Weinberg: Extra money makes a huge difference in student outcomes
By Katy Murphy
Monday, August 27th, 2012 at 11:25 pm in Uncategorized.
Steven Weinberg, a retired Oakland teacher and Education Report contributor, makes a case for the Proposition 30 tax initiative on the November ballot.
Does providing schools with more money lead to improvements in student achievement?
The experience of Oakland middle schools over the last three years shows that it does.
Several years ago four Oakland middle schools with test scores in the lowest 20 percent of state schools received multiyear grants of $900 per student to reduce class sizes and fund other improvements. The grants were not given to all schools in the lowest 20 percent because the state wanted to be able to compare differences in improvement between those schools that received the extra money and those that did not.
After three years the differences in Oakland’s middle schools are dramatic. The four schools that received the extra funding (Claremont, Frick, Madison, and Urban Promise) have improved their API scores by an average of 99 points. The middle schools that started with similar scores, but did not receive the funding, improved by an average of only 32 points. The Oakland middle schools that were not in the lowest 20 percent of the state made only an average of 2 points of API gain over these three years. (All the figures are comparisons of 2008 base scores to 2011 base scores.)
The gains for students in schools with the extra funding was more than three times as large as the gains in similar schools and much greater than that if all middle schools are compared.
Clearly additional funding and lower class sizes make a huge difference in helping schools increase student achievement. These gains might have been even larger if the state had not been cutting basic school support during this period.
California voters will have a choice in November. They can approve a small, temporary tax increase that will provide resources for our schools, or they can vote against the plan and see massive cuts to educational programs. What they decide will have a clear effect on the achievement of our students.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
August 28th, 2012 at 12:19 am
You have got to be kidding.
Vote NO!
August 28th, 2012 at 7:20 am
There is no way that throwing money at public school students makes a difference in the way claimed here. The failed Kansas City experiment pretty much settled that.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
And there is no such thing as a temporary tax increase.
What we do see is widespread cheating on minority testing by public school districts whenever the stakes are high and the numbers are not moving on their own.
http://www.ajc.com/news/cheating-our-children-suspicious-1397022.html
How dumb do you think the taxpayers are?
All the tax increases will be defeated in November. Educational budget cuts are music to our ears – especially at the state universities. They can be closed as far as I’m concerned. There are plenty of private and church schools available.
20% of the students in both the secondary schools and the universities should not be there anyway.
Brave New World.
August 28th, 2012 at 8:19 am
Money is not the entire game, but it’s a massive part of it. Our schools in CA are terribly underfunded – I’m glad to see some data that shows that when we resource schools better, we get better results.
Vote yes on Prop 30 and Prop 38 this November.
August 28th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Steven,
Thank you for your report. I hate to say that I am quite skeptical that this improvement is explained as simply as dollars of funding, but I am open to learning about this study. Can you share some of your thoughts about why you think that the money helps? What is the mechanism, in your opinion? What might be some of the other reasons besides strictly money that created the difference in API? I am thinking of things like changing demographics, selection bias of families to these better funded schools, the attraction of new facilities (if that was a factor), and selection bias of the schools that were initially chosen to receive such grants, etc? I am not familiar with the schools that received extra funding, those that were in the comparison group or how they were selected. I happen to know that there has been a huge push and outreach effort to encourage middle class students to attend Claremont. Could this or did this factor into their increased scores?
I would find it very helpful to see a list of the APIs before and after for all the middle schools in Oakland. Who funded these grants and how were schools selected? What was the money spent on in each school?More information would be great so that we could evaluate these changes. Please share!
Finally, are the schools continuing to get extra funding or did it stop? It will be interesting to see if the changes are maintained even when funding stops or if the school scores decline.
August 28th, 2012 at 8:23 am
This recent opinion piece in the NYTimes contends that it takes more than $49,000 to educate the children of the elite. We are spending a fraction of that on our public schools and our neediest students and asking teachers and schools to counter the effects of historic discrimination, modern day racism, and poverty. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/is-private-school-not-expensive-enough.html?ref=opinion
August 28th, 2012 at 8:40 am
I love how the no-nothings instantly reject the findings without any analysis.
Kansas City didn’t prove anything except that you should build a whole bunch of state-of-the-art buildings, you need to spend it on things that work directly in the classroom.
Most of our low-income students have de facto learning deficits/disabilities that are undiagnosed/not dealt with. That takes more adults, experts, resource intervention specialists, etc.
The other big crisis in low-income schools is the insane teacher/admin turnover, and resources and salary for teacher/admin play into that.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:29 am
Yeah, more money will fix it:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/our-best-funded-schools-are-the-worst-145471805.html
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/26/3727843/six-figure-pensions-soar-for-california.html#ixzz1QPafzrF5
http://capoliticalnews.com/2012/04/06/ca-schools-administrator-heavy-union-controlled/
Excerpt of following link below:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468783242379036.html
“Public schools are inefficient for many of the same reasons that the Department of Motor Vehicles and other government bureaucracies are. In her book Educational Economics, University of Washington researcher Marguerite Roza shows that public school inefficiencies are largely the product of burdensome regulations imposed by a top-down organizational model. School districts collect money and allocate it from a central base according to a variety of bureaucratic rules, only some of which make sense. Schools themselves have little discretion over how to use their resources”.
Consider the way public schools spend money on their most important asset: teachers. According to the Department of Education, teacher salaries and benefits account for about 54 percent of public school budgets, which surely suggests that they should be structured in a way that maximizes those dollars. Instead, teacher salaries depend entirely on two criteria that, the evidence shows, bear little or no connection to a teacher’s effectiveness: years of experience and number of advanced degrees. As a result, schools must pay higher salaries to teachers who may not be more effective than teachers lacking advanced degrees or with fewer years on the job.
More money is not the answer it will just get absorbed into pension obligations(They are struggling to pay for pensioners that exist, and current workers will be out of luck).
http://fresnobeehive.com/opinion/2012/02/now_every_californuia_househol.html
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_public_pensions
Thats a shame, the teachers who had been in charge for the past 3-4-5 decades of mediocre to poor student performance will have secure retirements, but newer teachers who are beginning to make some headway in student performance will likely be struggling in retirement.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/droputs-down-graduates-up-state-reports.html
August 28th, 2012 at 3:54 pm
We completely reject your “findings”. Your methodologies. Everything.
And don’t you think the human subjects of your unscientific experiment (plus the control group not “benefitting” from the extra $900 per capita) deserved a say in what manner they were to be used as guinea pigs in your political science kabuki?
We know that public education is just a pretext for shoveling money to the teachers union. As the taxpayers are now wise to that scam and will refuse to allow higher tax rates to keep public union members flush with pension benefits, those unions are just going to have to fight each other to defend their pieces of a static pie.
