Tim,

The WSJ is a partisan source. Especially the editorial page. So, try another source, and no, fox news doesn't count either.

Maybe the GAO?

Anyways, just because money goes up, doesn't mean we are better funded. If mandates passed by NCLB go up, but even more, wouldn't that result in an unfunded mandate? I am not sure honestly the exact amounts and every mandate that is amde, but you could go further in depth in your argurement and list at least some of them.

Lastly, will you write an open letter to Arnold asking to disband the sec. of education position? If so, I am sure you'd get alot of co-signers.

Brian

Tim,
Once again your blog is lacking in facts. A bi-partisan group of state legislatures, led by a republican from Utah, estimated NCLB has been underfunded by 27 billion dollars. In other words the law mandates the spending, but the feds have shorted their own law by 27 billion. This is why Utah is saying adios to NCLB. The federal government is also supposed to pay 40% of the cost of special education mandates, currently they pay about 18%. This means for a district like Simi that the general fund is hit for millions of dollars a year to pay for the special ed mandates, that they must meet by law, but the law is not fully funded. Also why are you always looking to cut one program in favor of another? Funny how in five years of the Bush Administration we have gone from talking about the surplus to talking about re-issuing 30 year bonds to keep up with the massive debt Bush is piling up. Arleigh Kidd

Brian,

The WSJ may have a conservative tilt, but it's not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party (just look at it's stance on immigration, which is 180 degrees from the Party's).

Are you saying it's not Ok to quote the Journal, but the sources from the CTA and NEA have more merit? They're NOT partisan sources?

As for the open letter - let's see. I'm blogging about it, advocated for it during a campaign, have commented about it many times. What else would you want me to do? A letter to the editor? Only if there is a promise that I'm not labeled "anti-kids" as many who make reasonable proposals are often labeled.

Tim

Tim,
Another fact, which you overlooked, needs correction. I am no longer President of the Simi Educators Association. As reported in the Star three weeks ago (the paper that hosts your blog) I have resigned to take a staff job with CTA. Luke Bannon is now the President of SEA.
Arleigh Kidd

Arleigh,

Thanks for the correction, but I don't recall referring to you as the head of SEA in this section of the blog (I have in older sections, but that was before your move).

Good luck in your new position, and Luke in his.

Tim

Brian,

An unfunded mandate is when something is mandated by law, and the funding isn't provided. With NCLB, as is the case with Utah, states can opt-out if they don't want to enact provisions in the law.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "Just because funding goes up doesn't mean we're better funded"... Um ok- does that mean it's all going to late night pizza parties?

Of course requirements are going to go up when funding goes up. That's called "accountability to the taxpayer". I know that's a foreign concept to some, but it's certainly what I appreciate as a taxpayer. I wish there were more of it.

T

Hello:

I want to focus a little on flexibility and the No Child Left Behind Act. GAO-03-691 entitled "flexibility demonstration programs" for a moment because as was evidenced by the Simi Valley Unified School District's decision in June of last year to apply for title I funds for four elementary schools, local districts can opt in or out to certain programs based on local needs and how well they are measuring up. A vote by the school district last June represents to me that they had a choice to improve AYP and they took it.

Page 1 states, “While increasing accountability, NCLBA also provided state and school districts with additional flexibility to use federal funds to better meet education needs."
Even the GAO in this case is recognizing that NCLBA allows for certain levels of flexibility. Both programs are called state-flex and local flex and allow "states and districts additional flexibility to consolidate and redirect up to 100% of certain NCLBA program funds."

I know this isn't the Wall Street Journal, but let's look a little further. Let's say a district is allotted from the feds funds for Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting, Enhancing education through technology, innovative programs, and safe and drug free schools. Under local flex, a school district can opt to transfer up to 50% of these funds either among these four programs based on local challenges or allot them into title I to meet Adequate Yearly Progress.

The GAO went on to say that a major problem with this provision is district and states were not aware of the program and therefore did not apply. Let's say the Simi School District files for innovative Programs under Title V, part A. These funds may be used for (pg 8) "for various activities, including developing high quality assessments, programs to recruit high quality teachers and programs for kindergarten students." I do not think that the feds are really mandating on these block grants as is being claimed by higher taxes and higher spending crowd.

