Skip to comments.Brown’s overhaul of California school finances sparks infighting over details (redistribution)
Posted on 12/08/2013 5:24:09 AM PST by Cincinatus' WifeEdited on 12/08/2013 6:03:27 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Gov. Jerry Brown’s landmark overhaul of public schools’ finances was aimed at their most vexing issue – chronically low academic achievements among poor or “English-learner” students.
Not only would more money be spent – billions more, in fact, thanks to a tax increase – but state aid would be “weighted” toward districts with large numbers of targeted kids.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
The money will all be wasted. It always has in the past using this approach and there is no reason to think this time will be any different.
And K-12 shouldn’t be funded at the state level in the first place. Each District should fund its own K-12.
Money is not the solution, money in fact is part of the problem.
At one time schools in California were created and funded by local communities. Since the locals were paying for the school system they had a voice in how it all worked.
Then the courts rule that was not fair since some communities were richer than others, so all the money went to Sacramento and the redistributed (with the state keeping some for itself)
Now the unions had it easy, they just needed to buy a few politicians, and the rest as they say is history.
In a system created to ensure “fairness” they will take from some and give more to others.
If it was not “fair” when one school district had more money then another why is it fair now to give more money to one school over another?
Just how much evil have the socialist created in the name of “fairness”?
Soon the leftist dream for California will be complete: The high bracket tax payers will have fled the state and the remaining masses will all be equally miserable. At least then Tiajuana will be just like southern California.
The Democratic Party is built on the pirate ship model. As soon as the loot runs out, they’re cutting each other’s throats.
Libs refuse to even consider the possibility that differences in school performance are affected by genetic differences in the school populations.
And K-12 shouldnt be funded at the state level in the first place. Each District should fund its own K-12.
The courts have deemed it racist that white suburban districts can have any better funding than "inner city" districts.
Okay, I'll consider that......and I reject it.
exactly. All the money in the world will not bring special needs students up to the level of others.
The sooner we stop ignoring this obvious truth the better.
Spending more is never the answer. Bill Clinton commissioned a $12 million study that came to this conclusion on how to ensure quality education:
1. Set high standards
2. Maintain discipline
3. Involve the parents.
Of course, public schools actually do is lower standards, refuse to maintain discipline, and they can’t find any parents. NO AMOUNT OF SPENDING WILL EVER OVERCOME THE BASIC STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.
I stood up and said that this was a bad idea. I wanted kids to be able to do second grade math in their heads. It's basic arithmetic and they should have that memorized. The teacher got all condescending, told me that I didn't understand modern education and perhaps I ought to leave such things to the professionals.
Then another man stood up and said, "But that guy has a point. Calculators in the second grade just sounds stupid."
That's when the school superintendent stood up and said that we'd "spent too much time" on this topic and had to move forward with our discussion.
Involve the parents??? That's the last thing they want.
The schools have become indoctrination centers.
OK, just to be clear: you reject that there is any genetic basis to IQ? And you reject that IQ would be a significant factor in school performance?
I reject it to the extent that cultural influences correlated with those genetics produce developmental distinctions that wildly exceed those differences directly attributable to genetics.
If in fact the people in a particular school district were innately incapable of managing their school and producing students who excel — then state funding, and indeed control, would be justified since the posited “untermensch” in the district would unable to fund or administer their own schools, correct?
One of the most educated people I’ve ever known was the man my grandmother married a few years after my grandfather died. He was educated between 1904 and 1916 in a one room schoolhouse in a very poor, rural, farming community in North Carolina. One teacher taught fifty farm girls and boys of all grades in that one room building constructed with their bare hands by the poor farmers of the community.
My grandmother’s husband, Mr. S., was extremely curious and well read. Throughout his life he supplemented his education by continuously reading and adding to his bank of knowledge. He was also quick with numbers able to do any kind of basic math in his head or quickly tally a handwritten list of numbers. The history of his nation had been taught in that one room school house. He took great pride in his country’s history and republican form of government.
Mr. S. was an entrepreneur, starting his business career living in the unheated attic of the general store where he went to work upon leaving home. After saving enough to move to a local town, he worked for a larger store, saving his money until he had enough to start his own store. Through careful management, and living what today would be considered below poverty lifestyle, he kept his business going through the Great Depression and then by serving his customers well he survived the rise of the discount chain stores in the 1950’s and 1960’s.
I once asked him about his education. He had tremendous respect for the woman the people of that poor community hired to teach their children. She set extremely high standards for the students and drilled them constantly on the fundamentals. She wanted them to learn and insisted they perform. He also attributed his education to his illiterate parents. They insisted their children learn the skills they had not been able to acquire during the aftermath of the Civil War when day to day survival consumed them and their parents. Mr. S’s parents frequently talked to the teacher about progress their children were making and if the teacher even hinted one of their children was falling short there would be hell to pay at home.
I suspect the farm children who learned together through 12 grades in that one room schoolhouse were better educated than 95% of the graduates of high schools across the United States today. They could read, write, and perform basic math without the aid of computers, spell checkers, and calculators. They understood their nation’s history and government. They knew the Bible and respected both God and their elders. They were proud of their country and community and wanted to be good citizens. They also knew the difference between right and wrong as well as what it meant to be accountable.
It is simple to understand why schools fail today:
1) Our culture has disintegrated. We no longer provide our children with high expectations of performance and we no longer hold them accountable. There are no longer morals and values respected by all citizens in a community. In the age of moral relativism there are no standards.