We know that > 90% of government spending is waste. Where are the ballot initiatives to dramatically *reduce* sales and income taxes? You know the ones: The referenda which are always strongly opposed by the public unions, the DEM and GOP leaderships, and the elites.
In reference to KM’s previous post about OUSD Board Of Education elections, who amongst the declared candidates have or will take a stand against Prop 30? I’ll bet not a one.
That’s because with few exceptions they’re all members of the class who benefit favorably and disproportionately from higher taxes, ie tax “consumers”. Like the advocate we’re responding to.
August 28th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Money put toward children’s schools doesn’t matter. That’s exactly why Jerry Brown’s friends and courtiers gave the Oakland Military Institute (w/~623 students) an extra $1,559,661 between 12/2011 and 6/2012. It’s also why they gave $1,361,282 to the Oakland School for the Arts (w/~619 students) during the same time period. None of the extra programs, extra supplies and equipment, extra trips — or whatever that enormous amount of money will be used for — will make a difference for those 1250 students in the slightest bit.
The list of those meaningless contributions is on this spreadsheet prepared by the California Fair Political Practices Commission @ http://www.fppc.ca.gov/cosponsor/2012-state.xls
August 28th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Sharon, What do you know about OMI or OSA…nothing I bet. You have no idea what that money went to fund, yet you feel you have the right to blast the staff, admin, parents and supporters of those schools.
I bet you’ve never even been in the building or know anyone whose child attends either one of the schools.
Your numbers for the enrollment at OMI is incorrect, but why bother posting anything that closely resembles the truth when you can just say whatever you feel like, no matter where your bogus info. comes from, because you think your opinion is fact.
OMI built a brand new building for their students…and OSA completely renovated theirs. OMI has 200+ more students than you say, but whatever, why check the facts.
I guarantee that the 1250+ students who attend the schools appreciate every penny that was donated. Like at OMI, which has tutors and free breakfast everyday from 6:15 AM to 7:30 AM or the free snacks and tutors for any student from 3:30 – 6:30 PM each evening. It is a haven for some of these kids that have nowhere else to go, no one to check their homework or to make sure they ate something.
I can see how someone like you would see that as “meaningless”. Why don’t you go back to picking on the families in the hill schools, who fund all of their programs out of their own pockets…they can afford to laugh off your “meaningless” garbage…most of the kids at OMI cannot afford to.
August 28th, 2012 at 7:19 pm
Here is the one thing that will make a difference in student achievement: smaller class sizes. It is next to impossible to effectively and consistently address the needs of 160 students per day at the high school and middle school levels. We need a lot more teachers (and classrooms) so that classes sizes can be cut in half. Yes, in half. Then I really could really work with each student. Although even 80 students a day is a lot of people to know, assess, care about, work with, challenge at her/his level, and help them progress.
That would, of course, cost more money. But it would work.
August 28th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Some people just hate any alternative to public schools. I say whatever works is good, keep it. If it doesn’t work, get rid of it.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
August 28th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
um, Yazstremski, I suggest you work on your ability to recognize sarcasm.
August 28th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Marica…I’ll work on it when you can figure out fact from fiction.
August 28th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Since #9 mentioned the Oakland School for the Arts (OSA), that school is just another example — and a particularly noisome one — of public education being used as a *political* institution.
OSA was set up to funnel tax dollars into politically motivated “arts” education. Because everyone knows that teaching kids how to dance and inculcating them with the doctrine that white males are the cause of all the trouble in the world are vital services which we should all be forced to pay for.
But even that was just part of larger scheme to build political support for funneling a mother lode of tax dollars ($50M++) into restoration of the Fox Theatre, the centerpiece of an outrageous and completely political goal of downtown redevelopment (graft) for the benefit of those politically connected 1%’ers who control the area.
August 28th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Nontcair…you think the 1% control that area…take a stroll down there this evening…I’m sure you’ll see a lot of them just hanging out.
August 28th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Intrepid,
Yes that probably would work, but it is unrealistic and financially unsustainable. Previous posts of mine list the financial pitfalls we already face as a state.
August 28th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
If that’s the Sharon I think it is, I doubt that was sarcasm. My apologies if I am mistaken.
August 29th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Observer:
Each of the Governor’s two Oakland charter schools are given an extra million dollars by the
Governor’s “friends and courtiers” is just Sharon stating the facts according to what was filed with the California Fair Political Practices Campaign Commission. Governor’s military school receiving $100,000 from San Pablo Lytton Casino and $100,000 from the same source given to the Governor’s Performing Art School is also a fact. As Chuck Feeney $500,000 “gift” is also a fact supporting idea of courtier’s gift. The Broad Foundation $100,000 another large example of courting favor with the Governor of California.
But, I believe raising large sums of money for these schools does make a difference. At least Yazstremski feels the money is well spent providing services to students at the two schools. Perhaps many of those individuals and corporations believe the money is well spent in spending a tax deductible gift that becomes a business investment in influence and positive relationship with the Governor of California.
I also believe that Sharon believes the extra funding makes a difference. And, not that it doesn’t matter. That would make her statement sarcasm in my opinion.
The fact that charter schools associated with public officials can become a vehicle for influence means that legislation is needed to outlaw the practice of allowing public officials to have a relationship with charter schools.
Jim Mordecai
Jim Mordecai
August 29th, 2012 at 7:57 am
Cheating makes a big difference in student outcomes!
http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/08/28/school-teacher-helps-students-cheat-because-she-says-theyre-dumb-as-hell/
Not money.
August 29th, 2012 at 9:50 am
First I would like to thank Jessica Stewart, Wdcrachel, Cranky Teacher, Sharon, Yazstremski, Intrepid Teacher, and Jim Mordecai, all of whom supported by basic position that more money does make a difference in the education of students.
On the Fence asked some important and probing questions that deserve a full response. First, he asked about the mechanism that led to the positive changes in student scores. The majority of QEIA funds went to reduce class sizes at the schools involved in all academic classes by at least 5 students per class. Reduced class size allows a teacher to devote more time and attention to each student. Students in smaller classes are called upon more often, so they pay better attention. They received needed help more quickly, so they become less frustrated. Teachers can devote more time to grading and correcting each assignment because they have fewer papers to correct.
The classic study on the importance of class size in improving student performance was done in Tennessee in the late 1970s. The Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio study showed that reducing class sizes improved student achievement and that the improved student achievement continued for the students who had enjoyed the smaller class sizes years after they returned to regular sized classes. The results for middle schools in Oakland seem consistent with those findings.
