Volume 22
Number 2 Winter 2005 |
|
Departments:
Campus Views | Letters
| News & Notes | Parents
| Class
Notes | Aggies Remember
| End Notes
|
SCHOOL FUNDING—UNEQUAL AND UNFAIR | QUAKE FORECASTS WITHOUT FAULT | NAMESAKES | O TANNENBAUM, BE GONE
SCHOOL FUNDING—UNEQUAL AND UNFAIRUnder an unfair hodgepodge of funding programs for California schools, the rich just get richer, according to a study by a UC Davis education finance expert. Almost a third of all state spending on public schools—nearly $13 billion—is allocated through 124 “categorical aid programs.” Though originally aimed at closing achievement gaps in the 1970s, much of that funding now goes to wealthier school districts, said study Thomas Timar, associate professor of education. “These well-intentioned programs were originally targeted at kids who need extra resources,” said Timar. “Now this $13 billion quiver of arrows is shot in various directions, rarely hitting the bull’s-eye, and spent with no apparent effect.” Timar’s two-year study of the arcane world of school finance uncovered what some had suspected but never detailed: The state’s 30-year effort to equalize funding, by sending new dollars to programs for low-performing students, is often co-opted by a variety of interest groups. This $13 billion chunk of school funding is “most likely out of compliance with the California Supreme Court’s 1974 decision that requires the Legislature and governor to equalize funding across districts,” said Timar, a faculty affiliate for the Policy Analysis for California Education center, a cooperative venture of UC Berkeley, Stanford University and UC Davis. The study found that allocations from major programs are rarely correlated to any measure of local need. Under one program—the Targeted Instructional Improvement initiative that aims to help districts teach minority and low-income children—average per-pupil funding was $136 in 2001–02. The Sausalito/Marin City Unified School District received $1,893 per pupil. This wealthy district had $18,245 in total revenues per pupil that year, more than $11,000 over the statewide average for elementary school districts. In contrast, Kern County’s Semitropic Elementary District, with much higher percentages of minority students and free-lunch recipients, received only $6,596 in total revenues per pupil and no funds from the Targeted Instructional Improvement program, despite having greater need, according to the study. The number of categorical programs has ballooned over a 20-year period, from 17 in 1980 to 124 in 2001–02. From 13 percent of per-pupil funding for K–12 education in 1980, they grew to account for nearly 30 percent in 2001–02. Most programs are rarely evaluated to see whether they help close achievement gaps locally. As local schools struggle to balance their budgets, the growth in categorical programs means they have less discretionary monies available than they did a generation ago. A state law passed in 2004 consolidates a number of categorical funds into six block grants. However, Timar said only about $2 billion of the $13 billion total will be consolidated and the measure does not address inequities in current allocation formulas. “Marginal changes around the edges are not going to fix the problems,” he said. “What’s needed is a complete overhaul.” He proposes funding reform that would provide local schools and districts with a greater proportion of discretionary dollars in return for stronger accountability. The complete study can be found on the UC Davis School of Education’s Web site at education.ucdavis.edu/research/pace.html. — Julia Ann Easley QUAKE FORECASTS WITHOUT FAULT
An earthquake “scorecard” for predicting the location of moderate to large quakes has proven so accurate that it startled even its In 2001, the researchers used records of California earthquakes dating back to 1932 to identify where earthquakes of magnitude 5 or larger were likely to occur over the next decade. So far, the scorecard has been off just one out of 16 times. “We’re rather astonished we’re right this much of the time,” said John Rundle, director of the UC Davis Center for Computational Science and Engineering and head of the group that developed the forecast scorecard. Out of 16 earthquakes of magnitude 5 and higher that have occurred from 2000 through this September, 15 fell on “hot spots” identified by the forecast. Twelve of the 16 quakes occurred after the paper was originally published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. in February 2002. The fault that triggered an Oct. 23 earthquake in Japan was previously unknown to seismologists, but was identified as a likely site for future quakes by a map developed by Rundle’s team. The forecasts do not attempt to predict when an earthquake might occur within the 10-year period. The California scorecard forecast generated a map from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Mexican border, divided into approximately 4,000 boxes, or “tiles.” For each tile, the researchers calculated the seismic potential and assigned color-coding to show the areas most likely to experience quakes over a 10-year period. “Essentially, we look at past data and perform math operations on it,” said James Holliday, a UC Davis graduate student working on the project. Instrumental earthquake records are available for Southern California since 1932 and for Northern California since 1967. “In California, the problem is that there is quake activity at some level almost everywhere,” Rundle said. “With this method, we can narrow the locations of the largest future events to approximately 6 percent or less of the state. Such information could help engineers and government decision-makers prioritize areas for further testing and seismic retrofits.” Rundle and Holliday are working to refine the method and find new ways to visualize the data. So far, only one California earthquake, a magnitude 5.2 quake on June 15 under the ocean near San Clemente Island, was missed by the forecast. Rundle believes this “miss” may be due to larger uncertainties in earthquake records in that undersea region as compared with land areas. — Andy Fell
|
||
This Issue | Past Issues | Magazine Home | Search Class Notes | Send a Letter |