Article View: ca.general
Article #440Re: California Public Schools Funding: A Materplan for Failure
From: dhosek
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:58
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:58
52 lines
3200 bytes
3200 bytes
In article <1ebmclINNcef@skat.usc.edu>, walker@skat.usc.edu (Michael D Walker) writes: > In article <5649@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes: >>This is news to me. Prop 13 showed clearly that California taxpayers >>would rather have lower property taxes than good schools. > No. They realized their money was being wasted on school bureaucrats, > poor teachers, kids with bad parents, or to subsidize the rich with > the UC system. Well to blame the decline in California schools on Prop 13 is to ignore the fact. There was a continuing decline in California's educational quality before Prop 13 was passed. 13 did excelerate the process, however. Given the existence of Prop 98, I'd say that the accurate description of the situation is that California taxpayers don't mind dedicating money to the schools just as long as it isn't *their* money. Prop 13 had the long-lasting result of decreasing local control of numerous institutions, schools being just one of them. Very little of the property tax money (if any) has ever gone to the UC system. Most of it went to road maintenance, police and fire protection, schools and local protection. There was a strong sense that there was waste in government which helped propel 13 to passage, but the overwhelming justification was lower taxes. I don't think most voters really thought about or fully understood the consequences of 13 being passed. >>I've seen bumperstickers as long ago as 1980 that said "If you can >> read this you probably didn't go to a California Public School" ... > Yeah, and if your parent taught you to watch TV, instead of reading, > you're gonna do great.... Schools vary. > Thowing money at it hasn't worked. What I'm hearing is that CA is > spending more on schools now then in the past, but the standards keep > dropping. Well the dollar amount has increased, but it's not keeping pace with growth in enrollment or inflation. Even without inflation adjusting, per-student spending on the public school system has declined dramatically since prop 13 and despite prop 98. When schools have minimal administrative staff and no fewer than 30 kids in a classroom there's something wrong with the funding situation. If you think that your local school district is wasting money, take an afternoon off and talk to the person in charge of business affairs. You should be able to get the state budget numbers and the core budget. You may find that they're spending money wisely, you may find that they are wasting money. But until you take the time to find out the truth, you're just blowing hot air. -dh
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov17.215850.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!hmcvax.claremont.edu!dhosekReferences:
<1e3iqqINNt42@mizar.usc.edu> <5649@bacon.IMSI.COM> <1ebmclINNcef@skat.usc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: ca.general Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!hmcvax.claremont.edu!dhosek From: dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu Subject: Re: California Public Schools Funding: A Materplan for Failure Message-ID: <1992Nov17.215850.1@hmcvax.claremont.edu> Lines: 52 Sender: news@muddcs.claremont.edu (The News System) Organization: Quixote Digital Typography References: <1e3iqqINNt42@mizar.usc.edu> <5649@bacon.IMSI.COM> <1ebmclINNcef@skat.usc.edu> Date: 17 Nov 92 21:58:50 PST