It is a sad commentary on the state of educational funding in California that the regular sized classes in the Tennessee study of 40 years ago (19-22 students) were actually lower than the sizes of the reduced class size classes in California. I remember noticing in my first years of teaching (40 years ago) that California class sizes were significantly higher than those in almost all states. The reduced sized classes in the Tennessee study were 13-17 students.
Some QEIA money also went to cover the costs of other school personnel. This would be a small percentage of the funds, since QEIA had stringent requirements for class size reduction that demanded most of the money be spent for that. The use of those funds differed from school to school. At the school I was most familiar with the funds helped pay for a Teacher on Special Assignment to work on student discipline and to assist teachers in maintaining classroom control and school climate. Without this position it would have been difficult for the other school personnel to keep as much of their focus on academic needs of their students.
A study from several years ago, which unfortunately I cannot find a reference for, indicated that the adult/student ratio at a school was the key factor in student achievement improvement. This study, which corresponds to my observations, says that every additional adult in the school helps meet the many diverse needs of students.
On the Fence wonders if demographic or selection balance affected the results for the QEIA schools. I have looked at the demographics of the schools involved, and I do not see any indication that this is taking place. You can check the data yourself on the state website for Academic Performance Index reports: http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/APISearchName.asp?TheYear=&cTopic=API&cLevel=District&cName=oakland^unified&cCounty=&cTimeFrame=S. Click on the 2011 Base API Report—List of District Schools and the same report for 2008 and you will find a complete list of API scores. If you highlight an individual school who will see that school’s full report. In the upper right hand corner is a menu that includes a link to the school’s demographic characteristics. Click on that and you can check the changes in the make-up of the student body. The QEIA schools seem remarkably stable in this area.
On the Fence asked how the QEIA and non-QEIA schools were selected. Basically, Oakland wanted to list all of its middle schools that qualified for the program into the QEIA lottery. That would have been all the schools whose test scores were in the lowest 20% state-wide. That would have included the 4 schools that are in the program (Claremont, Frick, Madison, and Urban Promise) and Elmhurst, Simmons, Lowell, and Havenscourt . Unfortunately, the last four schools had recently been reconstituted as part of the small school mania that swept the district (driven by Gates funding), and so the new small schools that had been created did not have enough years of testing data to qualify for the QEIA program. The demographics and achievement levels of the schools that entered the program and those that were not allowed to enter because of changes in their structures were not very great. For my comparison I used all the similar schools that had reported test scores for both the years involved: Elmhurst Commuity Prep, Melrose, Roosevelt, and Roots. The differences between the QEIA schools and those that did not receive the funding were significant. The gains for the QEIA schools were all between 91 and 107 API points, and the greatest gain by a non-QEIA school was on 71 points, 20 points below the lowest QEIA school. The average gain for QEIA schools was 3 times higher than the average for the non-QEIA schools.
On the Fence asked if better facilities may have played a role in the outcomes. During the time period I cited no QEIA money was spent on facilities. (Before the funding increases took full effect a school could have requested some funds to increase the number of classrooms to accommodate class size reduction, but I don’t think any Oakland middle school had a shortage of space.)
He also asked if parents may have chosen QEIA schools because they wanted their students to benefit from the increased funding. Based on my experience, that did not happen. I was at Frick in 2008 and we tried to advertise our additional funding to attract more students, but it did not work. In flatland Oakland parents select schools primarily based on beliefs about the safety of the neighborhood and their comfort with the ethnic make-up of the schools or they send their children out of the area entirely.
On the Fence also asked about future funding for the QEIA program. My major reason why I made my comparison at this time, before the 2012 test scores are issued, is because the funding situation for 2011-2012 was already becoming very confusing, and the prospects for 2012-13 are even more unsure. The QEIA program continues, but the program was designed to supplement the base program as it existed in 2008. With cutbacks in basic school funding, more and more QEIA money is needed to just support the basic program and less can be devoted to class size reduction. The state is deciding as it goes how much flexibility it will allow schools and districts. Many schools throughout the state failed to meet their class size reduction goal for 2011-12.
August 29th, 2012 at 10:54 am
While I do agree that money can (but not always) make a difference in education–total funding varies greatly at each school site. I think that when you add to your analysis the total spending per pupil at each middle school, people may draw vastly different conclusions. One could also consider as a part of their analysis teacher tenure, so called small schools vs. non, parent involvement, etc…
August 29th, 2012 at 11:55 am
#11>>We need a lot more teachers (and classrooms) so that classes sizes can be cut in half. Yes, in half. Then I really could really work with each student<<
This doesn't bother people?
Why would you work in a district or school where you don't fee able to do your job well? Working with each student is your job. This just can't be the mindset of many teachers. "I would do my job well if I had half the responsibility…"
If you teach in Oakland, you accept the challenges of Oakland. Not saying you can't try to make it better, but don't use the challenges as an excuse. Fight for better pay and conditions. Great. But don't tell the public paying your salary that you can't get it done unless we halve your students. So you're taking our money knowing good and well you can't get it done? Our kids are too rough, too loud, or there are just too many of them?
Sadly, your Oakland classes wont be cut in half. Sadly, there are social problems with the kids.
Sadly, you are underpaid and undervalued.
Sadly, your principal is probably a jerk.
But please… just teach them. If you can't,please move on so the district can find someone who can.
August 29th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
#19 wrote: corporations believe the money is well spent in spending a tax deductible gift that becomes a business investment in influence and positive relationship with the Governor
The banks give the politicians:
campaign cash
expedited home loan applications OK’d at sub-market APRs
jobs as lobbyists (after their political careers end)
jobs for their kids (especially to political legacies)
“investments” in their pet projects (diguised as charity)
The politicians give the banks:
a license to create money
taxpayer guarentees on billion dollar loans to banana republics
trillion dollar bailouts
Then P or L, the bankers still get their $10M Xmas bonuses.
Their strategic investments in political schemes like OSA — which also serve to strengthen their tax advantaged, collateralized loans to poliitically connected developers in the same blighted area, they trump up as “giving back to our community”.
As if a quid pro quo can rehabilitate their “reputations”.
Occupy Wall St!
All you advocates for smaller class sizes never want to discuss how Jaime Escalante was able to achieve such excellent results.
We know that tax dollars earmarked for class size reduction only serve as a pretext to hire more union teachers and $100K+ administrators to supervise them and conduct “studies” which, in uncanny fashion, always “reveal” that money spent on class size reduction (or whatever program led to their being hired) was money well spent.
August 29th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
I agree that funding is not the only factor in comparison of school achievement improvement. But, the QEIA funding criteria was for other factors beside class size that were funded. AC Mom mentioned teacher tenure as an additional factor that might positively impact student achievement at a school and the QEIA schools were suppose to manage to maintain experienced teachers on staff that was at least the average experience in the District.
