SACRAMENTO, CA - Our recent column about the Economist magazine's survey of California did not address its section on education. So we now turn to that topic.

"The results are depressing,'' says the Economist. "Californian students score below average on every national
test; only around half California's students are proficient in the basics. In 2002, California ranked 43rd in verbal SAT scores and 32nd in mathematics. One in five Californians aged 25 lacks a high-school diploma - the ninth-worst figure nationally and hardly a good omen for the knowledge economy.''

Writers for the Economist are too smart to fall for the dog-eared dodge that the problem is a lack of money. Spending per-pupil has tripled in real terms since the 1960s. And since 1988, 40 percent of the budget goes to schools as a result of Proposition 98. Yet the education system has become ever less productive, an "overindulged public-sector lobby,'' as some critics charge.

The Economist education survey does not cover facilities, perhaps because the writers acknowledge that "What good will be the shiny new schools if they are staffed by unsackable teachers and no politician is accountable for them?''

The authors conclude that "Education epitomizes the state's problem with government. There is the wide gap between public and the private systems; a public-sector union adamantly protecting its turf; an incoherent administrative map; and a lunatic funding system.''

A sober publication with an intelligent international readership does not use words such as "incoherent'' and
"lunatic'' unless they are warranted. The magazine is also tuned in to the issue of choice.

There are good California schools, typically in small, wealthy districts, the survey observes. But that locks out poor parents whose children are currently trapped in failed, unsafe schools. Vouchers would "allow poor parents to choose where to spend their money.'' The trouble is, state officials dislike the choice concept.

Jack O'Connell, state superintendent, "can barely bring himself to mention the word.'' Governor Schwarzenegger even avoids the subject. Former governor Jerry Brown, who has fought for charter schools in Oakland, is not up to taking on the powerful teacher unions for school choice. "Whoa,'' Brown told the Economist. "You can't go there.''

Actually, you can, as Milwaukee confirms. There is no longer any legal impediment for choice in education. All it requires is will and courage, both lacking in California. This is a state where, the Economist says, "there is also a desperate desire for something to happen. Most teachers want to get rid of underperforming colleagues; most politicians want somebody to be responsible for the schools; and most immigrants definitely want to learn.''

But desire for change is not enough. It won't happen as long as the status quo remains untouched. As in physics, a body at rest tends to remain so until acted on by another body. The system needs to be sacked.

If legislators want to make change happen faster, they should approve full school choice for all students and parents, as a matter of basic civil rights. Until that happens, words such as "depressing,'' "incoherent,'' and "lunatic'' will continue to apply to California education.

---------------------------------------------------------------

K. Lloyd Billingsley is editorial director at the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco. He can be reached via
email at klbillingsley@pacificresearch.org.