2) God is no longer important in people’s lives. One hundred years ago the Bible was a teaching aid. Children were taught to read passages from the Bible. The stories in the Bible were entertainment and lessons for life. God was a part of daily life being honored in prayer, scripture reading, and church attendance. The church was a center of social activity in the community.
3) Teachers were hired to teach fundamentals, not indoctrinate students in philosophies dreamed up at elite institutions.
4) Parents were an integral part of the education process. They set strong standards and expectations. They reinforced the lessons taught at school and were partners with the teacher in the learning process. They valued education because it opened up new opportunities to their children.
Learning has nothing to do with poverty. The poorest students in the ghettos of today’s inner cities have food in their bellies. Their homes have indoor plumbing, electric lighting and appliances, heating and cooling, and refrigerators for food storage. In addition they have immediate access to computers, video games, cell phones, and high definition televisions. The rural farm children of 100 years ago lived in what today would be considered third world shacks with no running water, no electricity, and no central heating much less cooling. Warmth came from a wood fire in the fireplace. Light came from a kerosene light if the family could afford one. They often went hungry because the food they grew in the summer had to be carefully portioned out to last through the winter. Plus the families shared there meager stores of food with the school teacher charged with educating their children. The urban poor of today live more comfortably than middle class Americans of a century ago.
The poverty of the students and insufficient funding of the school system was not an excuse for lack of education in the American of the early 1900’s. The poor farmers of a century ago were able to band together to ensure a finer education for their children than the urban school systems of today with their technology, highly paid bureaucrats, and billions of dollars in federal money. Schools fail today because our culture no longer sets any expectations, the parents don’t care and aren’t involved, and the educators are propagandists not teachers. Without any direction and expectations the children cannot learn. Until we rebuild our culture, set expectations for our children (and educators), and hold them accountable there will be no learning.
Because Brown has such a magnificent track record... of failure!
There was a study, the Minnesota Trans-racial Adoption Study, conducted in the 1970's, along with follow-up studies in the 90's. In the study, black kids were adopted in infancy by white, middle to upper-middle class parents with above-average IQs. They were raised with all the advantages that white kids can have, and away from black culture.
At 17, the tested IQ of the black adopted kids was 89. The IQ of adopted white kids was 106.
OK. The long-term welfare populations, of either race, are from the low-IQ tail of the bell curve. Over time, high-IQ individuals leave the population, leaving the low-IQ individuals behind to marry others from the welfare class, reinforcing the low-IQ genetic aspects.
You didn’t answer my question from #12. Answer it, and I’ll give my answer to your #15.
So much for genetics, which was your assertion.
Over time, high-IQ individuals leave the population, leaving the low-IQ individuals behind to marry others from the welfare class, reinforcing the low-IQ genetic aspects.
Stating a hypothesis is not a proof.
The experience of the Vietnamese boat people who arrived here in the 70's with nothing, and within a generation produced valedictorians, is a strong example.
You seem to be operating off the straw-man that I'm saying that all white kids are inherently smarter than any black kids. I'm not. I'm saying that parents who have well-below-average IQs are more likely to produce below-average-IQ kids than above average kids.
Thus the kids of multi-generational white underclass of England are likely to be of lower IQ than any kids which Thomas Sowell would produce.
My question is your answer.
The performance of adopted children belies that contention. Any population can produce very bright people with the right education, as Jamie Escalante proved.
Check out the link at my post #18. Black children adopted into middle-class white families did NOT do dramatically better. They did a little better due to the environment, but not dramatically better.
Government schools are a jobs program. Have been for a long time.
You are entirely correct. I'm not disputing that.
In his time at Garfield High School in LA, Escalante did a great job with his calculus class:
Escalante continued to teach at Garfield, but it was not until 1978 that Escalante would instruct his first calculus class. He hoped that it could provide the leverage to improve lower-level math courses. To this end, Escalante recruited fellow teacher Ben Jiménez and taught calculus to five students, two of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. The following year, the class size increased to nine students, seven of whom passed the A.P. calculus test. By 1981, the class had increased to 15 students, 14 of whom passed.Garfield High has an enrollment of over 4,000 students, and is 99% Hispanic. At his peak, Escalante found 73 kids out of that large student body who he could get to pass calculus. At his peak essentially selected the top 10% of the student body, in terms of math aptitude, and put them through a 4-year program of rigorous instruction in Algebra thru Calc.
What he demonstrated was that he could take the top 10% of the Garfield population, and have them achieve.
Given the performance of schools in underclass areas, which are managed by school boards elected by the locals, the answer to your question is evident. Plus you fail the argument by Godwin's Law
This isn’t an argument.
I'm getting the feeling that there is no level of evidence that will convince you, but here goes:
Do you suppose that the least intelligent students took the calculus class? Would he have allowed anybody who had not done well in the prerequisites (Algebra 1 & 2) to take the class?
No level of evidence will prove to me that average kids cannot do excellent work. You're right. Obsessing about IQ and genetics is a waste of human talent when there are many other variables that can overshadow differences in that metric. I had seven year old kids factoring quadratics in their heads and doing calculus at 11 years old.
I don't buy this BS about IQ.
Would he have allowed anybody who had not done well in the prerequisites (Algebra 1 & 2) to take the class?
Indeed he did, depending upon his intuition about the will of the kid and the barriers to be overcome. In some of those cases the barrier was language, so he taught them English.