GAO-05-7 states on pg. 2 that since [the] passage of NCLBA, about 1 in 10 schools receiving federal funds for low-income students under title I - approximately 1 in 20 public schools nationwide - has been identified for school choice." The report goes on to say “5,300 schools attended by 3 million children were identified for choice; in the following school year, this number rose to about 6,200 schools."

3 million kids were identified as not being served by the status quo system prior to NCLBA. Are you suggesting that this national tragedy should be ignored while throwing more money at the problem? It's not just funding. There is a serious problem in the delivery of our educational resources prior to NCLBA in the classroom to the tune of 3 million students nationwide who are identified as title I under NCLBA.

By the way, just to get an idea, 3 million kids represent nearly half the students located in the great state of California. Choice shouldn't just be for school districts and states to choose whether to improve education. For the first time in a lot of areas of the country because of NCLBA, parents and students can take action to improve their education by leaving the failing schools. Arleigh, would you like to take away the choice of 3 million parents?

Look forward to comments...

Scott

Scott,
NCLB is enforced the same way the 55 mile an hour speed limit was enforced. States were told in that if they did not lower the speed limit to 55 they would lose all transportation funds. Of course the state could say no, but then they lost the funds, clearly coercion. With NCLB the states are told if they do not do it, they lose all their federal education funding. Again, clear coercion. Utah is going to lose 76 million in federal funding, but they believe with the feds only giving 8 cents per education dollar they should not be micro-managing the states education policy. Education has always been a states right. I also see that a lot of military bases will be closed in California leading to lost jobs and lost revenue for California. Arnold gave Ohio to Bush and in return he has given Arnold a poke in the eye. Arnold was also going to do something about the fact that for every tax dollar we send Washington we only get 77 cents back. So far he has gotten next to nothing back for us. Good job governor!
Arleigh Kidd

Tim,

About the open letter. I think most people would agree it is a clear redundancy correct? Honestly, maybe there are facts I have not considered, but it appears most of us agree that position could be eliminated without any harm.

So, I am thinking an open letter to the governor and get it co-signed by the local Republican establishment. It would seem Arnold should be interested in what his party has to say.

Next, funding goes up and costs go up. That is why I say that just because schools have more funding doesn't mean they are better funded. Costs also went up.

Arleigh is right about special education costs. If I remember, no President has fully funded the federal promise for special education which can be costly. That is an unfunded mandate. Or better yet, a partialy funded mandate.

And yes states can opt out by they can also opt out of the new REAL ID act. But if they do, they citizens can't use state IDS for bording planes. So ti is a de facto order. In the same way the speed limit as Arleigh points out is a way of coercing states ( and it can be argues rightfuly so). California cannot really reject Federal Funding because we will not get a tax refund and we cannot do without the money.

Tim, did I mention the CTA? I don't recall doing so, I suggest the GAO. Thanks Scott for using it. I think it is a good idea to try to agree on a set of core facts before a debate.

The WSJ is a conservative source. As such I wouldn't rely on it if other options existed. And they do. It would be like reading THE LA WEEKLY or the Nation. Both of which do attack Democrats, but that doesn't mean they don't have a clear agenda.

Hello Again!!!

Here is an article on teacher quality from the progressive policy discussing teacher quality Your thoughts???

Introduction

Research increasingly demonstrates what common sense has long made apparent to educators and parents: Teacher quality matters -- a lot. Teachers' knowledge and skills are the most vital in-school factors influencing children's learning. And, for children from disadvantaged backgrounds or troubled home environments, quality teaching is even more important.

Unfortunately, the quality of America's public school teaching force is neither as good as it could be nor as good as it must be to prepare our children for a global economy. Certainly, the nation has thousands of highly skilled, dedicated teachers. But, since the 1960s, the quality of the teaching profession has declined. Even more troubling, there are huge teacher quality disparities between poor and affluent schools. Disadvantaged children -- those who most need excellent teachers -- are the least likely to have them.

It is time for policymakers to realize that the status quo methods of improving teacher quality simply do not work. Many of the old solutions favored by education groups to improve teacher quality -- such as raising teacher salaries across the board, improving training, and requiring certification -- have not fixed the problem. Indeed, one of the most popular education policy proposals of recent years, cutting class sizes, risks unintentionally lowering teacher quality even further, as affluent districts make up their numbers by poaching the most capable teachers from poorer areas.

