Parents are stuck digging deep for public school

Thank you, Ms. Morris.

Thank you, Ms. Morris.

Thank you, Ms. Morris.

My return trip to Ivanhoe was harrowing in a different way.

About 100 parents gathered in the auditorium to hear the same message we heard a year ago:

All major credit cards accepted.

This was my second such meeting at Ivanhoe, and the price of academic excellence -- Ivanhoe ranks 14th out of 484 LAUSD elementary schools -- is going up fast. Last year we were asked to donate on average $500 per student, and this year it will take twice as much to hold on to programs and personnel the district is not expected to fund.

If parents can come up with $327,000, the school will be able to keep three academic coaches who, among other things, take the pressure off teachers in the overcrowded fourth and fifth grades. It would also pay for P.E. coaches, three kindergarten aides, library resources, computer replacement and technology support.

As I heard the pitch, along with the testaments to Ivanhoe and how lucky we are to have a great school that's been a neighborhood institution since 1889 -- yes, I said 1889 -- I was thinking the same thing I thought when I heard the pitch a year ago:

We really are lucky, because the school is so good, and because many of us are able to fork over a little extra, even in a recession. But what about the vast majority of schools that aren't as good and don't have as many parents who can write checks?

Friends of Ivanhoe offered some salve for that guilt. Nearby schools, we were told, get extra funding based on lower family income.

This being a column about education, I'm guaranteed to field the usual raft of e-mail from those who say the simple answer to budget shortfalls is to stop admitting illegal immigrants to our schools. So let me say once again that it's a little more complicated than that.

Until the federal government produces the desperately needed reforms, we're stuck with what we've got, and it's probably cheaper to educate all children who live here than pay the costs of not doing so.

I'm also sure to hear from those who say more money doesn't necessarily mean better schools, which is true, and it's also fair to say we've got some burned-out educators and bloated bureaucracies across the state.

But why is California content to spend roughly $2,400 less per pupil than the national average, particularly when an educated workforce is the only hope for a stronger economic future?