SACRAMENTO, CA - With so many students in California continuing to perform poorly, the newly proposed state master plan for education has been greatly anticipated. Although accurately recognizing many of the problems facing California’s government-run school system, the plan has very significant flaws.

Issued in October by a joint legislative committee, 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 (R-Fresno), point out that the plan reads more like a series of specific policy points. And many of those points are wrong-headed.

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?

Assemblyman George Runner (R-Lancaster), who served on the joint committee, says “it is counterproductive to add social and health obligations that may only serve to shift the focus of schools away from teaching the fundamentals of knowledge.” Runner also warns: “Schools are not one-stop social service centers, nor should they be. . . . They should not be forced to address childhood factors that are the responsibility of parents, or serve as de-facto childcare providers.”

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 around $2 billion. With projected state deficits totaling $60 billion over the next several years, adding an expensive pre-school program is fiscally irresponsible. 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. In fact, the plan would set up a California Quality Education Commission that would recommend “adequate” levels of state funding for public education. Since the new commission would have to implement the master plan’s goals, and since many of those goals involve large spending hikes, the commission’s funding recommendations likely would be biased toward more and higher spending levels.

Assemblyman Runner observes that it would be easy for the proposed commission “to throw money at problems and hope that things improve.” Further, he says: “There needs to be a clear, demonstrable link between funding increases and performance improvement, and a greater emphasis on results. It is absolutely critical that the relative return on our investment be included as a primary consideration.”

Besides recommending spending increases, the plan gives greater taxing power to school districts. It omits any reference to the parental choice option and doesn’t tackle the key teacher-quality issues, such as the failed student-centered pedagogic methods taught at state schools of education. It also fails to deal with the negative impact of union collective bargaining on school policies and student performance.

Although not totally devoid of merit, the proposed master plan, in its current form, is an inferior plan for California’s education future.

Lance Izumi is a Senior Fellow in California Studies at the California-based Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached via email at lizumi@pacificresearch.org.