The trouble is that these status quo solutions do not focus on the real problem driving declines in teacher quality: an outdated preparation and compensation scheme that demands and rewards the wrong things, and that provides too few growth opportunities to attract highly skilled individuals to teaching in sufficient numbers. Without bottom-up reform of the fundamental assumptions of our current teacher preparation and compensation regimes, neither the old policies, nor the promises of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, can have much success.

There is a better way. Policymakers can draw on the latest performance data and research to craft effective policies that reward and attract highly skilled teachers. Regular testing, as mandated by NCLB, allows researchers and policymakers to track student achievement over time and link results to teachers. By measuring test score gains from one year to the next, researchers and administrators can better determine the characteristics and conditions that lead to effective teaching. That will allow policymakers to reward teachers who do a better job in the classroom, taking into account the composition of their student body. In addition, a new stream of labor market research provides insight into how and why individuals decide to enter or leave the teaching profession and where they choose to teach.

This paper analyzes promising new research about teacher quality and the incentives for teachers to do better. We assess current teacher quality approaches and offer recommendations to help policymakers modernize how teachers are prepared, hired, evaluated, and compensated. Among the most promising solutions are:

Carefully designing systems of performance-based teacher pay;

Rewarding teachers who choose to work in the schools that need them most; and

Streamlining or expediting certification requirements to expand the pool of individuals who can be hired as teachers.
While the research evidence for modernizing teacher preparation and certification is clear, the politics are more challenging. Established interests with a stake in the status quo arrangements of educating, paying, and assigning teachers oppose reforms that interfere with their established prerogatives. But unless policymakers are willing to tackle these tough politics, we will continue to condemn millions of disadvantaged children to an inadequate education and run the risk of undermining our nation's future economic competitiveness.

Arleigh: What proposals is the CTA/SEA willing to implement to improve teacher quality. Would you agree in a program of incentives for teachers?

Scott,
First of all it doesn't matter how good a teacher is if you stuff 40 kids in every class they teach. Also, if you have one or two kids constantly disrupting the classroom, and there is no where to send them, guess who gets the attention? What about the parents role in education? To tell California teachers that you want to give them incentive pay when they are 44th in funding, and 2nd in big classes, does not interest them. Put us in the top ten of funding, lower our class sizes and then we will be willing to listen. Arleigh

Scott,
Great story in the San Francisco Chronicle on the teacher tenure initiative. The editorial board asked the two leaders of the Save California Committee if they had any proof that making tenure 5 years, instead of 2, would put better teachers in the classroom? They responded they had no idea. In fact they could answer no specific questions. But spending 70 million taxpayer dollars on a special election is guaranteed to do nothing to improve schools. What a waste. Arleigh

I would say that if you have forty kids in a classroom, that the quality of the teacher is by far the single most important component in the kid's success.

Arleigh and Tim:

Great Story!!! At my leadership Simi Valley, we did education day. We had a forum of principals both elementary and jr high talk at Garden Grove, which I hope everyone in the city would have an opportunity to see because of the awesome efforts going on in special education. These principals who I won't name discussed different issues and challenges their schools were going through.

We got to the "ask and answer" portion. I asked, "If you could have one thing to improve education policy, what would it be?" I figured every one of them would have said funding because that's what I hear about each day in the paper.

Nope, with the exception of one principal, they all said parental responsibility and active engagement in their son or daughter's education. How do we change this? Both of you probably are really involved in the learning process of your son or daughter's school. How do we change this and make it spread?

One idea I had was to turn every local school into a fundamental school where parents are required to sign contracts requiring active engagement in their child's education.

Arleigh, How come zero tolerance really means tolerance of zeros? Why can't we just throw the troublemakers that disrupt the learning process out? Everyone knows this is true, yet we are powerless to implement a real zero tolerance policy.

Oh, and my recommendation on bullying is throw them out and make their parent's pay for their education, not give them "therapy" using teacher and student time. These kids know the rules, it's time we start defending the rights of those that want to learn and do well in life. Teachers shouldn't be therapists, they should be disciplinarians and educators.

Gentleman, I think we may agree on yet another thing. How can we work on curing wasteful practices and restoring zero tolerance to the learning process?

Arleigh:

I agree that it's no good when someone can't back up something like teacher tenure with sound arguments. However, what would be the argument for teacher tenure at 2 years? Would you support allowing instant tenure to teachers? Guaranteed employment might generate a certain level of unaccountability to the public demanding better teachers and better schools.

