No quick, cheap fix for state’s schools

California’s immense public school system is plagued by gross inefficiencies and inequalities that will require fundamental reforms and much more money, according to a series of studies released this week.

Suggested reforms included making it easier to fire bad teachers, providing massive infusions of resources to schools that serve the poor, delivering more accurate student data and eliminating excessive paperwork and conflicting rules and directives.

More than a year in the making, the 22 independent reports taken together paint a picture of an education system beyond tinkering, in need of major overhaul. While changes must include a huge, but unspecified, infusion of money, any increase in funding would be squandered without a total rethinking of how education dollars are spent, the authors concluded.

“For too long, California education policy has been made in a haphazard manner,” said Ted Mitchell, the former president of Occidental College who is chairman of the governor’s education advisory committee. “We’ve had one-off proposals ... the cumulative effect of which has been to create a system that is byzantine, convoluted and horribly ineffective.”

The best teachers and administrators have succeeded, he added, “in spite of the system and not because of it.”

California ranks near the bottom on many national achievement assessments of states.

The 1,700-page collection, commissioned by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, state Democratic leaders and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, broke little new ground. The scope and depth of the analysis, however, make it a centerpiece in the debate over how to improve schools. It follows other major Schwarzenegger initiatives, such as his “reinventing government” effort, that have a mixed record of moving from blueprint to reality.

Key findings were unveiled at a Wednesday news conference in Sacramento attended by Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-Los Angeles), O’Connell and others. It was a bipartisan display likely to come under strain as lawmakers consider crafting reforms.

The governor’s committee plans to draw up specific recommendations by late summer or early autumn, Mitchell said.

Three reports, dealing with the politically explosive question of more money for schools, were held back until this morning.

The most eye-catching detail in these reports, obtained by The Times, was the calculation that $1.5 trillion more each year would be needed to make all students academically proficient under the current system. That’s about 25 times more than present spending for the K-12 and community college systems, which consumes about half of the state budget.

That trillion-dollar figure “assumes nothing in the system will change,” explained researcher Jennifer Imazeki, an assistant professor of economics at San Diego State University. Her calculation, she said, was not a serious proposal for funding but rather an exercise to demonstrate how broken things are now: “The relationship between money and performance is weak and noisy in California.”

Schwarzenegger, considered too moderate by some conservative Republicans, glided away from a direct response on whether schools need more money, saying that the education system needs to operate more like a business: “Money alone will not fix anything.” Reforming the system, even without added funds “can get billions in the classroom.”

His Republican counterparts like the idea of more local flexibility, but “we must be careful not to use this report as an excuse to take on massive new spending we simply cannot afford,” said Assemblyman Martin Garrick (R-Solano Beach), vice chairman of the Assembly Education Committee. “We will reject any attempt to raise taxes.”

Still, researchers said that no amount of money would help absent dramatic reform.

Several studies focused on the state’s tortuous system of governance, which the Department of Education, the state Board of Education, the governor, the Legislature and local school boards all helped create. The result, researchers concluded, is a contradictory, counterproductive tangle of rules that compares unfavorably with many other states.

“Instead of encouraging flexibility and innovation at the local level,” one summary report concluded, “many of California’s state policies constrain [schools] regardless of what may be their most pressing local needs.”

One report, for example, emphasized that huge sums are tied up in restrictive grants.

Other studies addressed insufficient teacher training and support as well as the state’s subpar ability to compile and make use of student performance data.

Researchers for another study surveyed more than 250 principals statewide. More than anything else -- even increased funds or more teachers -- principals said they needed greater power to fire ineffective teachers. Also hindering them, principals said, are the hours of paperwork the state requires.

Schwarzenegger nodded in agreement at the mention of the need to fire bad teachers. He had pushed for an unsuccessful ballot measure in 2005 that would have eased the requirements to fire teachers.

Nunez, a close ally of teachers unions, stood by that finding while also emphasizing the need for better support and training for teachers and more funding overall.

The president of the California Teachers Assn. praised the suggested reforms, but criticized the focus on ineffective teachers. “Frankly, firing one or two teachers isn’t what this is about,” said Barbara Kerr. “It’s about big-picture reform. I’m sure if you ask teachers what they want, they would say to get rid of bad administrators. Let’s get over this part.”

Officials and educators emphasized the need to come together over serious reforms.

“If we’re going to significantly improve our schools, we’re going to have to put down the buzz words and climb out of the partisan trenches,” said Marshall Smith, education program director of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a sponsor of the nearly $3-million study.

Some critical pushback emerged almost immediately.

“The study’s use of the term ‘overhaul’ sounds a bit like scrapping everything and starting over. We have proof of academic, operational and governance successes in the California education system,” said Brian Lewis, executive director of the California Assn. of School Business Officials.

Another critical view came from California Business for Education Excellence, which wants to toss the current statewide accountability measure, the Academic Performance Index. “Unfortunately, this top-to-bottom review of school funding clearly misses that mark,” said Jim Lanich, that organization’s president.

The endgame also was on the mind of longtime community advocators for school reform.

“We already know what needs to be done, and now have the research and data to back it up,” said Soledad Padilla of the grass-roots group California ACORN. “But we are concerned that, given the scale of the problem, there may not be the political will to do what is necessary.”

joel.rubin@latimes.com

howard.blume@latimes.com