Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Berkeley wants to, it should be able to choose to adopt new school funding measures by a 50% vote. They're spending their own money. The people in your party wouldn't let them do this, and the only reason that I can think of is that they're worried that it will work, that spending more money will improve Berkeley's schools, and people in other cities will want to do the same.

People in my party? Before Arnold came along the Democrats controlled the Assembly, State Senate and the Governors seat for four years. Why didn't they fix this problem then? Republicans have never controlled all three branches at once in CA in my lifetime.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Berkeley wants to, it should be able to choose to adopt new school funding measures by a 50% vote. They're spending their own money. The people in your party wouldn't let them do this, and the only reason that I can think of is that they're worried that it will work, that spending more money will improve Berkeley's schools, and people in other cities will want to do the same.

Or how bout this, why don't all you parents get together and hold a fundraiser? Not that I believe there is a strong correlation between spending and performance, but if it makes you feel better, fund raise away.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Or how bout this, why don't all you parents get together and hold a fundraiser? Not that I believe there is a strong correlation between spending and performance, but if it makes you feel better, fund raise away.

Do you have any idea how many freaking fundraisers are held to benefit schools in this state? Public and private? You get kids of that age and you spend your life raising money through fundraisers. And you do this and the schools still suck, relative to schools in other states. Because thanks to your sort of anti-government troglodytes, California ranks down there with Mississippi towards the bottom of the states in school spending. I say this off the top of my head, without any numbers, so go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

And you know what? The fundraisers raise more money among the wealthy. When one spouse isn't working, she (it's usually a she) has more time devote to such things. And the wealthy have more money to give.

I'll tell you what. Let's try funding something you care about for a couple of years through bakesales, and we'll see how that works.

You don't even live in Berkeley, right? So why do you give a shit whether the people who live there want to tax themselves to improve their schools? Maybe you're afraid it'll work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
People in my party? Before Arnold came along the Democrats controlled the Assembly, State Senate and the Governors seat for four years. Why didn't they fix this problem then? Republicans have never controlled all three branches at once in CA in my lifetime.

I was talking about Prop 13. Those are your people, right?

Or are you taking credit for the leadership Arnold is showing on education spending?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
And six of the top 100 public high schools (according to this list) are located in the Maryland county in which I reside. Just goes to show you what high taxes and lots of government regulation can do for you.

S_A_M

Yeah, that's a great nugget. DC spends more than all of them and has taxes at least as high. And you've got a pretty good control here, because it's the same people, essentially.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you have any idea how many freaking fundraisers are held to benefit schools in this state? Public and private? You get kids of that age and you spend your life raising money through fundraisers. And you do this and the schools still suck, relative to schools in other states. Because thanks to your sort of anti-government troglodytes, California ranks down there with Mississippi towards the bottom of the states in school spending. I say this off the top of my head, without any numbers, so go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

And you know what? The fundraisers raise more money among the wealthy. When one spouse isn't working, she (it's usually a she) has more time devote to such things. And the wealthy have more money to give.

I'll tell you what. Let's try funding something you care about for a couple of years through bakesales, and we'll see how that works.

You don't even live in Berkeley, right? So why do you give a shit whether the people who live there want to tax themselves to improve their schools? Maybe you're afraid it'll work.

No blame for the teachers' union or mismanagement, huh? Interesting.

Dude, I hear your frustration. This topic frustrates me to know end. But based on what I've read on the subject, and I've read a fair amount, the problem is not one of funding.

It's also interesting that you're happy for issues to be decided locally only when it suits you.

ETA:

U.S. Education Spending per Pupil has risen steadily and dramatically since 1945 (adjusted for inflation).

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-11.html

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yup, just discussed this with a partner at my firm from Montgomery Co. and caught the MD concentration too. There are a lot of surprises on that list overall though. Not much in Chicago's north shore. Not much in Silicon Valley. But everything in the DC burbs 'cept PG county seems to be on there somewhere or other.

I'd love to see a national regression analysis to see what factors correlate most to placement on the list. Concentration of professionals? Pure unadulterated wealth? Spending per student (hello Chicago)? I'm not in a position to argue for any one thing over another. All I know is that there are only a few concentrations on that list, and the DC burbs are one of the more noticeable ones.

