California has been reeling from the current budget crisis -- real-estate values have plummeted and general economic instability has reverberated in the Golden State. The legislature has decided to curb spending, and in doing so they have put schools at the center of the chopping block. This year’s budget will cut education by $8.4 billion out of its previous $58.1 billion budget, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A class of 30 children will receive $11,400 less, amounting to $380 per student for grades K-12, according to the Chronicle, in a state that currently ranks 47th in the nation in the amount spent per child.

There just isn’t enough money to go around, and more than other groups, schoolchildren will be the ones getting the short end of the deal. This is bad for California’s future and unfair to each of the students who depend on public schools to help them develop a base for future learning.

Needless to say, San Francisco won’t get through this unscathed. The San Francisco Unified School District estimates cuts of $51 million over the next two years, which will affect nearly all aspects of the city’s educational structure. Teacher training will be cut back, and there will be less support for weaker students. Class sizes may increase and there will be less money for teaching materials.

Teaching jobs have also been threatened. The superintendent intended to propose warning 506 teachers that they may not have jobs next year, but the Mayor Newsom has granted $23 million from the city’s Rainy Day Fund, 25 percent of the fund’s holdings, to prevent this action.

Cuts will be devastating to early education, but the state’s universities will be less affected. There is likely to be more demand for classes as people seek out education after being laid off or strive to remain competitive at their jobs. There could be an increase in worker training programs and other classes that keep people at the cutting edge of their fields.

Community colleges, because of their affordable tuition, will be especially likely to see increased enrollment. This could lead to problems with overcrowding, but it will also bring more revenue from tuition. People out of work or worried about their jobs are likely to seek training, but employer-sponsored education is likely to decrease.

There are many things California can do to shield student from the effects of economic instability, but the first should be a moral and pragmatic prioritizing of education. Special funds can also be created - San Francisco created the Rainy Day Fund in 2003, which requires the city to save money when times are good for urgent needs when the economy goes south. The San Francisco Unified School District is qualified to use up to 25 percent of the fund when faced with budget cuts and teacher layoffs. The Rainy Day Fund is an excellent example of how to safeguard the schools, but it would not be necessary if the state viewed the education of its young people as an essential investment in its future.

My blog is part of a month-long series on education in California,
published in partnership with the University of Phoenix and The WIP's publishing platform
Six Apart. WIP Executive Editor Katharine Daniels is also participating.
Be sure to look for both of our articles, as features and Talk blogs each Monday in March.

Despite the vital role of teachers in the early development of California’s citizenry, the importance of teaching is rarely recognized. Talented college graduates with the potential to earn a good living are unlikely to choose teaching because of its modest salaries, and this low earning potential may have in fact created the lower status that teaching now occupies.

The projected retirement of about a third of California’s teachers over the next decade and the shortage of incoming teachers implies a decline in this status over time. But what has turned people away from this profession, a noble calling with the potential for a positive impact on society? Teachers have ideal schedules too, with early hours and long summer vacations. They get to be with children, and they can make a difference in the lives of hundreds or more. What, then, would keep new recruits away?

It might just be the money. It’s not that the salaries are exactly abysmal, but they certainly don’t comfortably cover the cost of living in California, which has become astronomical. For all of California, the average teacher salary for 2007-8 was $65,808, but that might take a while to work up to, and even then it’s not that stellar for people who are talented enough to get into law or medical school.

Take San Francisco, for example. According to the California Department of Education, the average teacher salary in the San Francisco Unified School District for fiscal year 2007-2008 was $59,448. The lowest salary offered was $39,195 and the highest was $77,630. For young San Franciscans who would like to enjoy city life and live close to work so they don’t have to spend hours on BART every day, a salary below $40,000 may not seem like the greatest proposition. Furthermore, the best candidates for teaching positions in this area – those who are talented, energetic, smart and well-educated - will be tempted toward professions that can allow them to pay their bills, not live with fifteen roommates and go out once in a while to enjoy the city’s restaurants, clubs and other attractions.

Previous generations may have gotten in at a better time - older teachers who now make up to $77,630 may have come into the system at a time when the cost of living was lower in proportion to income. Now, post-housing bubble, they have salaries that can at least buy them a nice dinner or a movie ticket on the weekend. Younger teachers are not seeing the same good luck.

