Gov. Davis’ budget targets wrong groups

EDITORIAL BOARD Christine Byrd
 Editor in Chief

Michael Litschi
 Managing Editor

Jonah Lalas
 Viewpoint Editor

Barbara Ortutay
 News Editor

Amy Golod
 Staff Representative

Timothy Kudo
 Staff Representative

Brian O’Camb
 Staff Representative

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

Calling it “responsive and responsible,” Gov. Gray
Davis unveiled a budget proposal last week largely focusing on
education and the state’s energy crisis. Among other things,
the governor provided the K-12 school system with the largest
funding ever ““ a total of $53 billion.

But do not be misled by the quantity of this figure.

Davis’ budget proposal is neither “responsive”
to the needs of schools from lower socioeconomic communities, nor
is it “responsible” in its outlandish and unnecessary
proposals. Instead, the plan largely targets the middle class and
focuses more on the state’s future economic well-being than
on students themselves. Though Davis deserves credit for
recognizing problems with California’s educational system,
his approach to solving them is misguided.

Focus needs to be diverted from California’s future
economy to today’s schools and students. The governor needs
to ensure lower socioeconomic areas receive the attention they
deserve, rather than offering a tax break to everyone.

For instance, Davis mentioned in his State of the State address
that students who take algebra demonstrate superior academic
performance. Following this rationale, the governor wants to spend
$30 million on recruiting algebra teachers. True, math is
important. But what about other subjects?

Davis needs to realize that having quality teachers in all areas
is more important than over-emphasizing one subject. But instead of
showing he values teachers currently serving in the school system,
Davis wants to allot $1 million for tax credits to companies that
“loan” their executives to teach at public schools.
This hardly helps improve our schools ““ just because someone
is a professional doesn’t mean they can effectively teach
others.

It takes more than money to run a classroom. Davis should listen
to teachers’ opinions on the proposals he makes. And he
should encourage administrators to be more supportive of teachers
in the classroom.

In thinking of the state’s future economy, Davis forgets
about today’s schools in the lower socioeconomic communities.
Many of these schools lack basic resources while their more
affluent counterparts are getting Internet access. Improving the
quality of poorer schools would help all students receive an
education that provides them with the tools to excel in the future.
Davis’ proposal instead calls for $20 million to build 10
more “high-tech” high schools, widening the gap between
poorer schools and the more advantaged.

An initiative to build another California Institute for Science
and Innovation ““ which would cost more than $30 million
““ reiterates the governor’s desire to gear his budget
toward the economy. Research and training done at this institute
could help California offer more competitive business in the
future. But think of the impact $30 million would have on schools
in poor communities. It’s upsetting to realize Davis will
bail out large energy corporations facing bankruptcy, but not
schools from low-income communities in financial need.

This budget proposal calls for the most money spent on education
in California history, but who’s actually benefiting?
There’s little doubt the proposal aims to benefit the middle
class, especially when considering such things as the Back to
School Sales Tax Holiday.

The idea of the program is to help families reduce clothing
expenses by not charging them sales tax on clothing and computers
on the last weekend of August. The maximum $200 purchase of sales
tax free clothing saves a customer a whopping $16. Customers can
also buy tax-free computer equipment up to $1000.

Though the governor did make positive investments ““ such
as providing community colleges with more funding and keeping UC
and CSU fees from increasing ““ Davis needs to focus more in
areas needing the most improvement. Before lengthening the school
year in middle schools at a cost of $1.2 billion, Davis should
provide adequate facilities, resources, teachers and
administrators.

The governor needs to look at the overall picture of
California’s educational system when determining how he will
allocate funding. Providing for specific proposals such as algebra
teachers and less than a dozen technologically-advanced high
schools ignores fundamental problems, such as the gross
inequalities in the public education system.

The governor will only have a “responsive and
responsible” budget when he responds to the needs of schools
in low-income communities instead of paying for company employees
to take field-trips to public schools and asking them to teach.