I am not saying all teachers; I am saying some teachers by the way. I want to make that distinction. There are many teachers who take pride in their job and do a great job and there are others who might be more inclined to cut corners and not give the kids the best instruction. How do we ensure instruction is implemented at a high level if there are no mechanisms to correct poor performance? What mechanisms, if any, are in place today?

Teachers might be more willing after they received tenure to not take things as seriously. I used to have a college history professor that would say things that would bend your ear back and then taunt the class that there was something called "tenure", so go ahead and call the dean, he didn't care. My cousin is a dean at a college and he had a teacher who had an obsession with discussing the phallic symbol during a philosophy class. Every philosophy class... He was tenured and I don't think kids got the best for their money.

I'll have to look for a study that longer teacher tenure improves performance. I don't think I'll find one as it would have to be longitudinal in nature, but I'll see what I can do... I think the debate is more philosophical in terms of teachers being untouchable than improving performance. Those are still valid questions though.

Scott

Arleigh:

Here is a poll conducted regarding teacher tenure. Still doesn't answer the question about effectiveness, but it does talk about what administrators think of teacher tenure at least from this poll...

Here is a piece of this report.

Bureaucracy prevents school administrators from managing staff.

Only 24% of superintendents and 32% of principals say they have "enough autonomy to 'reward outstanding teachers and staff.'"

Only 28% of superintendents and 32% of principals believe they have sufficient authority to remove "ineffective teachers from the classroom."

73% of superintendents and 69% of principals say "making it much easier for principals to remove bad teachers--even those who have tenure" would be a "very effective" proposal to improve educational leadership.

56% of teachers agree "the tenure system should be changed to make it far easier to remove bad teachers."

Source: Public Agenda, "Trying to Stay Ahead of the Game," 2001, pp. 12-13.

Public Agenda also did a poll reinforcing what you and Tim are saying regarding discipline. Here are some of the results...

Nearly 8 in 10 teachers (78%) said students are quick to remind them that they have rights or that their parents can sue.

Nearly half of teachers surveyed (49%) reported they have been accused of unfairly disciplining a student.

More than half of teachers (55%) said that districts backing down from assertive parents causes discipline problems in the nation's schools.

Would it not make sense to make kids and parents accountable, should also make sure teachers are accountable?

Here is a comment from Mary Bergan from CTA,

"Tenure does not guarantee anyone a job for life. Neither teacher unions nor the collective bargaining agreements they negotiate with school districts prevent bad teachers from being fired. Administrative reluctance to pursue those teachers with the tools they have at their disposal is the culprit,"

Arleigh, "Is this what they mean when President Bergan says "administrative reluctance." Seems pretty tough not to be reluctant. Below is the fine print of the contract negotiated between the school district and SEA a few years back. My job does not have so many steps. If we get rid of the tenure argument would you be willing to help us reduce the steps to get rid of bad teachers.

ARTICLE XV

INTERMEDIATE DISCIPLINE

The employment status of each unit member is conditional upon reasonable standards of personal conduct and job performance. Failure to meet such standards may provide the basis for appropriate intermediate discipline.

The District retains the right to discipline unit members for just cause. If appropriate, progressive discipline shall be followed in cases of disciplinary action. The following steps shall ordinarily be utilized; however, the process may be initiated at any level if, in the opinion of the supervisor, such action is warranted:

1. Identification of problem or unacceptable behavior and verbal reprimand, if

appropriate.

2. Written warning not placed in personnel file.

3. Appropriate intermediate discipline which may include, but is not necessarily limited to, suspension with pay or suspension without pay for a period as specified in the Education Code.

4. Written reprimand in personnel file with notice of future possibility of appropriate intermediate discipline.

The following procedures shall apply when, in the judgment of the supervisor, an employee has committed an act or an omission that justifies intermediate discipline as provided in number 4 above.

A written recommendation for suspension, a copy of which will be forwarded to the Superintendent or his/her designee, will be given or sent by Registered Mail to the employee by the Personnel Office. The written statement shall contain a description of the events which necessitated the recommendation, a statement of the charges, notification that the employee may review or make copies of available materials leading to the suspension, and the right of the employee to meet with the supervisor and to submit, in writing, his/her response to the proposed action within five (5) days.

The suspension of an employee shall not be implemented for five (5) days pending the employee's written response.

