🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct4.153908.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu> dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.163249.29299@sactoh0.sac.ca.us>, kberry@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (Kim A. Berry) writes:
>> In article <BvL4JC.Gq5@well.sf.ca.us> rchao@well.sf.ca.us (Robert Chao) writes:
>
>>>It is my impression that California schools' financial problems are
>>>worse than other states' schools.
>>>If that is true, why?
> 
>> If that is true I suspect that a primary factor is the high number
>> of immigrants and the continued high birthrate of those immigrants.
>
>Hardly. The bulk of school funding comes from local sources. Why
>do you think that public schools in Orange County are so
>different from  public schools in Pomona? 

K-12 is also heavily funded by the state, but the source is not 
important. Over 50% of our population increase is due to
immigration,
and the growth-related costs are staggering. I assume you agree
that on average immigrants contribute less then their fair share
(via property tax etc) per child than the average CA resident?
Then that is part of the CA school's financial problem.

>> A dual income couple that owns home with one or two children pays
>> several thousand dollars per year in state taxes. U.S. born
>> residents are more likely to fall into this category.
> 
>> Families that rent apartments or double up in housing or have a
>> large number of children pay far less in state income and property
>> taxes, and if they receive food stamps or welfare, they receive
>> more then they contribute. Immigrants disproportionately fall into
>> this category.
> 
>So what are you saying? That poor people shouldn't be able to get
>a free public education? Or a good public education? Don't feel
>threatened: a survey of public schools in areas with different
>socioeconomic levels will show that you're merely reflecting the
>status quo.

At the rate it is going NO ONE is getting a good education.
Yes, we should provide everyone with a free quality education.
But we should also be aware of what it is costing us in taxes!

>And I doubt that your claim that the woes are due to immigrants
>would stand up to your claims. For one thing, they don't really
>amount to that big a portion of the school population in most
>areas, and the areas where they do would not be doing well anyway
>since local tax revenues are rather low.

Statewide about 20% of students entering school are limited-
english speaking. Again, they are over 50% of the increase, 
50% of the overcrowding. Several thousand per month.  

>> Assuming an annual cost of $4000 to educate a student for a year,
>
>Except of course that it's unlikely that poor districts can spend
>anywhere near that per student since they don't have the money to
>do so.

...so we subsidize these areas with state funds. 

>> it costs taxpayers $288,000 to provide K-12 education for a single
>> family with six children. In spite of this impact, the state
>> provides tax deductions based on the number of children. Clearly
>> small families are subsidizing large families, and large families 
>> -- due to immigration -- are more prevalent in California.
>
>And childless people are subsidizing even more, no? Which is why
>areas which have large numbers of senior citizens have low school
>quality. (I've heard "My kids are out of school now, why the hell
>should I vote for a tax increase?" far too many times.)

Yes, childless people are absolutely being taken to the cleaners.
A family with six kids earning $50k/yr pays an order of magnitude
less taxes than a single person earning $50k/yr. And the single
person's burden on the state is an order of magnatude less!
(I am not aware of any correlation between %senior citizens
and school quality.)
 
If you agree that immigrants pay less in tax per child than
CA residents in general, then the logical conclusion is that
immigrants are one factor in CA school's financial problems.

>-dh
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
        Kim Berry              kberry@sactoh0.SAC.CA.US