Superintendent Tony Smith’s administration had control over that factor of staffing with experienced teachers, but aside from class size, that was one of the criteria for maintaining QEIA funding that his administration did not always keep and one of the reasons for some QEIA schools being dropped out of the funding grant. Tony Smith was a poor manager of the QEIA grant.
Jim Mordecai
August 29th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Nextset,
It’s too bad the system is built as a jobs program, there is an alternative to “teaching to the test”, its called “teaching the material”. If that was done in every year K-12 we wouldn’t have such high percentages of functional illiterates, and drop outs.
August 29th, 2012 at 1:54 pm
24 Noncair
When I was a kid I took Red Cross swim lessons. But, my children’s swimming lesson’s were at U.C.’s Strawberry Canyon.
The class size at Strawberry was dramatically smaller than when I took swimming lessons. The outcome is also dramatically different with all my children far more skillful in swimming that me.
I would advise if you can get lower class size for your children that you go for it. There are other factors beside class size, but it shouldn’t be overlooked.
Jaime Escalante is not living. But, if he were alive he might thrive with a large class size. But, a teachers’ working conditions are a student’s learning conditions, so why wouldn’t a parent want a teacher to have the lowest class size possible even if Jamie Escalante was the teacher? If he were alive Jaime Escalante might want smaller class size as well.
My understanding was that when Jaime had become famous for the movie Stand and Deliver he moved to Sacramento but was unable to deliver with the same extraordinary outcome.
Jim Mordecai
August 29th, 2012 at 3:15 pm
Sorry, but taxpayers aren’t buying that “It’s for the children!” baloney anymore.
You want to know something? If we could somehow bump education funding (taxes) up to level which woud drop the student-teacher ratio to 1:1, the schools *still* couldn’t get the job done.
In the mean time we know that every class size reduction initiative will be used the school districts to hire more $100K+ administrators and (the lawyers necessary to) classify them as “teachers”.
But getting back to the subject of this thread, Prop 30 is not even promising to earmark the higher tax revenue to public education. The extra money would just flow into the State’s general (“slush”) fund.
Yes, much of that would be thrust into the black hole known as public education, but a good chunk of the gravy would be used for all sorts of political purposes, including bailing out CALPERS.
And don’t you just love how Jerry Brown turned the screws on that large, out-of-state i’net retailer to start collecting CA sales taxes in order to buy support from the domestic, established, big, politically connected, brick-&-mortar stores for higher sales taxes?!
Look for those domestic suppliers to raise prices.
That class warfare line about how Prop 30 is going to get even with those evil rich folks by hitting them with income tax hikes is just a big smokescreen. Those guys moved out of state long ago.
Once again we see the DEMs trying to reward their union buddies by sticking it to the poor and what’s left of the middle class.
August 29th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
I’m late on this, but interpreted Sharon’s post to say (yes, with plenty of irony): If money really doesn’t matter, than why are people donating so much to the two charter schools Jerry Brown started?
August 29th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
@Katy Murphy…the money really does matter, and who says it doesn’t???? Isn’t this thread making the case for more money, written by a teacher!
The ones who say it isn’t (hello Sharon) are not teachers and have no clue about being in the classroom.
Everyone has an opinion, but Sharon knows nothing about either school and it is the Sharon that Observer and I think it is…and there was no sarcasm…just making things up to prove a point.
I have no problem with someone saying they don’t like the Jerry Brown connection etc…but I have a HUGE problem with someone on the blog with no connection to the school basically lying about a school or a program.
Sarcasm or not… I’m not going to read about someone maligning a school when they have no idea at all what they are talking about. Its pathetic actually.
August 29th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
But she was likely responding to those who posted comments to the contrary — not to Mr. Weinberg’s post, itself. I’m certain she was using sarcasm to make her point (or one of her points): that money does matter.
August 29th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
I hope that many of you are going to see Jonathan Kozol speak on Sept 7th. In an interview I heard, he told a story of when he was conversing with a senator who insisted that throwing money at education was not the answer. He replied by asking the senator how much he paid a year for his own child’s private school education.
August 29th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Kozol’s new book, “Fire in the Ashes,” just came in the mail at work (twice)! Have you read it?
August 29th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Katy,
It matters, but not as much as people want it to matter.
http://schoolsofthought.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/21/which-places-spent-most-per-student-on-education/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE
http://www.onlinecolleges.net/2012/08/12/10-things-we-now-know-about-education-spending/
http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-infographic/
http://www.ocregister.com/news/students-353581-state-scores.html
BTW this district spends more than the national average on per pupil spending, which is much higher than the average level of state per child spending.
http://educationnext.org/public-schools-still-have-more-money-and-employees-per-pupil-than-they-did-in-2000-but-are-now-feeling-a-financial-squeeze/
There is much more evidence than this, but I would like to see evidence to the contrary if possible.
The fact remains money is short because our financial obligations are outstripping tax revenue(by orders of magnitude). The dirty secret they don’t want you to know, so we keep on kicking that can down the road. The problem is that there is a cliff that no one wants to acknowledge. This must not be settled by opinion, but by the strength of the evidence, so have a look.
August 29th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I think we are asking the wrong questions to begin with(about how much money is enough), and start asking questions like “where does the money go”? Why do we have duplicated redundant bureaucracy(ex:Fed dept of ed,super and staff, state sept of ed,super and staff, county level board of ed, and finally district level super,staff and board of ed.
http://educationnext.org/public-schools-and-money/
why are so few taxpayers paying for 30% of the US people on public assistance. You stated in the past that OUSD has 70% participation rate in the free reduced lunch program(how, and why is this possible? Is the district responsible for some of that money too? I already know that the taxpayers are.
August 29th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
Kozols a liberal idiot as are most in the education realm!
Achievement Gap will not go away until private schools are closed and all cockroaches get lights shined on.
August 29th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Vs,
Liberals are not idiots per se, but they just love spending other peoples money(they think its endless) rather than making their own. Most people who fail do so on their own merits,or lack of same(except for the public sector, and pols who get a pass)”yes experience is better”, even if it is bad.
August 29th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
In another forum around here someone expressed his principled opposition to charter schools on the basis that they’re intrinsically anti-democratic because tax dollars are awarded to those schools without the same amount of oversight by elected officials required for traditional public schools.
I second that observation and wish to extend it by pointing out that schools like OSA give wealthy individuals a chance to leverage their political influence many times over through the application of strategic *investments* disguised as philanthropy. Here’s how it works:
Some elitist, private foundation which wants to promote public funding of the arts might have donated to the effort to create OSA, and contingently pledged subsequent annual donations as well. It might even have thrown in a sweetener of matching out-year government contributions dollar for dollar (subject to a specific limitation).
