The bad news This can be generalized to apply to any state.
A state could spend $100,000.00 per student per year and it would make little difference.
The bloated, Peter Principle in action bureaucracy and the NEA will see to that.
Posted on 02/21/2005 6:49:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
At a press conference earlier this month, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell once again called for higher taxes on parents as the putative remedy for California's lagging student performance. In so doing, he attempts to perpetuate the myth that more education dollars will mean a better education product for California taxpayers. The bad news for Mr. O'Connell is that taxpayers and voters are wising up. The education establishment has, in the past, repeatedly asked for more money with promises of better performance and they have been consistent only in disappointing us.
As to the current condition of California's educational product there is little debate. A recent study by the Rand Corporation analyzed national standardized testing and ranked California public schools at the bottom of the 50 states. Asked for an explanation, Superintendent O'Connell blamed Proposition 13, asserting that if his agency had more money, schools would improve.
The Rand study found that the amount California spends on public education falls in the top half of the 50 states. California is one of the highest taxed states, and public education consumes $50 billion of the state's $109 billion total budget. If there were a correlation between government spending and student performance, then California schools should at least score in the top half of the nation, not last.
In his press conference, Superintendent O'Connell announced his plan to improve California school performance in response to the Rand study. Does his plan have anything to do with the curriculum, accountability, grading policies, student discipline, or reducing state bureaucratic and union control over local schools? No. Instead Mr. O'Connell said he "will focus on increasing state money ... (by a) campaign to reduce the threshold necessary to pass local parcel taxes."
In other words, he wants to gut Proposition 13 by making it easier to raise property taxes, and send the money to Sacramento. What is so infuriating is the disingenuous spin he put on the schools' budget picture and his parcel tax proposal. He said Governor Schwarzenegger's proposed budget will cut school spending, and he criticized the governor for framing the budget debate as a choice between competing public programs such as health care and education. Rather, said O'Connell, "It is a choice between tax relief for the wealthiest Californians ... and funding for health and schools."
First, the governor's budget does not shortchange schools. The budget proposes a 7.1 percent increase in state spending on public education. That is almost triple the 2.4 percent that the Consumer Price Index increased for the year.
Second, how does Mr. O'Connell figure that parcel taxes will impact only "the wealthiest Californians?" A parcel tax is a flat dollar amount, say $400, that is added to the annual property tax of every parcel regardless of its size or value. Parcel taxes are particularly regressive because they impose the same tax on the poor that the wealthy are paying.
Mr. O'Connell should stop trying to increase the cost of education, and turn his attention to the quality of education. Moreover, Californians are rightly suspicious of the claims by the education establishment that more money will solve the problem. That is the claim they made in 1988 when they convinced voters to pass Proposition 98, and the claim they made in 2000 when they convinced voters to pass Proposition 39 -- lowering the two-thirds vote for local school bonds. We won't be fooled a third time.
Solution? Raise Taxes.
Go Figure.
Wanna bet?...JFK
i'm so tired of educators blaming the lack of money that i could puke.
they can retire their lavishly paid consultants,
trim their administrators to the bone,
fire union sub-standard teachers,
get rid of the union,
put their stupid sex and feel-good stuff on dvd's and send it home with the kids for parental review,
and fine parents that are not involved in their children's education.
Putting more money into schools while allowing the kids and liberals to run them is throwing money down a toilet.
Nice list..
Wait until this fall and parents are asked to gussy up more money for parcel taxes across this state than you can shake a stick at.
and then, if the special election gets held, the list of initiatives will be a mile long.. that's a special gift from the same gutless money grubbing politicos and their backers.
But as long as we have gutless politicians and a happy to be socialist voter base , too dumb to balance teir own chackbooks, what can one expect?
gracias.
The liberals and public school teachers descended on the Oregon State Capitol today demanding more money from the proposed budget. The TV stations were showing school busses converging on Salem. Our tax dollars paying for students and parents to go to the capitol. The governor proposes to give schools 56% of the budget. The teachers and liberal parents say that it is not enough.
sheesh
As Milton Friedman has pointed out, every time a beaurocrat is shown to be getting terrible results despite spending tons of money their answer is to ask for more money. They always claim that with just a little more money it would be different.
All I know is that Texas teachers dread getting transfers in from CA because they are so far behind. It's very sad.
I think it is time for all good parents to leave the public school party and help bring it down into a final collapse.
More money will mean worse results. How many years has it been like that? Twenty? More?
Local control is the answer. I've never worked in a school where the parents didn't know best, and I've never known of an administrator that was of any help at all.
is that why every University of California school is ranked higher than the University of Texas?.....only Rice ranks in between the UC universities.....
The bad news This can be generalized to apply to any state.
A state could spend $100,000.00 per student per year and it would make little difference.
The bloated, Peter Principle in action bureaucracy and the NEA will see to that.
I live in California.
No such thing as local control!
NEA unions owns the state, school boards, you name it.
Why do you suppose its so bad here?
Don't let NCR get away with dissing The University of Texas. Tell him the reason is because The university exist for the purpose of teaching people how to find oil, not mates of the same sex.
that doesn't explain the rankings......some of you Texas guys seem to like to bash the whole state of Calif. I don't care if you bash some of our politicians cause we do that to, but to generalize to the whole state is just ludicrous at times.....You don't see us here bashing Texas as a whole. We only bash specific events or ideas and not an entire popultation.....there are still 10 million conservatives here ya know.....plus, your reason for UT doesn't hold water......go look it up at US News and Reports....all the info is there......in fact, UC Berkeley holds the #1 ranked public university in the U.S.. That probably kills ya.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.