| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| California school spending - correcting lies |
| 2005-06-13 |
| Only posting this because several comments have been made here putting CA school spending at the bottom - CTA-spread BS. RTWT A recent Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that while Californians have strong opinions on what to do about public education, they have no idea what's going on. I give the public an "F" in Education. As a wonderfully sneaky test of awareness, PPIC asked Californians in a recent survey how much of the state budget is spent on public schools. They were clueless. Only one in three knew that public education is by far the biggest item, sucking up half the budget--very roughly, $50 billion of $100 billion. Ignorant voters insist more money pour into the schools, not knowing California spends more on schools than the entire operating budgets of each of the 49 other states, including New York. Here's reality: The National Education Association (NEA) and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) rank California in the middle on per-pupil-spending. We're at the comfy median. We do not "under-fund" our schools despite our many troubles. Why doesn't everybody know this? The PPIC poll shows how misconceptions are driven by partisanship in California. Democrats tend to believe (ridiculously) that California's prisons get the most state money. Republicans tend to believe (absurdly) that social welfare gets the most state money. People are ignorant in part because our crisis-driven media often lazily push the myth that California is near "the bottom" in school funding. That myth is a product of the education lobby, led by the California Teachers Association, which makes sure California teachers earn the highest salaries in the nation, yet constantly whines that schools are under-funded. The myth was furthered in January when Rand Corp. released a just-plain-wrong study showing California wallowing near the bottom. Rand had not returned my call by press time, but state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer notes that Rand included "all children who had excused absences" in California but didn't attend school. The 49 other states did not inflate attendance in this way. Rand has acknowledged that by dividing spending by an inflated student count, it probably affected California's outcome. Eric Hanushek, at the Hoover Institution, notes, "We're not even close to eighth from the bottom---nowhere near that. We are at or near the middle in the nation." Frank Johnson, a respected statistician for NCES, adds, "California per pupil funding is near the middle. Some people are presenting data in a way that supports their (political) views." According to the NCES, California spent $7,552 per student in 2002-03. The national median was $7,574. We're $22 short, so no wonder our kids are near the bottom in math and reading! Fresh NEA data mirrors the NCES data. Its "Rankings & Estimates" report shows that California in 2003-04 was in the exact middle, ranked at 25th, spending $7,692 per pupil. California voters imagine themselves to be well-informed. The PPIC poll says, "72 percent believe voters should make decisions about the budget and governmental reforms rather than abdicate that responsibility to the governor and legislature 
But when it comes to the budget, how much knowledge do residents bring to the table? Only 29 percent of Californians can identify the top category for state spending (K-12 education)." |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #3 The NEA and NCES data on school spending are way off, no matter where they rank CA. That $7,500 national median figure is fiction. Checking California school district budgets one quickly learns that the actual spend, including special ed, employee benefits, capital financing, etc. is way over $ 10,000. LA has over $13,000 per kid, all in , and SF over $10,000. The US as a whole is probably somewhere there also. Now, CA has a worse student-teacher ratio overall because it pays its teachers above-average, and costs, including the prevailing salary levels in CA are also above average. |
| Posted by: buwaya 2005-06-13 12:40 |
| #2 bs danielle. With 184 languages, bilingual education is not possible. Sooo...are you saying that every inner city school has 184 teachers for every grade? No..ok, then how many. It used to be, don't know what it is now, that they did ESL for the very reason that there are 184 languages spoken. These teachers teach in ENGLISH, but slow it down and use techniques such as learning centers. You don't need to know a second language to speak ESL, as you'd have to be supra-lingual to know enough languages to teach the 8-10 different nationalities in your class. As for tutors, yes, they do have them in various languages. But these float from school to school in each district. The spanish mon-lingual is a business. It's a scam too. The teachers who teach often, most often, don't have teaching credentials - their only credential being they speak spanish. Many of the mexican families do not want their children in these classes, because they don't learn english. California really doesn't have any more problems than other states that have inner cities - regardless of the language spoken. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-13 11:53 |
| #1 School spending is up because you may have some 125 languages spoken at one elementary and have to pay teachers who are at minimum bilingual. Illegal immigration has lots of hidden costs. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2005-06-13 11:46 |