The lure of free money is usually too good for the politicians to pass up. So then despite a policy arrived at by the OUSD Board in open debate that arts programs will have a lower priority, OSA suddenly becomes a sacrament (with a virtually untouchable budget).
So what happens when the economy tanks and the OUSD Board has to make some tough choices?
Answer: it closes *neighborhood* schools.
Prosaic schools which the Board had an announced policy of wanting to keep open.
Schools serving poor parents who might have little interest in drama programs a few miles away and instead prefer to a have a school focused on READING instruction conveniently available two blocks over.
Schools which, had public money not been earmarked for OSA the Board could have afforded to keep open.
Once again we see how the government works for the interests of the ultra-rich.
August 30th, 2012 at 9:02 am
@#38—I agree, but this is not limited to charter schools. About 15 years ago a citizen of Piedmont donated….wait for it….1 million dollars toward the improvement of the football field. In Orinda, there is a group of parents who “raise” (ie: write checks) in excess of $150,000 a year for the art program at one Elementary school. Most private schools require a minimum of 40 hours a year dedicated to fundraising alone, but it is waived if families choose to write a check instead.
Honestly, there is no getting around this discrepancy of private funding in the public, public charter or private systems. People are allowed to put their money where they want.
August 30th, 2012 at 10:51 am
#39 Observer:
Yes, people can put their money where they want and of course according to the current Supreme Court corporations as legal people can put their money where they want. So Chuck Feeney puts $500,000, Eli Broad’s Foundation $100,000 and San Pablo Lytton Casino and Occidental Petroleum Corporation puts up $100,000 for Jerry’s kids.
However, parents and corporations that parents have influence with supplementing the finances of the public schools their children attend seems to me to be a different order of magnitude and not the same as a young CEO in Ross writing a large check to his local school.
Jim Mordecai
August 30th, 2012 at 11:03 am
#39 wrote People are allowed to put their money where they want.
Venturing far off track here but there is no reason why we must permit the government to actually *accept* it, and certainly not “as-is”.
First of all, we do not recognize a right for someone to invest his money in a criminal enterprise.
Those who wish to give money to the government (and thereby un/intentionally subvert the democratic process) should not be allowed to attach strings. The money *must* go into the general fund to be redistributed as the LEGISLATURE sees fit, even to be REBATED to taxpayers if that’s their decision.
Many people criticize the influence that large campaign contributions will have on the future policies of the candidates who have accepted them. Why is there no similar outcry about money being used to influence the policies of officials who have actually *taken* office?
Some Piedmonter should not be allowed pony up $1M to fix a football field located on public property. Who knows what sort of special favors his “generosity” is buying?
A bunch of Bear football fanatics should not be allowed to donate $200M to fix a stadium. The mission of UC is to produce the next generation of applied scientists, not future inductees at Canton.
In the extreme we could even fund the entire government on private donations. In the local case that’s by definition an oligarchy. In a broader region, a plutocracy.
In a civilized society the only “proper” way to fund the government is through direct taxation. That maintains a healthy animosity between the taxpayers who naturally wish to keep their own money, and the government which naturally wants to spend it.
August 30th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
One of the problems with taxation is that the voters are at times made a promise of oversight in the spending of tax money but the promises made are not kept.
In the case of Measure G parcel tax the voters were promised that there would be an independent citizens’ oversight committee to provide oversight ensuring money was spent as promised.
Measure G by law made it the duty of the Measure B Oversight Committee to provide a report to the public each year on how the Measure G money was spent.
Have you read any of the Committee’s reports? You can’t because the law has not been complied with.
The public passed Measure G in 2008 but the Committee has never issued even one of the required reports. I blame Superintendent Smith for taking the money, spending the money, but not seeing the required reports were produced. The strategic plan is well and good but what is done, or in this case, what is not done is also of importance in making judgment of Superintendent Smith’s job performance.
I believe this is a prime example of a subject that should be brought to the Alameda Grand Jury for an investigation as to why Measure G oversight requirement is not being fully complied with.
I am sure there is a fable about not keep a promise, but none comes to my mind at the moment.
Jim Mordecai
August 30th, 2012 at 2:24 pm
#42 – Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more. All of the things that you mention above causes voters to be skeptical and possibly reject various tax measures that they may otherwise support. There is a complete lack of trust at all levels and it’s only getting worse.
August 30th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Well, in utopia. This will never happen. You cannot stop families, private citizens or the entities that incorporate them from putting their funding where they see fit. If you tell a successful school fundraising group that the thousands of dollars they raise a year that funds their arts, PE, after school, and music programs must go into a big pot that millions of hands dig in (and their programs fall by the wayside because those hands are needing rudimentary things like breakfast), they’ll just not fundraise and there will be further removal from the public system. Because it has been stated before-no it is not fair to say those people should simply cough up additional thousands of dollars because the public system shouldn’t be for anyone above working class anyway. No one will ever vote raise funds for schools again.
There’s a lot of energy being spent on this concept of taking dollars that are donated to some schools and redistributing to schools that don’t have the fundraising capabilities. PTO districts are scheming on how to do it. This really should be dropped, it’s not viable and it’s also not very creative. Do you think that millionaire would have donated that money if he thought it wasn’t going to the new field but would be divied up into small donations across the state? Make it illegal to donate directly to schools and watch further degeneration of public schools (which is exactly what some people want, I understand that).
August 30th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“cough up additional thousands of dollars”—-for private school.
August 30th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Observer Says is right. My kids are at a school that fundraises like crazy. We have parents who volunteer and fundraise as their full time jobs. This is to cover the basics. Not fancy extra programs. Tying this back to Steven Weinberg’s piece, $ does matter. The kids at our school do very well, and not all of them are from the hills neighborhoods. Not all of them are from affluent homes either. The parents work with the teachers and administration to help make it work. I take issue with people who criticize those who go charter or private. The system is so messed up that the public schools in more affluent areas (like our “hills” school and places like Orinda, Piedmont, etc.) put so much private money into their schools that I don’t think that you can call them public schools anymore! It really is nuts. All of this would grind to a halt if the money was pooled and redistributed. Private schools would multiply overnight. Families I know who have migrated to private schools are very happy. After being a part of the fundraising machine, trying to plug holes and provide basics, for so many years, I can understand why.
August 30th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
#44 wrote: utopia. This will never happen. You cannot stop families, private citizens or the entities that incorporate them from putting their funding where they see fit.
Utopia? Never? Don’t be so sure.
Assets donated to a public institution become the property of the government. No government money can be expended without a formal Legislative appropriation happening first.
That OUSD can accept and subsequently spend private donations, that its individual schools can work with private groups to raise funds for their exclusive benefit, and so forth indicates to me that in the past the Legislature enacted a statute to allow it which remains in effect.
