‘Who Needs School Boards?’

Peirce’s reaction to the recent report by the Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) is a giant, radical leap from the report’s recommendation that the effectiveness and visibility of boards of education must be enhanced. Citing problems facing schools and the apparent lack of leadership from boards, Peirce questions the need for locally elected school boards.

This question ignores the IEL’s own finding that “strong support exists for maintaining the basic institutional role and structure of the school board. Suggestions . . . to eliminate boards . . . are not viable and there is no grass roots support for these suggestions.”

The California School Boards Assn. welcomes the IEL recommendations and the public discussion on the role of schools boards. However, Peirce has many misconceptions about school boards and oversimplifies a complex topic.

Peirce complains that boards did not lead the school reform effort for higher graduation standards, tougher curriculum, and a stronger teacher corps. It is true that in California the support of the business community ensured the success of the “reform movement” and the passage of SB 813 in 1983. However, this bill could not have passed without the support and fervent efforts of the entire educational community, including school boards. Significantly, SB 813 reforms were not free. Nearly $1 billion was added to the state treasury through “revenue enhancements” to pay for the “reforms.”

Prior to 1983, the association had attempted for years to convince the Legislature to increase school funding to improve schools. After Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, school district budgets were cut by 5% to 15%, even with “bailout” funds provided by the state. This resulted in larger class sizes, elimination of summer school, reduced class offerings, impossible student-to-counselor ratios, dilapidated buildings, and few new textbooks or equipment. Four years after Proposition 13, at a time of high inflation, school funding was frozen for a year. California school boards do not have “independent tax bases,” as Peirce supposes. It was not until the business community became involved that this pattern was reversed and more money for schools was raised.

However, even after a few years of decent increases and the advent of lottery revenues California is hardly in a golden era for school funding. California still lags behind 30 states in actual funding per pupil, and is dead last (50) among all states in percentage of per capita income dedicated to schools.

The sobering fact is that school funding per pupil in California will remain fairly constant in 1988 and decline in the future. Unless a solution is found, the state spending limit imposed by Proposition 4 in 1979 promises to freeze the state’s funding for schools.

Meanwhile, schools are expected to educate a growing and increasingly diverse student population with no significant infusion of new funds. The expectations are also diverse. Standards must be raised further. Excellence and equity must be simultaneously achieved. Factors contributing to the dropout problem--drug and alcohol abuse, teen-age pregnancy, gang affiliation, truancy, transiency, and the need to contribute to family income--must be remedied by schools.

Recommendations for new reform include increasing teacher salaries dramatically, reducing class sizes, creating teacher internships, bringing the benefits of technology into the classroom, and other costly innovations.

School boards are leaders in bringing this agenda for reform to the attention of our business and governmental leaders and the general public. But we cannot pretend that this agenda is free.

The question Peirce should be asking is: “Will the public be willing to pay for the schools they need?”

JOE DUARDO

Sacramento

Duardo is president of the California School Boards Assn.