Here we go again: As the nation’s economy slows down, state policymakers are eyeing public education dollars as a means to balance shrinking state budgets—and, in doing so, they prepare to undermine the school reforms and rising student performance they demand of schools.

The clearest evidence of this short-sighted but all-too-common public policy phenomenon can be found in California, where not long ago, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was calling 2008 the "Year of Education." Indeed, in January, a state education panel proposed several exciting initiatives on performance pay for teachers, universal preschool, all-day kindergarden, and new data and accountability systems.

But a projected $14.5 billion state deficit over the next 18 months has left these grand ideas in tatters, and now Schwarzenegger wants to cut education funding by $4.8 billion.

If that happens, school systems will have to lay off teachers, boost class sizes, and cut back on successful initiatives to boost student performance. Equally disturbing, by the time the state eventually recovers fiscally, even those academic programs spared the budget axe will have been undermined by staff shortages, cuts in professional development, and staff turnover.

It's not that policymakers want to undermine the schools. They just aren't willing to pay the political cost to ensure a reliable funding source for education. Consider their eagerness to embrace politically popular "property tax relief" proposals, which ultimately shift responsibility for school funding to the state—and state sales taxes—but leave public education ever more sensitive to economic ups and downs.

That argument, indeed, was made to Georgia lawmakers in a recent report by the Massachusetts-based Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. But some lawmakers promptly reaffirmed their wish to cut property taxes at the insistence of constituents.

I don't need a crystal ball to forecast the future. A handful of far-sighted governors will do their best to shield public education funding, but their success will depend largely on whether the economy continues to slow or soon rebounds.

There also will be isolated talk of establishing a more dedicated funding stream for education, such as setting mandatory minimum budget limits to shield schools from future economic downturns.

That's a grand idea. But, of course, we're talking about politicians. Twenty years ago, California voters set just those minimum limits to stabilize school funding with passage of Proposition 98. But Gov. Schwarzenegger convinced state lawmakers to suspend the law during the last economic downturn—and he's proposing it again this year.

If such cuts occur—in California and elsewhere—what happens when schools invariably fail to meet annual yearly progress (AYP) goals? Will critics point the blame at state officials for shortchanging public education?

I bet you don't need a crystal ball, either.

Del Stover, Senior Editor