At any time the Legislature could vote to change that.
Furthermore, that many public schools (especially in rich areas) benefit from significant amounts of community donations (as some of you have already mentioned) means that the Legislature is sanctioning a system of “separate but equal”.
Sooner or later parents whose kids are stuck in public schools in poor parts of town are going to start raising a fuss — either through their elected representatives or legal action.
I’ve read about how other states suffer from perennial bloody battles over how property taxes should be redistributed in order to level the playing field between schools rich and poor.
That our local Assemblyman, Congresswoman and civil rights activists have not yet made a stink about our own funding disparities just shows you how truly corrupt the public education system is here in California.
In the mean time, those of you who support the subversion of democratic processes are basically tools of the 1%.
August 31st, 2012 at 6:13 am
#46 OUSD Parent, you are sooo right! I work two jobs so I can afford the basics and my children are in a hills school. Both my husband and I volunteer and we contribute as much as we can financially. We make it a priority, but would stop in a heartbeat if the money got redistributed. We have learned that the hills schools recveive much less $$ per pupil than the flatlands schools, since there is no restricted money to give them (no or very little free lunch qualifications, title 1 $, etc). The money parents donate is for things like staff to monitor recess and lunch for safety reasons, not a frill and something the district really should be covering. At Montera, the parents raised money for surveillance cameras last year since the district is too inept to cover this very basic necessity to keep the kids and faculty safe. This is money that could have gone to keeping the library open (beautiful library at the school, closed to all- a disgrace!!), another basic need. If the district can’t get it together to have these needs met, how are they going to handle the redistributed funds?
August 31st, 2012 at 7:11 am
@Nontcair – Your comment “Furthermore, that many public schools (especially in rich areas) benefit from significant amounts of community donations (as some of you have already mentioned) means that the Legislature is sanctioning a system of “separate but equal”.” You are correct. The public schools in the more affluent areas of Oakland are supplemented by private funds. What is not mentioned in this thread is the extra funding (both State and Federal) that is given to the schools in the lower income areas. Many of these schools are highly subsidized by federal Title 1 funds. Other schools do not receive this money and even some of the money is diverted away from the more affluent schools by the district to plug holes in the lower income area. If you breakdown the per pupil funding, sans the private dollars raised through fundraising, the “hills” schools receive far less per pupil. So of course the parent community is going to step in. I wish it didn’t have to. This is one reason why so many people leave OUSD and send their children to private or charter schools. Or they move to another area. The funding issue is complicated, frustrating and entirely crazy. I don’t blame people who leave this mess one bit.
August 31st, 2012 at 7:23 am
#48. Ann Joseph, Does anyone know how much money it would cost the district to have a librarian on staff at Montera, or at any OUSD school for that matter? Security cameras over a librarian? It sounds like parents are forced to make tough choices at the middle school level. Our elementary school provides its own (yes, funded through private donations). It’s too bad that this will be lost at the middle school level. The schools in the flatlands should have one too. The district might be surprised that there are kids who would actually use the library to study, research, read or just get away to a quiet place to decompress.
August 31st, 2012 at 7:57 am
#50- yes, they have run the numbers, but tough choices had to be made from what I can gather. It would be great if the district could reimburse the school for the cameras, or pay for the librarian. It gets complicated with the Results Based Budgeting (RBB), but I really think there should be a requirement that certain things (like safety or a library) happen regardless of how the individual school site sets up their budget. On a brighter note, we are thrilled with the quality of the teachers at Montera and excited about the year and the new adiminstration.
August 31st, 2012 at 8:52 am
Nontcair, you completely missed my point. oh, yes! A redistribution in the equity could absolutely happen and the murmurings in town indicate a push to go after those private donations from families that go to the better, less state funded so-called “Hills” schools is in the works and may soon become a reality. The point is if that reality happens, the private donations will cease and those schools will finally fail as well (which I know would make you quite happy). There will probably be a lawsuit though, and the parents may actually win it as it is probably against one’s constitutional rights to take one’s donation intended for one purpose and spend it on another. That will cost everyone a whole lot of time and money. Of course, the district will only try this with the more stable families that attend their schools (who they are supposed to serve but continue to treat as unwanted step-children). They’ll never try this with the corporations that are donating to schools like OSA.
August 31st, 2012 at 9:01 am
#52- great point observer! That corporation money could be well spent in many, many schools in Oakland that aren’t getting a piece of THAT pie!
August 31st, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Where can I find what Prop 30 actually *says*? Everything I read about it online is what other people *believe* it says.
So far as I can tell, Prop 30 is just another cynical attempt by the crooked politicians to make a tax increase look more appealing by claiming that the money will be reserved for a politically popular purpose (ie public education).
As always the establishment strategy is to induce gullible people to vote to raise taxes on themselves.
Their grand political scheme is to separate more and more of the special interest (though popular) spending from the general fund. Then those programs could be put on sort of fiscal “auto-pilot”, subject to steady increases imposed by ever more frequent special tax initiatives (like 30).
The more voters approve of such things, the more likely we are to get them placed on future ballots.
With vast amounts of what had been considered general fund obligations placed “ex-budget”, the remaining general fund can be turned into a true slush fund, available for every possible political patronage scheme a twisted politician’s mind can conceive.
The general fund is already large enough, thank you. It deserves to be drastically scaled back. Is it too much to ask the government to try to live within its means?
August 31st, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Non…
State and federal money allocated to schools is not equal, and is usually based on some funding formula…# of kids receiving free and reduced priced lunch, etc. Nor as has been mentioned do schools receive equal amounts of money, either via PTAs, or private donations from foundations and corporations. The fact is we don’t have an accurate picture of total per pupil funding in cash and in-kind donations for every school site. So the impact of limiting or prohibiting donations cannot be known. That doesn’t mean that the issue of school funding shouldn’t be discussed, I just think that in doing so we would have to reevaluate our whole approach to funding. Should funding be granted independent of “need”, and solely based upon the number of students attending? Also, I think that it is unfair to categorize one person’s $1 million donation, versus that of hundreds of parents and supports pulling together to fund music, art, buying new books for the library, etc.
I do not have a child at a “hills school”, we are at a “flatlands school”. But, in my previous job, not with OUSD, I had the chance to visit several schools. You could go to a school in say East Oakland, that had computer labs, multiple intervention specialists and the like, and another school did not have those resources available. So, it’s not a matter of “rich” vs. “poor”… as both schools had comparable #’s of kids with free and reduced price lunch, English Language Leaners , etc. Things may have changes at both schools, this was a few years ago, but I still think that you will find that there are still schools taht have similar demographics and vastly different learning environments.
