Enrollment stagnates -- what next?
Sacramento Bee 2/10/07
It turned out, however, not to be a new paradigm but merely a lull before a new demographic surge, thanks to a wave of immigration and a sharp uptick in the birth rate. Since 1980, schools have seen their enrollments shoot upward by 2.4 million students, a 62 percent growth outstripping overall population.
Classroom space was strained and there was a huge change in the cultural makeup of students due to the impact of immigration. Moreover, the enrollment boom occurred as the governance and financing of schools also were changing radically, thanks largely to the passage of Proposition 13, the 1978 ballot measure that caps property taxes.
Financing shifted largely to the state. With the shift, governors and legislators began exercising more control over curriculum and other matters. That was especially true after voters in 1988 passed Proposition 98, the landmark measure that specifies how much money schools must receive each year.
Enrollment is at a plateau, at least for the moment. After hitting 6.3 million in 2004, it has virtually stagnated, even dropping by a few thousand. The cause is an erosion in births in the 1990s, from a peak of nearly 612,000 babies in 1990 to as low as 518,000 in 1999. It is, however, merely another demographic lull, because births have picked up again to over 550,000 a year.
Some districts in older suburbs are closing schools as enrollments decline. But the enrollment pause also has positive aspects, such as allowing per-pupil spending to increase. Including federal funds, California is expected to top $11,500 in per-pupil spending under the budget Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled this month. For the first time in a long time, school finance will not be a Capitol preoccupation. But schools remain prominent in the political consciousness.
Money, after all, should merely be the means to the end of academic achievement. California's students, especially those from African American, Latino and low-income families, are trailing badly, as Jack O'Connell, the state's superintendent of public instruction, highlighted this week in his annual appraisal of the schools.
Simply put, California schools work pretty well for middle- and upper-income white and Asian American students, not well for others.
O'Connell and Schwarzenegger say they want to find out why there's an "achievement gap" and what can be done to close it -- a subject of much angst and conflict among education wonks. O'Connell says he's convening a panel of experts to recommend curative approaches. An exhaustive, foundation-sponsored study of California's schools has already been completed and is being kept under wraps as a select few politicians and educators weigh its recommendations.
Inevitably, the debate will turn back to money, either redirecting what we already spend to focus attention on low-performing students and their schools, or expanding the pot, perhaps through new taxes. Hopefully, however, we can talk about other factors, because it's evident that more than money is involved.
As national data prove, there's virtually no correlation between per-pupil spending and academic achievement when one examines both on a state-to-state basis.
The foundation project and the O'Connell initiative should be fulcrums for a real debate over what's needed before the next surge in enrollment arrives. They shouldn't be merely rationalizations for throwing more money at the system, as the powerful education lobby preaches.