Just weeks ago, Stanford University released the most comprehensive review to date of California’s public education system, written at the bi-partisan request of legislative majority leadership, Superintendent  of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, and the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence. Think critics have the decency to let the ink dry before stonewalling reform recommendations? Think again.

Just six short weeks ago, Stanford University released the most comprehensive review to date of California’s public education system called  Getting Down to Facts. Four non-profit foundations generously funded the $3 million effort, conducted by more than two dozen state and national experts at the express, bi-partisan request of Senate Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland), Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez (D-Los Angeles), the Governor’s Committee on Education Excellence, and Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell.

Think reform opponents would have the decency to let the ink dry on the report before stonewalling its recommendations. Think again. The California Teachers Association (CTA) is running TV and radio ads claiming that school funding needs to be upped by 40 percent. O’Connell, who until recently had been a sober voice amidst the clamor for increased spending, now says California spends 30 percent less on education than the rest of the country.

Here’s what the Stanford report actually concludes:

… there is no evidence to support the idea that simply introducing yet more new programs will produce the desired achievement gains. CA already has far over 100 well-intentioned categorical programs, and there is no reason to think that adding one or two more will make much difference, no matter how carefully targeted or lavishly funded. The marginal impact of any new program will be small. Quite simply, the finance and governance system is broken and requires fundamental reform not tinkering around the edges. (p. 5, italics original)

Stanford report authors even provide a handy one-liner for readers who don’t want to wade through 1,700 pages of facts: “The simple message of this work is that it is unlikely that simply providing funds to the current system…will yield anything like the results desired and needed in California” (p. 49).

But that didn’t stop O’Connell from plucking out another line from the report, saying California education spending averages about 30 percent less than other states. However, he fails to mention that the relevant study finds California per-pupil revenue is within $700 of all other states, except for New York (p. 82). The real problem isn’t so much a lack of funding. It’s the lack of freedom schools have to spend what they’ve got. California “prescribes more of what the dollars should be spent on than do other states” (p. 42), and “schools are constrained in their use of dollars, for example by categorical grants and labor contracts” (pp. 55-56). Importantly, study authors find that “superintendents emphasized increasing the flexibility of spending over solely increased funding by a three to one margin” (p. 18, italics original).

The CTA conceals those and other facts in its latest ad campaign. Like the fact that under the current system, more than half of all California school districts would still fail to meet state proficiency standards even if spending were increased 40 percent (p. 57), nearly $30 billion based on data from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (p. E-76, Figure 1).

Another finding missing from the CTA ad campaign is that “the relationship between dollars and student achievement in California is so uncertain that it cannot be used to gauge the potential effect of resources on student outcomes” (p. 47).  Moreover, the CTA ads don’t disclose that the 40 percent figure is based on estimates by school personnel. The relevant study author admits this approach “may have the disadvantage, however, of courting a biased response. If any of us were asked what we need to do our jobs properly, it is only natural that we would tend to overstate our true needs” (p. 1).

The study author also points to the importance of teacher quality on student achievement (pp. 123-124), which represents yet another glaring omission in the CTA ad campaign. Union leaders have publicly stated their opposition to recommended reforms such as performance pay and making it easier for schools to fire weak teachers. Study authors conclude, however, “The one factor that emerged most consistently across studies as inhibiting local leadership was the difficulty of dismissing ineffective teachers. Both the principals and the superintendents surveyed ranked this factor as the most important change that could help them improve student outcomes” (p. 20, original italics). Contrary to CTA claims, study authors find, “When asked what change would most help them improve student outcomes, principals most often cite greater freedom to fire teachers. This desire appears more important to them than additional resources of any variety” (p.45).

Upon the release of the Stanford report, leaders from Governor Schwarzenegger’s Committee on Excellence made clear that they would study the research findings over the summer and release their policy recommendations this fall—findings like California’s information infrastructure “to aid in designing optimal policies is shockingly weak” (p. 5), the system suffers from “regulationistis” (p. 15), and “on the programmatic and resource side, virtually no usable data are currently available” (p. 32; cf. pp. 30-31 ff.).

As the Governor explained, “This is just a starting point for what I hope will be a renewed focus in the Legislature on increasing student achievement with needed reform.” He added that “the report needs “to be taken very seriously by everyone in the education debate.” At a minimum, that should mean actually reading it. To their credit, the Governor and his committee appear to be hitting the books, unlike the many so-called education leaders accusing them of stalling.

The Governor needs to stay the course of meaningful education reform, not muck around in some post-partisan quagmire. Publicly confronting reform critics would be a good start. After all, they and their predecessors have stalled for decades—obstructing even the most basic measures to improve educational transparency, accountability, performance, and opportunity in California.