The end of public education as we know it?

Hi there - glad you appreciated the source data on funding. Alas, costs for everything are higher in the Bay Area than most of the world so it follows that investments in education must follow. There are absolutely opportunities for efficiency -- this is the hard work that must take place at the local and state level which we unfortunately cannot solve in the comments section of a local news paper. Note athletic centers are often funded through philanthropic means based on benefactors' interests, not public funds. SMCSBA is a professional organization for school board members so typically not active at the level of specific functions of SMCOE, though I can say from my experience, I have seen SMCOE and SRTS support numerous local projects including collaborating with city and county departments to improve the safety of crossings in and around schools.

Athletic fields or green technology are not funded by boosters. That would give them illegal access to public facilities - basically that is the whole Emoluments Clause discussion.

Athletic fields, swimming pools, and workforce housing are most often illegally paid for by bond measures that are supposed to only benefit long-term education facilities. Athletic fields and swimming pools for middle and high schools - used by only a select few student athletes - are not that and especially when elementary school districts claim they can't even afford music or PE.

And yes, the Bay Area does have higher cost and yet many districts (like RCSD) pay their teachers less than the international comparison does. Because the international competition values education and the Bay Area only pretends to value education.

SRTS in San Mateo is only done by parent volunteers. There is no institutionalized mandate by your board members, by SMCOE or by the Board of Supervisors to achieve this. Basically what you have seen are 'presentations without actions'. That is

main thing San Mateo Democrats are really good at - praising a presentation and then botching the follow-through.

Hi Dirk - these are very thoughtful questions! 'Ed100' is a great starting point for a statewide view on spending (https://ed100.org/lessons/eddollars) and productivity (https://ed100.org/lessons/wellspent), and an explanation of facilities bonds (https://ed100.org/blog/parcels-bonds), which are basically like a mortage you take on to invest in buying a home for your family. I'll work on tracking down more info to share per your questions above, though in the meantime, would encourage folks to listen in on the governor's 'May revise' budget proposal livestream today at 10:30am as this is one of the most important milestones in setting the state budget for public education, healthcare, and other services for the upcoming years (https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/05/12/wednesday-governor-newsom-to-release-revised-budget-plan-in-sacramento/).

Here are some additional sources of information you requested, Dirk... The California Department of Education website provides student enrollment information such as this snapshot (https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp). Ed Data and Data Quest are CDE databases that provide information such as spending by category (https://www.ed-data.org/state/CA/ps_NTExOTU%5E) and number of teachers by subject area (https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQCensus/TchAssgnOutcome.aspx?agglevel=State&cds=00&year=2022-23). (Note that due to the herculean nature of task of collecting these data for a state with around six million students, there is generally a lag so it can be a couple years old.). Ed100 lessons on CA's 'Local Control Funding Formula' (https://ed100.org/lessons/lcff) and 'categorical funds' (https://ed100.org/lessons/allocations) provide important information on funding sources. Forthcoming recaps of today's gubernatorial press conference will provide further insight as to funding sources at the state level. Every school district website contains a 'financial information' section where they post the latest presentations and detailed budget update reports.

All that said, what keeps me up at night as far as the future of public education are the higher-level concepts in my original guest perspective, i.e., our willingness and ability to truly center students, not the system; to be open to and carefully consider student-centered structural improvements to our systems; and to stay focused and avoid distractions, as I believe these concepts are essential first steps in developing effective, efficient, and sustainable solutions.

Thank you, Terence! One cool thing about careers and technical education done well is it also puts a major emphasis on reading, writing, and math. For example, students may work together to launch a catering business, through which they research the landscape (mostly through reading), write a business plan, and crunch numbers on how to make a profit they can reinvest in their work.

Re 'greening' facilities, you are absolutely correct and districts typically do calculate the time required to recoup costs when considering these up-front investments.

I could not agree with you more that state (and local) policies must take care to avoid unintended consequences like shifting resources from folks in need to those with financial privilege -- this happens way too often.

