Joe Guzzardi
July 24, 2003

The California Recall election will present serious-minded candidates with a rare opportunity: a chance to openly and honestly discuss the challenges that face California.

What we’re much more likely to get, unfortunately, is the familiar pap from the same tedious political hacks that we have grown so tired of. Based on what I have heard in my summer travels up and down the state, no one is too keen on supporting Richard Riordan, Bill Simon or even Dianne Feinstein. Voters, if forced, may in spirit of the recall cast a tepid vote for one of them. But it will be done with little enthusiasm.

And the new kid on the block---Arnold Schwarzenegger---is unlikely to plunge in where the water is cold and murky.

To date, Schwarzenegger’s political claim to fame is Proposition 49, the After School Safety and Education Act of 2002. His bill—which passed with a 57% majority—would (if the state ever has enough money) increase the state funding for before and after school programs. Prop 49 ensures that grants are available to establish after-school programs in every elementary and middle school in California.

Since proposing additional money for after school a program is the safest political ground pols can tread, everyone and his mother endorsed Schwarzenegger’s initiative. 

But I’ll take my lead from the League of Women’s voters who recommended a “No” vote on Prop 49.

In its bulletin, the LWV wrote:  “The decision to oppose Proposition 49 was not easy, because we knew that many opponents of the measure would choose to be silent because of the popularity and economic strength of the measure's proponent. 

But the League of Women Voters of California will not abandon our obligation to inform voters of responsible approaches to the critical issues facing our state. 

We ask you to study the issues. Go beyond the rhetoric. Look at the big picture.”

Notice that the LWV encourages voters to be “responsible,” to “study” the issues and “to look at the big picture.”

Finally, added the LWV, “Prop 49 can't solve all of society's problems. And we must not allow Prop 49 to worsen the condition of California's children.”

The LWV was anti-Prop 49 because of the state’s financial crisis. But a closer look at the “big picture” brings to light a more complex problem---and one that Schwarzenegger and the LWV should have---but didn’t—address.

What is commonly referred to as “California’s children” or “our children” really are the children of the world who are currently residing—legally or illegally-- in the state.

The main reason that California’s school children are in crisis is because the numbers of new children arriving grows at such an alarming rate. And those children—mostly from poor countries--have enormous needs.

According to the demographics page of Children Now, a child research and action organization, California has 9.2 million children between the ages of 0-17 years. Of that number, 39.8% are Latino and 11.5% are Asian or Pacific Islander. Slightly more than 50% of California’s children, then, is the result of immigration.

Now if all those children were prospering or at least receiving basic family care, then one might argue that California could take more in.
But the exact opposite is the case. According to Children Now’s report titled “California Report Card, 2002”

• California does not meet families' need for affordable quality childcare and preschool and has largely ignored the importance of children's development in their early years by not making such care a top priority. For the 1.01 million children under age six who need child care because their parents are working, just 623,100 licensed childcare spaces were available. In addition, just over half (53%) of California 3- and 4-year-olds attend preschool, compared with almost two-thirds (64%) nationwide, and just 41% of eligible California children are enrolled in the federal Head Start program, compared with 58% nationwide.

• The unavailability of work that pays a livable wage is where income difficulties for California families usually begin, not with a lack of effort or sacrifice by working parents. More than one in four children in California (2.46 million) live in families in which at least one parent works at least 50 weeks a year-with 88% percent of those in full-time employment-yet still are struggling with low incomes. Additionally, almost one in three children who live in such working families are designated "poor," or with incomes less than $15,020 for a family of three. Likely as a result, children went hungry in 37,000 households during the year.

 
• Stark racial disparities exist across educational, health and other outcomes. The study noted that, in some instances, outcomes may be related to income differences across racial groups, while in other areas, societal discrimination based on race may be a contributing factor. While 65% of white students in public schools scored at or above the national average on STAR reading tests, just 31% of African American and 26% of Latino students did. Scores by Asian students differed significantly by ethnicity, with 57% of Asian Americans but only 39% of Pacific Islanders surpassing the national average. 

This opinion, of course, is considered racist in many quarters. But if someone could tell me how California’s struggling children benefit from more needy children arriving every week, I would like to know the answer.