As a graduate of the Class of ’71 from Arcadia High School, a nearly all white school (at the time) in the foothills of the San Gabriel Valley, I often heard from my teachers how fortunate we were to live in Arcadia with the very successful Santa Anita Racetrack funding public schools in the city. In the early 70s, Arcadia boasted that it received no government funds for education and was able to opt out of the requirements that came with those funds. I received a privileged and generously resourced education. I benefited from an excellent education in Arcadia. Serrano changed the funding for all of that.
Priest vs. Serrano was a court decision in the Superior Court of Los Angeles that changed California's method of funding public education. Funding for schools and libraries was mostly derived from property taxes. The court decided that because of district-to-district educational resource disparities (Arcadia was a prime example), funding for all schools in California "failed to meet the requirements of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution."
After this and another decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, equal government funding for all districts, was made mandatory. The response from the citizenry was palpable. Residents in Arcadia were outraged that racetrack money, “our money”, would go to other, usually less affluent districts that did not have to deal with the traffic and other inconveniences of the track. Many other districts across the state who were also able to give their students greater resources than students in poorer districts because of various wealth-based funding disparities were affected as well. Anger about “wasteful” state spending and taxation became a common topic throughout the state. Real estate investors and homeowners were very angry about property taxes. Taxes for homeowners and real estate investors consistently rose affecting profits and property values. The election of the County Appraiser was big news every election.
Proposition 13 changed all of that in 1978. It passed overwhelmingly in California in a feisty environment driven by an electorate outraged by tax increases and advertisements showing elderly homeowners on fixed incomes coping with increased assessments. Prop 13 lowered the property tax rate to no more than 1% of assessed value while limiting changes in assessed value to change in ownership, new construction, or a decline in value. As a constitutional amendment, Proposition 13 could not be overturned by the Supreme Court as a violation of the legislative responses driven by Serrano I and II. Prop 13 substantially reduced property tax rates while cutting the main source of income to economically impacted districts, now more fairly distributed by legislation secondary to Serrano I and II. The real estate industry exploded here for this and other reasons and, even now, all of us who own a home benefit financially as a result. My home's assessment and property taxes have not increased in the twenty years I have owned it. California has some of the lowest property taxes in the nation as well as close to the lowest funding for public education in the United States.
I am gratified that Proposition 30, Governor Brown’s public school funding proposition passed. It is the first time that I can remember a statewide election to increase taxes for education that surpassed the 66% threshold made law by Proposition 13. It’s ironic that Governor Brown who opposed Proposition 13 but embraced it immediately after the 1978 election, spearheaded Proposition 30. Brown has cut spending significantly in California whie funding for community colleges and public K-12 schools has been bouyed by the success of Proposition 30. California, recently trumpeted as a "failed state" with a multi-billion dollar deficit, now enjoys a surplus created through major spending cuts along with reasonably increased taxation. While we don't hear the 24-hour news cycle patting Governor "Moonbeam" Brown and the state on the back for this success, it has proven to be a model for the nation.
I find tremendous comfort in Catholic social teaching. Often folks from other Christian traditions are surprised that Catholics find reason to critique their Church on many levels and don't always see it solely as a monolithic body of opinion moving forward through existence, but rather as the Body of Christ, which includes us all.
Much of my growth as a Catholic comes from the influence of the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, a bold and unswerving group of courageous women who live Catholic social justice every day, here and throughout the world in Africa, South America and Europe. This religious order of sisters was begun by Father Jean Gailhac and Meré St. Jean to bring comfort to orphans and exploited women in France. More recently they have done tremendous work to end human trafficking. I honestly believe that it is the Holy Spirit that has seen them grow throughout the world living thoroughly for social justice, peace, and religious tolerance. Honestly, I don’t think I would be in working on my doctorate in Educational Leadership for Social Justice were it not for the RSHM and their effect on my life.
I mention all of this because I want to bring attention to the reality that we, men and women, are the Church and its application of social justice. It brings any critique I may have, I believe, into perspective when I see women such as the Sisters of the Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary and lay Catholics bring social justice to life in the world. I have been influenced and changed as well by incredible priests who have rocked my world, helping me to personal peace and introspection in my spiritual journey.
In light of Catholic social teaching, I find the subject of property ownership timely and fascinating in light of the presence of so much poverty and pain in our world. It is also timely given the recent comments from Pope Francis that mirror the encyclical Mater et Magistra. It is a fact that the Church in the last half century has moved in the direction of what John XXIII called socialization that encourages the use of government to bring about social responsibility in the use of property that I find remarkable. When these teachings are articulated it often comes as a shock to politically conservative Americans who had no idea the Catholic Church calls for an idea so anathema to the American ethic of private ownership that is clung to like its own religion leading to our current state of the super rich acquiring more and more to the detriment of what is left of a middle class and the devastation of the poorest of our American brethren.
