In the 2019-20 budget–Newsom’s first enacted budget–California spent $103 billion in state, local, and federal funds for education, which translated to $17,423 per pupil.
In the governor’s new proposed budget, total education spending comes in at a whopping $137 billion, which pencils out to $24,764 per pupil.
All this added spending has bought lots more programs: more before/after-school programs, more summer school, expanded kindergarten eligibility, more discretionary funding for school districts, and more school meals, to name just a few.
So, as Newsom says, California’s public education system has expanded greatly. But has this expansion improved the system as the governor claims?
The answer is no if one defines improvement as improving student achievement.
Consider the fact that according to the latest available state test score data, a staggering 70 percent of eighth graders do not meet grade-level math standards. Also, a majority of eighth graders fail to meet grade-level reading standards.
The question then is why has all this education spending not resulted in better student outcomes? The answer is because much of the money spent by Sacramento on education goes to programs that have little evidence that they move the student-achievement needle.
Take, for instance, so-called community schools, which are supported by the teachers unions. In his budget proposal, Newsom prominently touts state grants “supporting the community school model at more than 2,000 of the state’s public schools.” These community schools integrate “educational, health, and mental health services to students with a wide range of needs.”
That may all sound good, but there is little evidence to show that community schools raise student achievement. A Harvard study that examined the impact of the community-school model, which included early childhood programs and health initiatives, on educational outcomes found: “Community programs are neither necessary nor sufficient” when it came improving student achievement.
Further, community schools expose students to possible ideological indoctrination. Former U.S. assistant secretary of education Bill Evers has detailed how the State Board of Education’s Community Schools Framework is being used by leftist activists to use community schools as conduits to funnel critical race theory, critical ethnic studies, and other radical instruction into classrooms from San Diego to Oakland to Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Evers rightly concluded: “Even if community schools noticeably improved student performance—and there’s no compelling evidence that they do or will in the future—they shouldn’t be taxpayer-funded vehicles for political activism and propaganda pushed on a captive student audience.”
Besides funding programs that do not improve student achievement, Newsom’s budget proposal does not go far enough to fund programs that could improve student learning and performance.
For example, the governor’s proposal does acknowledge the research-proven fact that the science of reading, which includes the five elements of phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension, is the most effective method of teaching children how to read.
Yet, the reality in California is that many, if not most, schools in California use ineffective reading instructional methods, such as the so-called balanced literacy approach that asks students to guess at words instead of sounding out words using the phonics technique.
The widespread use of balanced literacy is a key cause of student reading failure in California, with the latest state test scores showing a large majority of third and fourth graders failing to meet grade-level reading standards.
In my recent book The Great Classroom Collapse I profiled a California dad named Sugi Sorensen who detailed how his affluent Los Angeles-area school district used the balanced literacy method, which caused huge reading problems among children in the district. Because students were struggling with reading in the classroom, parents had to resort to paying for outside tutors to improve their children’s reading skills.
Sorensen noted that it was the pressure from local parents, not changes in state policy, which finally spurred the school district to start to switch from balanced literacy to the science of reading.
Given the wide use of balanced literacy in California schools, the governor’s proposed $40 million to screen students for reading difficulties seems like a half measure. Even if we know a child has a reading problem, those problems are not going to be solved if California school districts continue to use ineffective unscientific reading instructional methods. A good diagnosis, but bad medicine does not cure the ailment.
Newsom’s budget proposal contains elements that appear to push for more science of reading in the classroom, but those elements do not get to the heart of the reading problem.
For instance, the governor proposes $500 million to train and hire “literacy coaches” who would engage in one-on-one and small-group tutoring.
Yet, his budget proposal does not effectively address the fact that most of the state’s university schools of education do not teach prospective teachers about the science of reading.
According to the National Council on Teacher Quality, 31 out of 41 teacher training programs at California universities earned a D or F grade when it came to teaching the science of reading.
Unfortunately, in the teacher preparation section of the governor’s budget summary there is nothing mentioned about changing the direction of teacher training at state universities.
That is why last year Democrat Assembly Member Blanca Rubio proposed legislation, AB 2222, which would have required the science of reading to be instituted in classroom curriculum, teacher training programs, and accreditation policies for university schools of education.
Rubio’s bill had broad bipartisan support and was supported by groups such as the NAACP. However, when California Teachers Association, a big Newsom ally, came out in opposition the bill died. The governor stayed on the sidelines.
“Teachers have unions,” Rubio told me when I interviewed her for my book, but “students do not.” “We are the only ones that have to advocate for the kids.”
These are just some of the reasons why, for all the tax dollars that are being spent on public education in California, students continue to perform at abysmally low levels. Newsom’s education budget may be high, but it shortchanges students.
Lance Izumi is senior director of the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute. He is the author of the PRI book The Great Classroom Collapse: Teachers, Students, and Parents Expose the Collapse of Learning in America’s Schools.