If, within the five (5) day response period, the employee involved does not file a response, the action of the supervisor shall be implemented upon the approval of the Superintendent or his/her designee.

If, within the five (5) day response period, the employees choose to file a response, he/she shall do so by the option of filing a written response to the Superintendent, or by requesting a hearing at Level II of the grievance process. The hearing shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, but no later than ten (10) working days after receipt of the written response. The written response by the Superintendent or his/her designee shall be rendered within ten (10) days after the hearing, which shall either sustain, reject, or modify the suspension action against the employee.

If the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of his/her case at Level II, he/she may, within ten (10) days, request in writing that the case commence to binding arbitration, with or without the approval of the Association. The procedure for selection of an arbitrator shall follow numbers 2, 3 and 4 under Level III of the grievance procedure, except that the employee shall assume responsibility for costs should there be no support by the Association.

Scott

Here is a comment from Mary Bergan from CTA,

"Tenure does not guarantee anyone a job for life. Neither teacher unions nor the collective bargaining agreements they negotiate with school districts prevent bad teachers from being fired. Administrative reluctance to pursue those teachers with the tools they have at their disposal is the culprit,"

Arleigh, Is this what they mean when President Bergan says "administrative reluctance?" Seems pretty tough not to be reluctant. Below is the fine print of the contract negotiated between the Simi school district and SEA a few years back. My job does not have so many steps to get rid of me if I don't preform. Instead of getting rid of tenure, which does impede good and bad teachers would you be willing to help us reduce the steps in the termination process to get rid of bad teachers. This would make Bergan's comments more effective.

ARTICLE XV

INTERMEDIATE DISCIPLINE

The employment status of each unit member is conditional upon reasonable standards of personal conduct and job performance. Failure to meet such standards may provide the basis for appropriate intermediate discipline.

The District retains the right to discipline unit members for just cause. If appropriate, progressive discipline shall be followed in cases of disciplinary action. The following steps shall ordinarily be utilized; however, the process may be initiated at any level if, in the opinion of the supervisor, such action is warranted:

1. Identification of problem or unacceptable behavior and verbal reprimand, if

appropriate.

2. Written warning not placed in personnel file.

3. Appropriate intermediate discipline which may include, but is not necessarily limited to, suspension with pay or suspension without pay for a period as specified in the Education Code.

4. Written reprimand in personnel file with notice of future possibility of appropriate intermediate discipline.

The following procedures shall apply when, in the judgment of the supervisor, an employee has committed an act or an omission that justifies intermediate discipline as provided in number 4 above.

A written recommendation for suspension, a copy of which will be forwarded to the Superintendent or his/her designee, will be given or sent by Registered Mail to the employee by the Personnel Office. The written statement shall contain a description of the events which necessitated the recommendation, a statement of the charges, notification that the employee may review or make copies of available materials leading to the suspension, and the right of the employee to meet with the supervisor and to submit, in writing, his/her response to the proposed action within five (5) days.

The suspension of an employee shall not be implemented for five (5) days pending the employee's written response.

If, within the five (5) day response period, the employee involved does not file a response, the action of the supervisor shall be implemented upon the approval of the Superintendent or his/her designee.

If, within the five (5) day response period, the employees choose to file a response, he/she shall do so by the option of filing a written response to the Superintendent, or by requesting a hearing at Level II of the grievance process. The hearing shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, but no later than ten (10) working days after receipt of the written response. The written response by the Superintendent or his/her designee shall be rendered within ten (10) days after the hearing, which shall either sustain, reject, or modify the suspension action against the employee.

If the employee is not satisfied with the disposition of his/her case at Level II, he/she may, within ten (10) days, request in writing that the case commence to binding arbitration, with or without the approval of the Association. The procedure for selection of an arbitrator shall follow numbers 2, 3 and 4 under Level III of the grievance procedure, except that the employee shall assume responsibility for costs should there be no support by the Association.

Scott

I want to make one correction to my comments. The terms good and bad are poor choices and could denote that I do not think highly of teachers. I need to avoid "good" and "bad" in the future because they are demeaning to a tough profession. For that I apologize. What I meant was a much more precise word of "effective" and "ineffective".