Pope Francis’s rejection of market capitalism as the core measure of human well-being has been mentioned previously by Paul VI, Benedict XVI and John Paul II, yet until now, it is not what has been emphasize in any conversation about our Church that I have heard recently. Hearing an emphasis on social structures that we choose democratically having an obligation to treat every human we encounter with dignity and worth rather than an emphasis on conservative social values is a welcome change of tone. As Freire was influenced by Catholic liberation theology to build literacy education leading to critical consciousness, I believe that we as members of the Body of Christ have an obligation to inculcate the radical teaching of Jesus to renounce the acquisition of possessions, except our “daily bread” and to serve the poor rather than aspiring to become acquire greater wealth. He really wasn’t kidding when He told the very rich young man that if he really wanted to be perfect he should sell all of his possessions and give the money to the poor. It’s tough to be a Christian and we all fall short. Strikingly, in our country and others around the world, the opposite is often encouraged and at times even celebrated as Christianity itself.
Occasionally, I get the opportunity to have very personal discussions with students at my school that give me some insight into their lives. Walking through the school and having cursory conversations with young people now on the cusp of adulthood can give a false picture, though, of their day-to-day lives. Looking out into the halls I see a group of happy, seemingly carefree students laughing and smiling with their friends while many of them grow up in neighborhoods that are impacted with crime and structural neglect. One would never know if one didn’t know.
One 17-year-old senior who was determined to eventually attend law school particularly impressed me. Sitting one day in my office we were talking about his academic success. He told me a story that shocked me as much by his circumstances as by the sure knowledge that his life would have probably overcome me. His house was really just two rooms separated from noisy neighbors by a piece of plastic hanging in a doorway. He and his mother and younger brother lived there with two older brothers living there with their girlfriends and their children. There was no way, he said, that he could do homework at home. Each day he went to Jack-In-The-Box and completed his work there, earning a grade point average that I never accomplished in my quiet, privileged, middle-class home sitting at my desk in my own bedroom. Students like this humble me because I know that their lives present them with obstacles outside of their control that I would most likely not have scaled. In fact, most people I know would not have.
I would say that this young man’s personal responsibility in the face of adversity accomplished great things for him. He is a very successful attorney and would be the first to attribute it to his acceptance of personal responsibility. He would also attribute his success to the institutional structures of government assistance that his efforts allowed him to exploit to full advantage. But he also knows that most people, faced with this adversity, would not break away from these circumstances. His brother and niece also came to my school. They did not succeed. Despite his example and help, they could not overcome the circumstances that they did not create. It is such a complex and frustrating condition that injustice creates and calls for what Young calls “the responsibility individuals have for the conditions of the lives of others, as well as their own lives.”
There is, of course, no one solution for the disparate effect that unequal distribution of resources and a lack of emphasis on structural background conditions create. It becomes a trap that is very difficult to escape despite personal responsibility that would translate into success for those in a more privileged setting. One poor choice or circumstance can overcome those in this setting while leaving others with more resources, privilege, or in a different environment, untouched. Something as simple as the acknowledgement of privilege by those who enjoy it with the resultant responsibility to advocate and work for change could move our nation forward in redirecting the perspective that a lack of personal responsibility is the cause of poverty rather than structural injustice and could be a definitive fork in the road toward the path of historic change.
Time is moving fast and a final direction for my research question is looming large. I've moved all over the place, which isn't good. After exploring the problem of parents cut out of the involvement loop because of the move to replace paper with digital information to issues surrounding assessment and the utter lack of implemented solutions to the most effective use of data by educators, I think I'm coming close to knowing my direction. It is the intellectual fusion of everything we do here to social justice that is very motivating. I need to seek a little more advice from my professors, but I'll get back to you here when I have completely settled on a question.
I'm really enjoying attending classes with my cohort. That seems a little simplistic, but so many programs these days are mostly online or a hybrid, it feels very good to be a part of a tradition doctoral program that gets us in a classroom each week for all of our classes. I care as much about how my cohort views me as I do my professors. That leads to a strong bonding and a collegial environment that is truly a joy. We do have an online component within the construct of a traditional doctoral program, and I really enjoy that as well. Below is a response I made to an online presentation from my colleagues. No matter how old I get or how self-indulgent it seems, I never get tired of watching myself on TV.
Monday marks the start of classes and the beginning of a new journey for me. I'm excited...No, overwhelmed with anticipation. Twenty days short of 60 years and jumping into a young person's game. Everyone in the cohort of 18 is smart...very smart, with extensive academic credentials and experience. The faculty is welcoming and supportive, my fellow cohort members are friendly and just as excited as I am. At this point in my career, the doctorate is an opportunity to take pleasure in the process of learning. I want to enjoy the immersion into reading, writing, learning, and creating. After 17 years as a Catholic high school principal and 32 years in education, I really don't have any ambitions to "move up." I do though, want to explore new ways to serve that excite me and are outside of what I have done for so many years. I don't know what that means right now, but it's a big part of why I'm excited. I'll talk about it here (if I have time) and take a moment or two each week to reflect on how it's going.