by Lance T. Izumi, Fellow in California Studies
Pacific Research Institute
December, 2002

Announcer lead:  Lance Izumi says that while well intentioned, there are many problems with the proposed master plan for education in California.

Although the massive state budget deficit is the main focus of attention in Sacramento, other key issues await California lawmakers in the coming year. Perhaps the most important is the proposed state master plan for education.

Issued in October by a joint committee of the Legislature, the proposed master plan is supposed to provide a framework to guide state and local policymakers on a wide variety of education issues such as student performance, accountability and funding. However, rather than offering an overarching blueprint and vision, critics, such as State Senator Charles Poochigian, point out that the plan reads more like a series of specific policy points. And many of those points are highly controversial.

For example, the plan recommends that the state increase funding for infant and toddler services and provide funding for school-based health and social service centers. The plan acknowledges that these issues are not strictly educational. And that's the problem. With a public school system that's having trouble meeting its educational goals, is it wise to ask that system to take on onerous non-educational responsibilities?

The plan also recommends that the state fund a voluntary universal pre-school program. While there may be good arguments for making pre-school more widely available, such a program would likely cost more than $2 billion. With the state projected to run deficits totaling $60 billion or more over the next several years, adding an expensive pre-school program would shift scarce funds away from the K-12 system.

Yet, the plan seems to ignore the state's dire fiscal condition. Senator Poochigian notes that the document overwhelmingly focuses on inputs such as more money, personnel resources and program expansion. Worse, as Assemblyman George Runner observes, there is little requirement that these proposed increased resources result in higher student performance.

Even critics like Poochigian and Runner agree that the proposed plan is not all bad. However, the plan's dubious elements should spur lawmakers and the public to examine it very closely and to engage in a long and full debate.

With a perspective, I’m Lance Izumi.

Lance Izumi is the Director of Center for School Reform at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached via email at lizumi@pacificresearch.org.