For Immediate Release: February 29, 2000

San Francisco, CA – Despite significant increases in funding, California’s public school system is still inadequately educating the state’s students, according to the California Index of Leading Education Indicators 2000.

"A thorough analysis of indicators such as test scores, the difficulty of classes taken by students, graduation rates, remedial-instruction rates, teacher quality, and teaching methodologies shows that there are fundamental problems with California’s public school system," said Lance Izumi, the study’s author and the Director of the Pacific Research Institute’s Center for School Reform.

The 2000 Index documents that California students performed below the proficiency level on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) math and reading exams. In addition:

• California’s fourth-grade reading scores ranked next to last among the states;
• At least 30 percent of California high-school students failed to graduate in a four-year period;
• 54 percent of California State University (CSU) incoming freshmen had to enroll in remedial math and 47 percent in remedial English.

"Only 16 percent of California fourth-graders reached the ‘proficient’ level, which the National Assessment Governing Board says all students should reach, and more than half rated ‘below basic,’ meaning that they do not even have a partial mastery of reading. These dismal results underline the continuing unsatisfactory situation in most of the state’s public-school classrooms," commented Lance Izumi.

"It really should come as no surprise that so many entering college students need remedial math instruction when one considers that California students take fewer difficult math and science classes than students in other states," explains Izumi. Additionally:

• California ranked well below the national average in the number of high-school students who had taken higher level math and science courses;
• California ranked dead last in the percentage of 1996 high-school graduates who had taken First-Year Chemistry;
• California was also dead last in the percentage of 1996 high-school graduates who had taken First-Year Biology.

"On the positive side, however, California has enacted a world-class set of academic standards and has moved forward with ending its counterproductive bilingual education programs," continued Izumi. "If teachers embrace these changes, we should see improvement in the education of California’s children in the years to come."

Izumi recommends additional courses of action such as:

• Overhauling California’s teacher training curriculum to include significantly more content-specific course work, particularly in science and math;
• Making teacher performance and competency exams more difficult and the scores necessary to pass these exams more rigorous;
• Abolishing the state’s class-size reduction program, as it has a detrimental effect on the quality of teachers in the classroom;
• Establishing a differential pay scale and pay math and science teachers more than teachers in other fields;
• Increasing the emphasis placed on direct instruction of all subjects and the phonics method of reading instruction;
• Focusing on teaching Limited English Proficiency students through English-immersion teaching methods, not bilingual instruction programs;
• Retaining use of the SAT as a gauge of student achievement;
• Block granting school funding down to local districts without attaching more than limited basic requirements;
• Continuing to use the two-thirds majority principle rather than moving to a simple-majority vote for local school bond measures;
• Reducing school construction regulations and eliminating prevailing wage requirements on school construction.

"If Californians really want to change the dismal statistics contained in this Index," said Izumi, "they must summon the courage to consider more systemic reforms, such as school-choice vouchers, that will fundamentally change the way education services are delivered. California’s children depend on it."

# # #

For a copy of the California Index of Leading Education Indicators 2000, contact Laura Dykes by phone at 415/989-0833 x113, by fax at 415/989-2411, or by e-mail at ldykes@pacificresearch.org, or visit PRI’s web site at http://www.pacificresearch.org.

The Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy is a non-profit organization dedicated to the promotion of the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility. The Institute believes these principles are best encouraged through policies that emphasize a free economy, private initiative, and limited government. By focusing on public policy issues such as health care, welfare, education, and the environment, the Institute strives to foster a better understanding of the principles of a free society among leaders in government, academia, the media, and the business community.