state’s long-term deficit.

But most ironic, we have surrendered $185m in teacher tax credits to balance the budget!!! How could you now throw them over for Hollywood movie moguls and multi-national corporations???

Our out-year budget problem is already $5.5 billion dollars. We cannot continue to fund education, higher education and crucial human services issues, such as the in-home supportive services program, childcare, or funding for the aged, blind and disabled by providing tax giveaways.

I am deeply disappointed and saddened by your actions – and hope you will reconsider.

The Senate is taking up the budget right now. SpeakOut and Calitics are calling on people to contact their legislators and encourage the Senate to take a stand against these tax credits and budget cuts. The tax credits were passed in stand-alone bills, not part of the main budget. They could be rejected by the Senate, without dooming the entire budget.

Let me take this opportunity to rant a bit about this AP story:

The state Assembly on Friday ended a stalemate over California's overdue budget with a surprise deal to give tax credits to movie studios, tech firms and other companies.

The tax-relief package — the state's first since 2001 — emerged as the key piece of legislation that prompted Assembly Republicans to end a standoff over a spending plan worth $145 billion. It now goes to the Senate, which was scheduled to meet later Friday.

The budget deal, approved 56-23 shortly after 4 a.m., was made possible by the compromise on tax credits, a separate move that was assailed by the Senate leader.

Excuse me...tax-relief?! How about tax credits, tax cuts, tax reductions. Anything but the politically loaded term tax-relief. That implies that taxes are a burden from which we deserve to be relieved. It is a complete right-wing frame that does not deserve to be in an AP story. I would expect the conservatives to get upset if tax giveaway was used instead. There is no cause for this language to be used in a straight news story.

Expect to hear more on the budget as the day progresses and the Senate takes up the budget. Given the tone of Perata's letter, it will not go smoothly.

UPDATE 12:15 Who knows if my post had anything to do with it, but the AP story has now been edited. "The tax-relief package" is now "The tax package". Wow. Notice that the WaPo still has "tax-relief" in its story. That means that the Chron deliberately edited it.

Things are progressing, spurred in part by a few bottles of wine and ice cream. This marks the beginning of a new stage of negotiations. The legislative leaders are no longer bashing each other in public, but are chatting amicably behind closed doors. It has been prompting rumors that we may have a deal and a vote on the budget this weekend.

As expected, more information is trickling out about the Republican's proposed budget cuts. They called for a 1-2% across the board cut in all state programs. That would net about $1 to $2 billion. The Democrats have already declared it unacceptable, particularly with regards to education.

“Democrats are not going to cut public education. Period,” said Steve Maviglio, the speaker's spokesman. “That type of meat-ax approach to budgeting won't fly.”

Arnold has also ruled out cuts to education.

Let's see how things go today. Progress is a good thing. Perhaps we need to just order them a full course dinner and we will have a deal. Or is it really just alcohol and desert that gets things moving?

Oh no they didn't.... Well, of course they did. Why would we expect anything less out of the CA GOP? When they went searching for ways to cut the budget they settled on sacrificing our children's education, in their quest for a slightly more balanced budget. Have they not learned anything from the Special Election in '05? Californians do not support cuts to school funding. LAT:

Republican legislative leaders, vowing to block passage of a state budget until Democrats agree to more spending cuts, have proposed in secret talks to slash $400 million from schools, according to education groups that were briefed on the negotiations Tuesday.

School officials say they were shocked to learn of the proposal at a briefing on the state budget impasse — now in its third week — by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland).

The officials said they were told that, under the GOP plan, the money would be cut out of cost-of-living adjustments for salaries and other expenses and funding for the growth of student populations. The cuts would apply to schools with kindergarten through high school classes and to community colleges.

Gee wiz, that approach will make recruiting teachers, at a time when the state is desperate to hire that much easier. And schools that enroll more students can certainly find ways to educate more students on the same dime and ensure they are getting a quality education. Right?

No wonder the Republicans wanted to keep this super secret. CTA and other education organizations will be mobilizing on this as I type. The Democratic leadership has informed them that they will be standing strong against it. This information gives the groups the opportunity to put the Republicans and any potentially wavering Democrats under the microscope.

Each day that the negotiations continue comes a new move from the Democrats to ratchet up the pressure on the Republicans. One day it was no more vacations, now its the release of the education cuts. Tomorrow could be the cuts to public safety that Nunez indicated was in the Republicans proposal. The Democrats believe strongly that they have the public on their side and are working to raise the profile of the dispute. They are probably right. Most Californians, including many Republicans do not support the type of budget cuts that the Republicans are demanding. And many Republicans are not as rigid about fiscal conservatism as their elected officials.