Costs for either making change or maintaining the status quo in any regard (e.g., instruction or infrastructure) would need to be calculated with those specific parameters at the specific level of interest. For example, if you are interested in the ROI of installing solar panels, you would need to calculate that for a particular district, or perhaps at the state level for all those who have not yet done so. Financial ROI for instructional improvements such as implementing new curricula are more difficult to quantify as the return is generally better student outcomes, though qualitative discussion of trade-offs is important.

Most local TK-12 school districts have far more teachers and support staff (e.g., custodians, food service workers, computer technicians, etc.) than administrators. Agreed there is much work to do in ensuring students cover the basics so they can move on to more challenging content -- the thinking on this front is evolving, as well, with opportunities for high school students to advance in fields such as statistics which has broad applicability across many career opportunities and life in general (e.g., interpreting one's own healthcare options).

Thankfully, even within existing CA Ed Code, we have many opportunities to increase flexibility within our existing public school systems to give students and their families more choice, particularly at the high school level where they can enroll in alternative high schools and independent study programs, and/or take classes at local community colleges (for free in SMC) to get that extra challenge.

I also appreciate your observation that 'there are no easy answers but it’s obvious that what we’ve been doing isn’t working' though would also offer that some things are working great, some things so-so, and some things not so much, so it behooves us to take the time to assess these things, look for trends, and continuously improve where needed. It's painfully slow and sometimes a bit dry, but this is the hard work we must to keep kids learning while we make improvements.

Thanks for continuing the conversation, Ms. Layne, although there are still no solutions or estimated costs, just kicking the can down the road. You say, “One cool thing about careers and technical education done well is it also puts a major emphasis on reading, writing, and math.” Based on California test scores, we’re definitely not there, so what can be done? The answer: back to basics. Why are districts wasting time doing an ROI on “greening” facilities when the rooftop market has already proven this is a non starter due to costs? Why would schools think they could do better? Use the cheapest form of energy and take money that was to be wasted on solar panels and return them to help educate students.

It’s good to hear there are more teachers and support staff than administrators but then why aren’t teachers doing a good job at educating students? Perhaps we need to evaluate teachers and establish a merit-based system and remove teachers at the bottom. You say there are many opportunities to increase flexibility but what good is flexibility if students aren’t learning the basics. Unless flexibility is in school vouchers where parents can decide which school, public or charter or home, is best for their kids.

Again, where are solutions? You say “…that some things are working great, some things so-so, and some things not so much…” Okay, what are they? Where’s a list of best practices and an evaluation of how to improve on the so-so and not so much things? Is there an evaluation of best practices from states who achieve high student outcomes and if not, why not? You say, “…it behooves us to take the time to assess these things, look for trends, and continuously improve where needed.” In short, talk the talk but kick the can down the road. Education outcomes have been bad for a while so why are we just starting now? I’d question the “continuously improve” part since we haven’t shown California educators can improve.

Without any path forward, we can continue talking about the problem while students continue to suffer. Based on public education unions and their influence over Democrat politicians I’d assert we’ll continue to receive lip service about making changes but of course, educators need more money for education but as usual, not "for the kids." As long as voters continue accepting the status quo, there is no incentive for public educators to do anything except talk. Voters need to advocate for school choice and begin starving public education completely, or forcing public education reforms. Else parents that can will move to a state providing a decent education for their kids.

Agreed - instructional excellence is key. This requires some amount of collaboration among teachers and administrators to stay up-to-date with the latest educational research and to ensure a logical flow of learning from one grade to the next -- nothing fancy, just a plan for how to spend time and resources. Here's more info on Ravenswood School District's approach for rewarding success and promoting those techniques (more on their website): https://youtu.be/slS-iZDHoPg

Good morning, MichKosk

Oh, there might be bigger concerns than coming generations being unable to actually "express ideas cogently and coherently on paper." There will be no need for them to learn critical thinking.