One option is to increase public school funding, but in an age of flailing markets and uncertain budgets, another is to shrink the gap between the bottom and the top teacher salaries. Why shouldn’t the 28-year old Berkeley graduate who’s still full of hope and inspiration be compensated at a level closer to his or her jaded, cynical colleagues who have been there for 20 years? If students are rewarded based on merit, shouldn’t teachers be too?

Essentially, what California is doing by keeping these salaries less than exciting is to hurt the school system by attracting less qualified teaching candidates. The state is giving little reward to those talented young professionals who choose to go into teaching for the love of it, and they are making one of the most important professions into an option for those unable to make it into higher-paying markets. In short, teaching isn’t high-status, and it should be. The schools are where we find and nurture the very young talents that will one day lead the state, and maybe even become great teachers themselves. That’s why we should be giving those who choose to become educators the respect and compensation they deserve.

My blog is part of a month-long series on education in California,
published in partnership with the University of Phoenix and The WIP's publishing platform
Six Apart. WIP Executive Editor Katharine Daniels is also participating.
Be sure to look for both of our articles, as features and Talk blogs each Monday in March.

As California deals with the local impacts of the global economic crisis, we need to think about our future leaders -- our youth. If we are serious about maintaining our country’s status in the world, we need to invest in our kids. And that means all of them.

We’ve allowed our students’ achievement and college preparedness to dwindle, with large gaps leaving minorities and students from poorer families at a disadvantage. As a society, we can’t afford to miss out on the potential of these young people. Our next great talents need to be nurtured, not left to fall through the cracks of a failing public school system.

The underperforming public school is practically a cliché, but a new option has emerged – charter schools. California’s 750 charter schools are typically small, focused academies that serve roughly the same mix of students enrolled in public schools. The state has added an average of fifty per year in the last decade, and charters currently serve about 276,000 students.

Charter schools are run more like businesses than like public institutions, which tends to make them more streamlined and freer to select the best teaching talent. If students are judged on the merit of their work, shouldn’t teachers be subject to the same? The clout of teachers’ unions has led to undue protections for teachers who don’t teach well, and charter schools have found a way to circumvent their influence.

From my own experience, I can definitely see the logic of this. I grew up in a good public school system, but I ran into the occasional Very Bad Teacher. I have distinct memories of one teacher who told stories about his life for more than half the class. We wondered why we even bothered to do the homework if he wasn’t even going to discuss it. He seemed completely disinterested in the students, and my guess is that he had institutional protections that let him keep his job. But for us, the 14-year-olds who were there to learn trigonometry, the class caused us to waste 45 minutes a day and feel unprepared for the next level of math.

In a charter school, that teacher would have been let go, just like an underperforming worker would in a private company.

Once they recruit passionate, top-level teachers, charter schools prioritize one-on-one time with students, often utilizing highly talented graduates of top colleges who are willing to work for relatively low pay before going on to other careers. There’s just something about the energy of a charter, the feeling that you really can make a difference in a child’s life, that motivates these young teachers. For example, the Match School in Boston, a star of the charter school movement, convinces graduates of top universities to live in a dormitory and work for a minimal stipend in order to give disadvantaged urban students a chance to go to college.

But demanding more doesn’t necessarily smooth your path. Last year, Match had problems with students leaving just before graduation for a public school because they were not going to meet the charter’s tougher requirements. This led to questions of whether the school was asking too much of its students, even if, by and large, it paid off.

By going against the grain, California’s charter schools will undoubtedly face similar challenges, but their record so far is impressive. Studies show that charters do a better job of improving students’ Academic Performance Index (API) scores and have made more progress toward closing the achievement gap between African-American and Caucasian students.

In addition to working more closely with students, charter schools tend to bring parents into the loop. They keep in touch with families and let them know if a child is not performing at his or her potential.

Because of this support network, students at charter schools are more likely to absorb the values that their adult role models are imparting to them, learning to be self-reliant and responsible.

They may not be for everyone, but the charter school is a great alternative to the traditional public school. By escaping the bureaucracy and red tape of the current system and running more on merit and innovation than on seniority and age-old practices, these new schools are surprising parents, children and legislators by showing a new possible path toward closing California’s educational achievement gap. More funding for these innovative academies would be a step in the right direction for the state’s most disadvantaged youth.

My blog is part of a month-long series on education in California,
published in partnership with the University of Phoenix and The WIP's publishing platform
Six Apart. WIP Executive Editor Katharine Daniels is also participating.
Be sure to look for both of our articles, as features and Talk blogs each Monday in March.