August 31st, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Nontcair:
Here’s the ballot text
http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2012/general/pdf/text-proposed-laws.pdf See pages 80-84.
August 31st, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for the link! I’ve been looking for new forms of self-torture so analyzing 30 should be perfect.
The first item that grabbed my attention was in its “Findings”, §2(h):
To ensure these funds go where the voters intend, they are put in special accounts that the Legislature cannot touch
HA. HA. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Like the Social Security Trust Fund.
Like that Oakland Measure to Fund cops beyond that 750 or so minimum.
Sounds to me like CA’s public education bureaucracy needs a $180M building in downtown San Francisco.
September 2nd, 2012 at 4:30 pm
30 is quite extensive.
It boggles the mind that bureaucrats from the Legislative Analyst’s Office can make such sweeping assertions about what it all means.
Really. Well I can sum up 30 in only two words:
“Trust us.”
September 2nd, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Article 2 §8(d):
An initiative measure embracing more than one subject may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.
You can make War & Peace appear to embrace a single subject by putting the entire novel in one section.
Recall the CA Secretary of State!
Don’t you just love how the meaning of “public safety”, properly designated as government’s top priority (§35), is broadened as it relates to this amendment to cover:
drug rehab
adoption services
housing for parolees and others in the CJ system
courthouse “security” types
mental health workers
September 5th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
We use the Constitution to spell out the duties we want the government to perform. Of the course the goal is to keep the areas of government involvement as few as possible. The government which governs least governs best.
In order for the government to carry out those functions, we use the Constitution to give it a broad power to tax. For obvious reasons a power we want it to use sparingly.
It’s horribly abusive for politicians to use the Constitution to make/protect jobs for/of their friends.
September 5th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Article on people fleeing public schools for charters:
http://www.businessinsider.com/charter-schools-and-vouchers-getting-results-2012-9
This is a huge difference in student outcomes.
September 5th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Nextset:
The article was about fleeing private schools (not public) for charters.
September 5th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
The principle behind an initiative being limited to one subject (only) is that we want to keep the Constitution *simple* enough for the average elector to be able to read it and understand what it means.
Clearly, Prop 30 fails the simplicity test. It should *never* have been approved for the ballot.
The Constitution is supposed to be about expressing broad, guiding principles of the People. You know, freedom of speech, prohibition of slavery. That sort of thing. We then leave it up to the Legislature to pass laws which satisfy and derive from those princples.
Prop 30 gums up the Constitution with a bunch of legal gobbledegook related to a lockbox, consideration of federal programs, references to complex statutes, and so forth; unfortunately, 30 is not unique in that regard.
The Constitution already puts a priority on public education. In fact, one which is in conflict with its priority on public safety! Nonetheless, we already have that priority expressed in the manor in which the general fund is supposed to be divided up.
It the politicians feel that not enough money is being spent on priorities then it’s their job to reduce the flow of general funds to less essential programs. Not to come back at us for more money to protect (increase) those other programs.
September 5th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
#63-Nontcair, Can you elaborate on what you mean by : “The Constitution already puts a priority on public education. In fact, one which is in conflict with its priority on public safety!” I understand all of your post except for that one sentence. I have an idea of what you mean but I may be completely off base.
September 5th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
OUSD,
He no doubt is speaking of the State of California’s constitution.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_9
The federal government has no constitutionally defined role for itself nor should it:
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
September 6th, 2012 at 7:06 am
Thanks, JR. I’m curious specifically about “…one which is in conflict with its priority on public safety.” That’s where I get lost. The conflict between public education and public safety. Where does he see the conflict?
September 6th, 2012 at 9:40 am
OUSD,
You are very welcome. I think non’s issue with conflict is outlined in this earlier post:
“Don’t you just love how the meaning of “public safety”, properly designated as government’s top priority (§35), is broadened as it relates to this amendment to cover:
drug rehab
adoption services
housing for parolees and others in the CJ system
courthouse “security” types
mental health workers”
Politician have enlarged the enlarged the definition of terms “public safety”, “public education”,and routinely bait and switch tax money(example: Mayor Quan’s measures Q and I, Bullet train whose estimated costs have tripled since passage,the redevelopment agency money which some,was supposedly going toward filling education funding gaps hasn’t made any difference.)
The tax measures promises of more and better service only to find out that:
1. There are vast cost overruns not taken into account.
2. the money is diverted by withholding same amount from different program.
In short measure thirty is another “bait and switch”, and this time the gun to taxpayers heads are the risk of the children’s education.
Never forget that politicians and their staff took pay hikes “AFTER” cutting ervices.(real nice huh?)
Just remember these wise words(from R.Reagan) “A Government that can do everything “FOR” you, can do anything “TO” you.
September 6th, 2012 at 9:48 am
Some relevant links:
http://www.orpn.org/staffing.htm
http://www.orpn.org/MeasureI_swindle1.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandiandsteve/6696926735/
http://cacs.org/ca/article/38
September 8th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
This “temporary” tax increase is scheduled to expire in 2017. We know that Jerry Brown intends to come back at us to try to renew it or likely make it permanent.
In 2016, after he has won re-election.
He’ll subsequently try to raise it as much as he can.
Regarding the Constitutional conflict of priority between public education and public safety, Article 16 §8 is the constitutional provision which reserves the biggest chunk of the general fund to public education. It works out to about 50%.
If that’s not a priority then I don’t know what is!
Meanwhile, Article 13 §35 states Public safety services are critically important to the
security and well-being of the State’s citizens ..
The protection of the public safety is the first
responsibility of local government and local officials have an obligation to give priority to the provision of adequate public safety services.
September 8th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
from § e(8): Revenues, less refunds, derived pursuant to [the higher taxes] for deposit in the [education lockbox] .. shall be deemed “General Fund revenues,” .. and “moneys to be applied by the State for the support of [public education]” for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI.
Oh, how sneaky!
In order for this tax increase to generate support from *all* the public unions (not just teachers) Brown needs to give them all a piece of it. This proposition does so in a crafty way: by putting the money in a lockbox!
That’s right.
Since the higher taxes/expenditures will be credited toward satisfying the earmark required by Art 16 §8, every dollar which flows into the lockbox can be used to help reduce the amount of GENERAL FUND expenditure for education.
The general funds thereby made unrestricted could then be spent on programs which benefit the other public unions.
Prop 30 sees to it that education spending will still *rise* overall, but it also sets the stage to raise spending on *other* budget items as well.
September 9th, 2012 at 2:27 pm
§ c(1): (c) (1) Funds deposited in the Local Revenue Fund 2011 are continuously appropriated exclusively to fund the provision of Public Safety Services
Um, excuse me, but the *Legislature* has the power of the purse.
