OPINION: California must support students through the pipeline

C’s may get degrees, but for California’s educational system, a C-minus rating ranks its schools the 10th worst in the nation. With ongoing discussions over underfunded UCs, the role of charter schools and disparities among school districts, there remains little disagreement over the sorry state of education in the Golden State. The questions that then arise center around sources of funding, curriculum and, most importantly, the tension between oversight and autonomy of school districts.

Budgets often represent a reflection of values, and in California Gov. Jerry Brown’s latest budget released this week, education spending makes a big splash. Brown calls for “fully funding the Local Control Funding Formula, his landmark 2013 overhaul of education financing that was designed to direct substantial amounts of extra money to schools with high numbers of low-income students.” This translates to $3 billion more arriving two years earlier to these institutions.

Yet there is a persistent criticism of the Local Control Funding Formula that must be considered: The use of cash with a “no strings attached” philsophy often leads to confusion and wastefulness.

The question that remains is where this money will end up. Brown stipulated that this money must be used to benefit students, but this vague guideline, in the absence of more concrete state goals, runs the risk of funding teacher pensions or unnecessary raises instead of investing in the students themselves. In fact, Los Angeles Unified School District recently settled a case in which plaintiffs accused it of misusing these funds.

Despite concerns over bureaucratic overreach, there must be a fine line drawn in the sand between guidelines and independence to ensure that money reaches the students and schools continue to innovate and create.

USC, though privately funded and not subject to the whims of state bureaucrats, still holds a stake in this debate.

For one, early education intervention and advancement remains crucial to securing a steady and strong pipeline of California scholars to add to the ranks of Trojans. As a large, wealthy research university in a city and state characterized by extreme inequality, USC remains instrumental in recruiting and developing Californian students who can contribute to this state and society. The decisions and priorities of school districts, especially the ones that serve primarily underrepresented populations, shape the college readiness of millions of students, holding grand implications for preserving and expanding diversity in higher education.

USC prides itself on its expansive outreach efforts to low-income students, as it houses the highest number of Pell Grant-eligible students among most other private, highly selective universities, and through developing and expanding opportunity in early education, these numbers can continue to grow.

Additionally, as a university that invests heavily in the local community and school districts, USC can and must shape the discussion around promoting educational opportunities and advancement. Through its Family of Schools, Neighborhood Academic Initiative and other outreach and college prep programs, USC proves that early and sustained intervention, rather than merely more funding, paves the way to greater educational equality and opportunity.

For instance, among the variety of community programs that USC has to offer is the Center for Urban Education. Partnering with the Rossier School of Education, the center conducts research targeted at the K-12 age group with the goal of improving educational standards for students of color in higher education.

Another particularly helpful  organization launched by USC is the “I AM Program,” which pairs underrepresented youth with graduate students who act as college guidance mentors. Given California’s high school counselor-to-student ratio of 1:800 fails to meet the recommended state standard of 1:230, the program is an example of USC’s ability to fill the educational gap that currently exists in the California school system.

This coupling of college readiness initiatives with human and capital investment in K-12 schools represents a model for school districts and California, to follow when considering how to allocate resources and encourage growth and proficiency.

Furthermore, the aforementioned debates over funding and accountability do not remain siloed in the halls of public schools — USC also grapples with questions of how to spend the dollar, as the University works to strike a balance between committing to projects, research and scholarships and engaging in discussions to ensure that donors’ investments can impact every student. With a growing endowment of $4.6 billion, which ranks the University 24th nationally, USC continues to face concerns regarding how to allocate new funds responsibly, including whether that means divestment and or expanding further into the local community. And since no government doles out this endowment, the burden lies on donors to hold USC accountable to its promises and goals.

In the sixth largest economy in the world, where poverty and disparity in opportunities perpetuate inequalities, and in a society where education represents not only a foundational building block, but also a right, the Golden State must set the gold standard for teaching our youth. The fate of USC and our economy might just depend on it.