Santa Clara County, CA November 3, 1998 General
Smart Voter

Proposition 8 - the Cure for What Ails Education?

By Michael B. "Mike" Smurthwaite

Candidate for Governing Board Member; Gilroy Unified School District; Trustee Area 1

This information is provided by the candidate
Prop 8 just camoflages the creation of a new State Office of Chief Inspector of Public Schools by surrounding it in the middle of a bouquet of popular proposals.
Proposition Eight authors have proposed several education statutes which the public desires including the creation of a permanent fund for class size reduction of kinder through third grade classes. It also mandates increasing the requirements for teachers crdendtials, to keep lesson plans, and includes pupil performance in teacher evaluations. It requires immediate suspension of any student possessing unlawful drugs, and, after the first offense, proposes expulsion for such offenders. The proposal also increases parent and teacher power and influence in school governance to determine school curriculum and the use of funds available to the school.

These proposals seem acceptable enough, don't they? We all want better schools, better teachers, more parent input, a stronger stand against drugs, don't we? So, Dr. Mike, why the hesitance to fully support such a proposal??

Well, lets take a closer look. Prop 8 also creates a new state bureaucracy called the Office of the Chief Inspector of Public Schools. This office would have the following functions:

  • Operate independently from the State Department of Education (CDE)
  • Inspect all K-12 public schools, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and make a report each year on the quality of public schools including student achievement.
  • The estimated $15 to $20 million dollar annual cost would be deducted from the CDE and effectively reduce the CDE by half.

What's the matter with that? First, all the above beneficial proposals can be obtained through currently established processes. We don't need a proposal to force it. Secondly, we don't need yet another bureaurcracy because we all know that by their very nature, bureaucracies expand and are costly. The proposal's legislative analyst even admits that "the state would probably provide additional funds to the office given the cost of this new function. . . ."

Therefore, since we can obtain all the desireable benefiets through current legislative and CDE processes, why create a new bureaucracy? Why not reform, reorganize and redirect the current CDE? Why not just pass permanent class-size reduction funding through the legislative process? We can increase teacher credentialing requirements too, make annual school reports, and increase the stringency and frequency of the California Compliance Review (CCR) regulatory process too. Why create a new bureaucracy?

Are the Prop 8 authors admitting they have no control ofer the CDE and want it reduced by half? Do they really believe that the quality of education will increase by creating new office full of government regulators?

Of course I want to increase the quality of education in California and in Gilroy. Of course many of the propositions may be desireable, but obtaining these ends by initiative and mandating a new bureaucracy seem counter-productive to me. I appreciate your concern and request your support on November 3rd. Thank you for your time.

Candidate Page || Feedback to Candidate || This Race
November 1998 Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter

Created from information supplied by the candidate: September 22, 1998 11:13
Smart Voter '98 <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.