Article 16 §7 clearly states that Money may be drawn from the Treasury only through an appropriation made by law ..
This notion of tax dollars continuously flowing to a slush fund (or any other entity), outside of formal legislative appropriation, goes against our system of checks and balances.
If Brown wants to spend tax dollars he had better be prepared to go through the Legislature and, since he doesn’t have a sufficient number of votes, make some compromises.
Now what’s all this talk about politicians being sworn to defend the Constitution?
September 9th, 2012 at 2:39 pm
§c(7) The funds deposited into a County Local Revenue Fund 2011 shall be spent in a manner designed to maintain the State’s eligibility for federal matching funds, and to ensure compliance .. with applicable federal standards governing the State’s provision of Public Safety Services.
Setting up a spending mechanism with an eye towards federal funds goes against the notion of States’ Rights.
Besides, the federal government has NO constitutional role in public safety.
Prop 30 cedes more power to both Sacramento *and* Washington.
September 9th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Gee, you won’t read *any* of this in the “nonpartisan” analysis put out by the CA Legislative Analyst’s Office.
AKA The Soviet Ministry of Information.
September 9th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Non,
Public safety is one of many public sector units that have wrought financial devastation on this state:
http://www.allgov.com/usa/ca/news/where-is-the-money-going/pay_raises_for_legislative_staffers_pay_cuts_for_most_state_workers?news=695481
http://www.baycitizen.org/policing/story/developmental-center-police-officers/
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Small-state-police-force-loads-up-on-overtime-3567670.php
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/19/local/la-me-prison-guards-20110419
Non, another thing is that education takes up 40% of the California budget, not 50%. Education invests in the future and is necessary and crucial. Babysitting criminals in a locked and controlled environment is debateable, and we could do want was standard in centuries past which is to leave prisoners locked in their cells(you know, punishment). This would not only save money by having less babysitters(prison guards) but would do away with weight training,recreation,conjugal visits, and cease making criminals stronger better and breeding more of them. I know this is off tangent but I just wanted to deal with a couple of related issues.
September 10th, 2012 at 11:37 am
JR: California needs to move to Corporal Punishment of criminals – especially the quality of life crimes and juvenile crimes. It doesn’t take much flogging to stop street crime in it’s tracks. Ask Singapore. And it’s far cheaper.
As far as criminals breeding that is a self inflicted wound on the public. You cannot have a welfare state and control the breeding of criminals and undesirables. Not without forced/coerced/paid sterilization and similarly forced abortions. If we didn’t want more undesirables, we wouldn’t be providing free labor and delivery and the attendant EBT cards and other payoffs.
One day this will all stop. That day is coming. Superinflation is most likely how it will occur in CA. When it hits it will hit quickly.
I wonder if CA will experience the violent crash first or will it occur the same rate across the USA.
My bet is that the upcoming Romney Administration will try to pull the plug on the CA and IL economy first, let them crash and burn and use them as an object lesson and warning to the rest of the nation.
We live in interesting times.
Brave New World.
September 10th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Look it up.
Brown’s 2012-2013 *proposed* budget allocated slightly *more* than 50% of the General Fund to public education (K-16). I couldn’t find a quick pie chart summary of the budget as *enacted*.
Though I can’t find the separate pie chart right now I remember that the percentages dropped when interest on debt was taken into account.
Money spent on public golf courses invests in the future, provides crucial recreational space, and is good for the environment.
Money spent on public grain elevators …
September 11th, 2012 at 9:37 am
California funds its K-12 schools at 25 percent below the national average, while having the highest percentage of English language learners and one of the highest percentages of students living in poverty. Proposition 30, besides bringing CA school spending up to the national average within 5 years, would also increase the proportion of total state funding going to English language learners and students livingg in poverty.
Of course funding, absent leadership, hard work, and skill, community involvement and team work won’t fix our schools. Fortunately, we are blessed in Oakland, and I believe many other communities in CA, to have these other ingredients in abundance. Given just a decent amount of funding, I know California’s future will be bright.
September 11th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Mike,
OUSD as a district funds its K-12 students in excess of the state average.
http://www.ibabuzz.com/onassignment/2011/09/07/a-closer-look-at-spending-and-test-scores-in-east-bay-schools/#comments
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/21/4579408/california-falls-to-35th-in-nation.html
http://californiawatch.org/k-12/spending-far-equal-among-state-s-school-districts-analysis-finds-10567
http://jaypgreene.com/2009/03/31/243000-per-student-school-districts-its-about-sending-a-message/
September 11th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Mike,
OUSD already spends at or above the national per child average. Funding is not, and never has been the major factor in education for decades in this district.
September 11th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
Prop 30 potentially reduces the constitutionally mandated general fund obligation to public education. That obligation can be modeled as:
E≥ kT, where
E is the ($) amount of general fund earmarked to K-16
T is the general fund ($)
k is the minimum as set-forth by Art 16 §8 (~50%)
Prop 30 raises taxes and earmarks a portion of the revenues (E’) to an education “lockbox” whose amount can be used to satisfy E (see #70). Therefore,
E+E’≥ k(T+T’), and so
E≥ k(T+T’) – E’
The amount by which the general fund’s obligation to public education (E) can change by reason of this lockbox (T’) is simply the derivative of E:
∂ E≥ (k-1) ∂ T’, since:
dE’ and dT’ change at the same rate, and
100% of the lockbox is dedicated to K-16
Therefore, with k~ ½, for every $2 of new taxes raised which flow into the lockbox, the general fund obligation can fall by $1 [2*(-0.5)]
September 11th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Of course, under Prop 30 the General Fund obligation to public education would probably *fall* even further than that. §b(2):
the revenues deposited [into the "public safety" lockbox] shall not be considered General Fund revenues or proceeds of taxes for purposes of Section 8 of Article XVI of the California Constitution.
In other words, the non-education related public unions (see #59) are to be rewarded by getting their flow of the money positioned “upstream” from the general fund — before the public education earmark (Art 16 §8) applies. Like the way some of your retirement contributions can be made “pre-tax”.
By reducing the general fund in *absolute* terms, public education’s nominal earmark would be reduced proportionately — by as much as 50%/B> of that figure. That is because every $2 which would have flowed into the general fund would have generated an additional $1 appropriation for public education.
Isn’t it remarkable how the special interests get taken care of?
September 11th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Non,
Good post, very informative.
October 5th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Today’s iba paper, in a negative editorial about Prop *38*, described Prop 30 as complex and deserving of its own editorial analysis, but hinted that the Editorial Board would be *supporting* it.
My analysis herein should be enough to convince any political indepedent that Prop 30 needs to be DEFEATED.
I challenge the EB to refute anything I wrote about it.