Sincerely,

Scott

Scott, Tim,
Mary Bergan is President of CFT, not CTA, Barbara Kerr is President of CTA, SEA is part of CTA, not CFT. To me, trying to single out tenure as a problem is ridiculus. What proof is there that going to 5 years from 2 will improve education? Poll numbers are one thing, proof is another. To say the teacher is the only factor is like saying a race car with one wheel, should still be able to win the race, and complaining about the lack of three wheels is just an excuse. Class size does matter, parental involvement matters, having up to date supplies and technology matters, these are not things that can be done on the cheap. In terms of the steps of discipline an Administator can jump straight to step 4 if the situation warrants, it is more of a guideline. Arleigh

Arleigh:

You are right about union presidents, I mixed them up. I wrote the wrong acronym. (I need a fact/spelling checker.) It doesn't diminish what Bergan is saying, though. We need to reduce the amount of steps of this legal article to ensure better accountability.

I don't see anything in an SEA/school district contract as just a guideline because it is in a legal agreement format, part of collective bargaining law. If these contractual agreements are not followed to the letter, I would assume the district would be sued for wrongful termination and this part of the contract would enter in as evidence. If it is a guideline only and not a contractual agreement then it creates severe cloudiness where administrative staff may or may not know what powers they have been granted and how best to implement a disciplinary program. In my job, we receive exactly what we can expect in regards to termination. I would only hope that termination would be fully contractualized in the next contract, so every employee and manager knows exactly what to expect.

Arleigh, what are the instances that a teacher would end up with step 4?

Arleigh, you are correct that there is no study completed that I can find that higher length of time to tenure contributes to teacher effectiveness. I am not sure if one has ever been started. You are right; the arguments in favor of raising tenure are a little flimsy.

Another argument I found in favor of tenure was protection of academic freedom, which I think is highly important in a learning environment with a very diverse population. You can't have a learning environment where a teacher's views and papers they write outside class are subject to termination... Also, if a teacher opens a debate on slavery or other controversial issues to get the kids to critically think, you can't have someone stepping in and terminating teachers because the issue might be controversial. As a former college student and graduate student, I would be concerned that an end to tenure could lead to a “chilling effect” in campus classrooms where both students and teachers are afraid to talk about issues important in our world. As we are doing today, dialogue and disagreements are highly important to a functioning democracy and I wouldn’t want to see that undermined.

Of course, with some of my professors I cited earlier who taunted the class to “go ahead and complain because I’m tenured,” concerns me too. How do we get around this sort of abuse of the tenure system? I read last night about tenure review boards that review tenure every three years. Would you be in favor of something like that, so some teachers can’t abuse tenure?

I don't think we have thought hard enough on methods to ensure better accountability. What are some things you would agree with to ensure better teacher accountability, student accountability, and parent accountability?

Scott

Tim and Arleigh:

I read through the CTA family resources real quick.

What Is a Parent Involvement Program?

"An exciting concept designed to create a partnership between parents and teachers by bringing you into the classroom to participate in your child's day-to-day education. You and the teacher share a deep concern for your child's welfare, and there is no better way to encourage your child's growth and development than by working together to meet her or his educational needs."

I think we might need to work off this model a bit. How do we engage parents to get more involved? What about the hollow hills example? Turn this into a responsibility contract pledge.

Secondarily, How do we develop a program for parents trapped in the two income trap and just don't have time to come to class, but can come in the evening?

What about town halls at all the schools where parents and teachers can meet up in the evening? What does the PTA do with regards to getting all parents involved?

Are there any studies regarding parental involvement and student success out there?

Here is a recent the results completed by the bipartisan PPIC

PPIC Special Survey on Education In California Finds Disillusioned Public

A new special survey on the state of K through 12 education in California conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) finds a largely pessimistic public. The vast majority of Californians (82 percent) believe that "the quality of education in California's K through 12 public schools is at least somewhat a problem." The director of the survey, Mark Baldassare, said that "concern about public education runs deep in California, and the perceived lack of progress, despite all the reform and rhetoric, only serves to heighten residents' distrust of their government and disappointment in their elected officials."

Other key findings of the survey include:

- 60 percent of Californians believe that private schools provide the best education

- 72 percent of Californians rank K-12 education as a top state priority, even with the current budget crunch

- 70 percent of those surveyed are against raising taxes to solve the budget crunch

- A large majority of respondents were in favor of educational reforms that include student testing before graduation from high school, merit pay for teachers, school choice for all students, and better resource equity between rich and poor school districts.

To view the full study, along with its methodology, visit PPIC's website at http://ppic.org/main/home.asp .