Hello

Apparently one of the factors used in the ranking was the number of students on a free lunch program. I think that's all I really need to hear about this study to know how seriously to take it.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Apparently one of the factors used in the ranking was the number of students on a free lunch program. I think that's all I really need to hear about this study to know how seriously to take it.

Yup, that's all you really need to know* **!

Hello

*I noticed that tag on the chart, and don't know what its about, but the text of one of the articles seems to imply that the rankings are based on AP and IB (International Baccaclaureate --sp?) programs/classes offered in public schools. Don't know how the free lunch thing plays in, but if that's true its hard to imagine how DC and Chicago schools managed to stay off the list!

**And yes, I can't help but think that you were being serious when you wrote what you did above!

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yup, that's all you really need to know* **!

Hello

*I noticed that tag on the chart, and don't know what its about, but the text of one of the articles seems to imply that the rankings are based on AP and IB (International Baccaclaureate --sp?) programs/classes offered in public schools. Don't know how the free lunch thing plays in, but if that's true its hard to imagine how DC and Chicago schools managed to stay off the list!

**And yes, I can't help but think that you were being serious when you wrote what you did above!

Of course I was being serious when I wrote it. Any asshole who thinks that poverty levels are a legitimate predictor of the quality of education a school offers has all the scientific credibility of a chimp (sorry, Flinty). Garbage in, garbage out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was talking about Prop 13. Those are your people, right?

Or are you taking credit for the leadership Arnold is showing on education spending?

Proposition 13 was passed when I was in elementary school. Jarvis Gann's initiative was opposed by most moderate Republicans at the time. The problem was the Democrats just couldn't stop raising taxes and the reaction was proposition 13. The reason that proposition 13 has the limitations also on local jurisdictions was because the proponents were afraid they would stop the state government from overtaxing just to be hit by the local governments.

The problem with your thesis is that there are plenty of public schools that are top notch in California and they are receiving the same amount of money as everyone else. So good schools can be produced at the funding that currently exists.

The problem is the teachers unions. Plain and simple. The school system moves bad teachers and principles around just like the Catholic church moves priests. Lets fix the system. Introduce student testing to see how the teachers are doing and if the kids aren't learning - see ya. Lets cut down on the burearcy - the best way to do that is set a percentage of the money that has to go directly to the schools. If the reforms don't work then we can start talking about more money. As the schools in Washington DC show, a system can waste any amount of money you throw at it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Proposition 13 was passed when I was in elementary school. As the schools in Washington DC show, a system can waste any amount of money you throw at it.

what is most fucked, is so much of what is done/said on this issue is driven by politics. Union support by the dems in particular. Meanwhile generations of kids graduate schools with no hope of getting anywhere. It is obscene.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Of course I was being serious when I wrote it. Any asshole who thinks that poverty levels are a legitimate predictor of the quality of education a school offers has all the scientific credibility of a chimp (sorry, Flinty). Garbage in, garbage out.

I'll talk slower here for ya. What makes you think you "know" that they used school lunches as any basis whatsoever? I'm still having trouble believing you seriously wrote that this was all you needed to know, when I don't even know what you say you know!

I don't see any particular formula, let alone one that shows X*(number of skool lunches per population). All I saw was some weird heading at the top of one of the title bars. But the article itself seems not to mention the gov't cheese and bologna/pupil factor.

ETA rereading the title bar and accompanying note, I think they are merely highlighting that some of the schools on the list have very high proportions of students who receive subsidized lunches while others have very low proportions. I still can't imagine how you get from the article noting these proportions to "knowing" that they are using these proportions as a basis for the rankings.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky


The problem is the teachers unions. Plain and simple.

Whew! Glad that's settled.

[Spanky]

On the subject of our borders. Poland has a lower per capita income than Mexico. Yet Poland has joined the EU and the rest of Europe is opening its doors to Poland. Future members of the EU like Romania have per capita incomes that are not even close to Mexico. So why don't we just open the border? Because Mexico is our neighbor their problems are our problems. Putting up a huge wall does not even address the symptoms let alone the disease.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Meanwhile generations of kids graduate schools with no hope of getting anywhere. It is obscene.

But how do you think they'll vote?