Republican activists wanted this sort of a showdown after last years friendly negotiations. Their desire to prove their relevancy will show just how irrelevant their ideology is to the general public. Voters support education funding and they don't care as much that the budget is slightly out of balance. And that is the calculation the Democratic leadership is counting on.

More college educated workers have left California than have moved here in the last five years. This is creating a crisis, as we will soon not have enough educated workers to meet the projected economic demand. The Public Policy Institute just completed a study on the subject.

Demand is rising, due in part to the graying of the baby boomers and the need created when people move out of the state. The high cost of housing is driving people away. California used to get a "large supply of college graduates from other parts of the country", but the baby boomers are now older than the age most people migrate across state borders.

PPIC says that we can only meet the demand by attracting college graduates in unprecedented numbers, but that does not seem likely to happen. The number of immigrants coming to California with a college degree exceed the number of immigrants who were not high school graduates between 2000-2005. This trend could "intensify but the number of highly educated immigrants to California would still need to more than double to meet projected needs." The study points out that it would require changes to U.S. immigration law, which is unlikely to occur. Not only that, but there is more competition internationally these days for highly skilled workers in their own countries.

PPIC concludes that the need is unlikely to be met by increased migration of those with degrees.

However, increases in college participation and graduation among California's residents could help meet these future demands. Such increases will be at least partly induced by the way growth that will occur as highly skilled labor becomes relatively scarce. Public policy in California, a state where the majority of college students are in public institutions, has an important role to play in accommodating and even encouraging such increases.

We need to grow our own college graduates. The rapidly rising cost of tuition makes that much more difficult. We will soon spend more money on our prisons than higher education systems. Talk to any recent graduate here in California and they will tell you about the burden of their loans and wonder how they will ever afford to own a home. The state's future rests on the ability to train and retain the millenials. Public policy must reflect that need. Businesses need this as much as anyone else.

There is not a lot of love in my heart for Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I do not believe that he actually thinks that picking on the poor, elderly, disabled and children is really something to be "very proud" about. This is all part of the Kabuki Dance Arnold does every year with the Democratic leadership. He proposes cuts to social programs that he knows the Democrats will not stand for. Then he uses them as bargaining chips during the "Big 5" meetings.

This is troubling George Skelton today and rightfully so.

These are just moves to pile bargaining chips on the negotiating table. That's got to be it.

Otherwise — at least in regards to the elderly, disabled and kids living on the edge — he'd be either a dunce or a bully, picking on the politically weak. We know he's not the former. Don't even want to think about the latter.

Arnold is a bully. We have known that for a long time, back when he was running around calling Democratic legislators "girly men" and talking about kicking nurses butts. He is being a bully over the budget, picking on the weakest among us in order to appease the conservatives. They love his draconian cuts. They just wish they went even further. Rather than acting outwardly like a bully, he is smiling and talking about how "proud" he is of his budget. Lipstick on a pig.

Let's run down some of Arnold's "proud" priorities.

The California lottery was sold to voters as a big boon for public schools. In reality it adds up to less than 2% of their annual budgets (about $1.2 billion/year). That is not to say that it isn't important to consider the effects of privatizing the lottery on our school's finances. Arnold says that a private company will administrate the lottery more efficiently, earning more money for the state. Where are the savings going to come from?

Schools get about 34% of the revenue generated from the lottery, that is what is left after 50% goes to prizes and 16% to administration and marketing. Where is the profit for the company in this scenario? Who loses out? They won't cut the prizes, that is for sure. It is not hard to predict how this will play out.

Companies will be motivated to reduce the percentage of sales that schools receive, in order to reap their profits. They will likely reduce overhead by paying their employees less and they will work hard to ensure that they are non-union. Dan Weintraub takes on the numbers:

Most privatization schemes cooked up by Republicans are considered DOA in the Democratic controlled legislature. That is not the case with Arnold's plan to hand the state's lottery over to a private firm. The Democratic leadership is at least open to hearing more about it. LAT:

This time, some Democrats are leaving the door ajar.

"It's worth at least taking a look," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles). "Generally, we don't like contracting out. We see it as a way to short-shrift state employees. This is a little bit different….The question for us is whether we are maximizing our ability to generate significant revenues from lottery. Everything we are looking at preliminarily says that, right now, we are not….

"I'm circumspect, but this deserves an opportunity to at least be fleshed out."

Senate Leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) took a similar view, saying he believes it is lawmakers' job to "turn everything upside down and shake it and see what comes out."

Others were not nearly as charitable.

