SACRAMENTO, CA - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006-07 budget proposal increases education spending by $4 billion, raising total per-pupil spending from state, federal and local sources from $10,336 in 2005-06 to $10,996. Some added spending will go to worthy goals, such as the governor's program to increase the number of math and science teachers being produced by the University of California and the California State University system.

The majority of the new spending, however, has not been tied to any requirement that the Legislature agree to fundamental reforms of California's still underperforming public school system. Here are three ideas that the governor may want to consider in his discussions with legislators.

First, reform California's school accountability system, the core of state education policy. The state's standardized tests are aligned to the rigorous state academic standards, which means classroom instruction should be geared to the standards as well. Various studies have indicated that implementing a standards-based curriculum and instructional program is a key to higher student performance. However, a number of fundamental flaws plague school accountability in California.

For example, the state Department of Education issues annual student-performance growth targets for every school that are so low that it may take a decade for a poor-performing school to hit the proficiency level. Dr. James Lanich, the head of California Business for Education Excellence (CBEE), has noted that the growth targets are "calculated in such a way that in many cases it will take students an unacceptable 30 years to reach proficiency."

Worse, poor-performing schools that meet their miniscule growth target do not have to suffer any of the consequences and penalties contained in the accountability system. This lapse allows many bad schools to skate by unaffected. The system should be changed so that low-ranking schools are automatically subject to the consequences imposed by system, regardless of whether they meet their tiny growth targets.

Finally, there is no connection between the state growth targets for schools and those required by the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The federal targets, called adequate to yearly progress or AYP, aim to have all students proficient in math and English by 2013-14, much sooner than the growth targets set by the state. CBEE therefore rightly recommends that the "California system of accountability should align with NCLB." Thus, "California should require that all state academic performance reporting is based on `grade level' proficiency as a minimum benchmark."

Second, implement a preschool voucher program. Former TV actor Rob Reiner has qualified an initiative for the June ballot that will increase the state income tax on high earners in order to fund a multi-billion-dollar government universal preschool program. Despite his claims, there is little evidence that middle- and upper-income children receive any long-term benefit by attending preschool. Further, does it make sense to allow a government education system that still hasn't figured out K-12 to add a new group of children to its responsibilities?

Rather than a huge new government-run program complete with mandated unionized teachers, it would be better to have a smaller preschool voucher pilot program targeted at low-income children. The data that does exist for the long-term advantages of preschool has focused on low-income children. The voucher could be used at either public or private preschools. A research component could be attached to the program to monitor the short-term and long-term benefits of the program. A targeted preschool voucher would be less costly and likely more effective than an expensive bureaucratic government program.

Third, improve teacher quality. The federal NCLB requires that states establish a measurement system to ensure that all teachers are competent in their subject fields. The National Council on Teacher Quality has given California a failing grade for its teacher-quality measurement system because veteran teachers can be labeled highly qualified by earning points for a wide assortment of activities not related to subject matter. California should follow the example of other states that require veteran teachers to earn a college degree in their subject field or pass a subject-field test, period.

There are, of course, other policy options, but these three would be good for starters.

Lance T. Izumi is Director of Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. He can be reached via email at lizumi@pacificresearch.org.