I told you we were going to get leaks about Arnold's budget revision, but I can't claim that I saw this coming. The governor wants to sell our lottery system to a company for the next 40 years. California's lottery system has underperformed for a long time and Arnold sees privatization as the solution to its ills. LAT:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is poised to call for privatizing the state lottery, a move that would bring California a cash infusion of as much as $37 billion to help solve pressing budget problems but also could sacrifice a major revenue source for decades to come.

The lottery would be leased to a private company for up to 40 years in exchange for a lump-sum payment or series of payments, according to documents from the governor's budget office that were provided to legislative staff and obtained by The Times. If lawmakers were to sign off on such a plan, California could become the first state to privatize its lottery.

Proponents of the lottery over-promised when it was first introduced, as the solution to all of our education spending problems. I am highly skeptical of any panacea like claims now. The 40 year length of this proposition brings up legitimate questions about the state taking quick cash now and giving up potentially better long term gains. A large scale private lottery system does not exist right now. There are no firms with a history of good returns. The state would be gambling with their gambling to pass this off to a private enterprise, compounding the questions about the long time period. Who knows how a company would perform four years down the road, let alone forty?

The process of awarding increased funding for under performing schools to reduce their class sizes is progressing. It looks like good news for the LAUSD, which had expected to receive funding for 80 local schools. "Instead, the actual number is likely to be 86 to 93 campuses." LAT:

The money is part of a $3-billion settlement to a lawsuit filed against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger by the California Teachers Assn. and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. They had alleged that Schwarzenegger broke an agreement, made early in his administration, to fully fund public schools.

All parties agreed that the settlement money should be used to reduce class sizes and increase the number of counselors at California's lowest performing schools.

To increase the amount of dollars for each school, they also decided to fund about one-third of the 1,455 eligible schools. Doing the math, local officials figured they would receive money for about 80 schools.

The outcome was a combination of the successful push by officials to get all but two eligible schools to apply. Over 60% of those who applied were not likely to be chosen, but they "boosted the LAUSD's spots in the lottery." They were also aided by 195 schools in other parts of the state who failed to apply. The end result is an unexpected windfall for a few more schools.

The impacts of the 2005 Special Election continue to be felt. This time it is more students in LA having smaller classes. Good stuff.

I got a hold of the Education Coalition ad and put it up on YouTube.

It is in direct reponse to the Stanford Studies released last month. There are also a set of radio ads, available to listen to on the CTA website. It is a fairly modest advertising campaign, but they will be aired all over the state.

Teachers get paid much less than those in private industry and here in California we are slipping even further behind. In the last two years the increase in average teacher pay hasn't even kept pace with inflation.

The AFT just released a study on teacher pay (pdf). This is from their NCLBlog.

The average teacher pay in 2005 was $47,602. Beginning teacher pay was $31,753.
• Average and Beginning wages didn’t keep pace with inflation in 2005
• Real salaries for experienced teachers in the largest cities rose by less than 1 percent in 2006. Average raises for beginning teachers were up by 1.3 percent.
• Between 1995 and 2005 real pay in the private sector rose by 12.7 percent. Real beginning teacher pay rose by 3.3 percent. Average teacher pay rose by 1 percent.
• When compared to professions requiring similar education, real teacher pay rose by less than 1 percent over the five years 2000-2005. Pay for other professions rose by more than 6 percent.
• A beginning teacher with the average student loan burden could expect to spend almost 9 percent of her take home pay on loans in 2006
• In 15 of the 50 largest cities in America a mid-career teacher can’t afford the median priced home.

It should surprise no one that there are a few Californian locales among those 15 unaffordable cities. In 2006, a beginning teacher in San Diego, San Jose or San Francisco would have had to have spent more than 30 percent of their income to get a median priced apartment. According to HUD, that makes such an apartment unaffordable.

A teacher with a Master's degree in San Francsico would have to pay 57% of their salary to afford purchasing a median prices home. Its 45% in LA, 41% in San Diego and 39% in San Jose.

This is just as much of a teacher pay issue, as it it an affordable housing problem. The combination thereof spells disaster for our teachers in the largest cities. It often means they cannot afford to live in the communities where they teach.

The biggest failing of the current ESEA (aka No Child Left Behind), other than the woeful underfunding, is its reliance on only one measure of achievement, a single test. The one-day snapshot from a standardized test is an unfair, inaccurate and misleading measure of student achievement. It has caused an over-emphasis on teaching to the test at the expense of other programs like foreign languages, art, music and PE. The current one-size-fits all approach is hurting all our kids and pushing struggling students behind.

California has recognized the limitations of that model, especially as it relates to the improvement of our ESL, minority and disabled students. Too often these students are left behind, and schools unfairly punished for having high proportions of special needs students under NCLB. New state rules require that our schools make progress towards closing the gap between whites and lower-achieving minority students. From the LAT:

"It's going to be more challenging for schools to reach their growth target," said state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell. But "closing the achievement gap is not only an economic imperative, but a moral imperative."

The state's primary measure of success is the Academic Performance Index, which grades schools on a scale from 200 to 1,000 based on student test scores in math, English and other subjects. Schools are required to meet annual improvement targets. Minorities, the poor, the disabled and other groups also have to improve, but until this year, the achievement gap could widen even while a school received credit for getting better.

The API is not perfect, but it is a lot better at measuring school performance than the feds' single test system. Looking at straight across-the-board improvement is not enough. California is focused on improving the performance of all students and truly not leaving anybody behind.

You know, it would be an miracle if I could go a week with out an Arnold sucks and here is why post. It isn't my fault. The man just doesn't stop with the stupid.

Take his proposal to take away mass transit money and use it to pay off debts. Oh yeah, and he is trying to call it a "stabilization" move for transit funding. The proposal is probably DOA in the legislature, but here is what Arnold wishes he could do. It isn't exactly green.

The change to be debated this week in state Assembly and Senate budget subcommittees is part of $1.1 billion worth of money diverted in the governor's budget from the spillover and other sources that would ordinarily pay for transit.

The new beneficiaries do pay for buses, vans, and their maintenance and drivers, but these vehicles transport schoolchildren and the disabled and are traditionally budgeted with education and social services.

To hear the Schwarzenegger administration's budget people explain it, the budget allows for more stable funding for public transit. Although the recent spillover estimate for the 2007-2008 budget year is $617 million, as recently as the 2002-2003, gas sales tax receipts did not grow enough to create any spillover.

Using spillover and other transit funding, the proposed budget puts $627 million into home to school transportation and $144 million into transportation of clients to developmental centers and $340 million to pay debt service on old bonds used mainly for public transit projects.

We do need to stabilize funding for public transportation, but this is not the way to do it. Arnold is attempting to move responsibility for a large portion of transportation funding from the general budget to Prop. 98 funds. That effectively reduces the amount of money available for actual education our students. This is the time to shore up our public transportation system as high gas prices are driving people out of their cars.

The passage of Prop 1A locks down gas tax revenues to transportation funding. It will, as the Schwarzenegger administration points out, put more pressure on the legislature to diverting public transit funding for other needs. It is a very bad habit of our legislature to raid that particular kitty, rather than planning ahead.

We do need a solution to this problem, but Arnold's would do more harm than good.

Money from the CTA v. Arnold lawsuit settlement is making its way towards the neediest schools. It is one of the more concrete items to come out of the Special Election in 2005. The broken promises Arnold made to our schools was at the heart of the Alliance's campaign. He had taken away several billion in promised education funding. It took a lawsuit and new legislation to get it back three years later. The settlement guaranteed it would go to the lowest performing schools for class size reduction, more counselors and teacher training.

Despite the large number of needy, qualified schools there is not enough money to go around. LAT:

The Los Angeles Board of Education approved a priority list Thursday for funding its struggling middle schools and most of its lowest-achieving high schools under a new state program that will reduce class size, add counselors and increase teacher training. Some campuses will receive as much as $1,000 per student in additional state funding.

The unanimous board vote came after students and community members described crowded classrooms, inexperienced teachers and other problems at their low-performing schools. They were among more than 200 — mostly students — who asked the board to approve the priority list.

"This money is not going to solve all these issues," said Hector Sanchez, a parent organizer for the grass-roots group Community Coalition. "But it's going to begin to address these issues."

The bottom 20% of California schools qualify, but there's enough money for only about a third of the 1,455 eligible campuses. The Los Angeles Unified School District, with 236 such schools, will reap substantial benefit. About 80 campuses will probably be approved in May by the state Board of Education.

Rather than spreading the money out so widely that it would have little discernible impact, they deliberately concentrated on the most needy schools. This money will never be enough, but it is a prioritized start.

We need comprehensive reform and a massive investment in our children's education.

People seem to be forgetting the central conclusion of the education studies. California's schools need a serious infusion of cash AND reforms to how they operate, in order to provide a quality education for our students. You cannot have one without the other. Indeed, there is no way for it to legislatively work without having both.

Weintraub's column seems to forget that basic fact and focuses on the teacher's objection to reform without increased funding.