Tim,
You forgot to mention that Arnold only has a 37% approval rating, even though he has been pushing for all the things you claim people in California want. You also forgot to mention that 59% of voters now say they would not vote for Arnold again and that he would lose today to Angelides and Westly. Also that 76% of all voters, 59% of republicans, said they want more money, not less, going to schools. You seem to ignore the fact that California is ranked 44th in funding and second in large class size and dismiss these numbers as not relevant. Have you ever taught in a California classroom? I have, and it makes a big difference when you have 36 kids in a class versus 28. I would like to see the exact wording on the question about why California is on the wrong track, I think the people who said schools meant that they are underfunded and that is the problem. I know you want everything outsourced, but in Conejo they outsourced busing to Durham company and a driver molested a special education student and now they are suing the company and the District. Like I said before, these private companies skimp on security background checks. One kid being hurt by outsourcing is one kid too many! Arleigh

Welcome back Arleigh - we've missed you.

I hear you on Durham. If they were negligent in their background checks, then they should have their contract terminated and should be sued - their stockholders should also find out, if their publicly traded. I don't think Outsourcing causes child molestations though if that's what you're implying, nor do I think Union membership prevents it.

As for Arnold, I am with you on that too. I didn't vote for him, wish he would lead more and really solve the state's long term fiscal crisis (which it is still fundamentally in). What's missing in Sacramento in genral is leadership. Of course, several million in CTA advertising with no response has done its damage as well.

But - I do want to correct you on one thing. You won't be able to find anywhere in my writings, or the blog, where I have advocated for less money for our schools. I have STRONGLY advocated that we need to eliminate waste and inefficiencies, and root out expenses in Sacramento (like the fake Santa Rosa Railroad)and locally so more money can be spent in the classroom, and then used more efficiently.

I've never taught in a classroom, and I respect very much that you have. The teachers I speak to regularly want better working conditions, more classroom supplies and parental involvement, all things being discussed and supported on this blog (but curiously, not in Sacramento or at school board meetings across the county).

I look forward to hearing your solutions for them as an educational leader in our community.

Tim Keaney

I, too, am glad to see you are back, Arleigh. It wouldn't be much of a blog if everyone had the same opinion about every issue.

Tim has raised some interesting issues. We need to look at the models that are working. It is not necessary to invent the wheel again.

Forty-fourth in funding is not an indictment by itself. It depends on how the money is spent. If the voters wanted more to be spent on education, they would make it happen. Several years ago, Prop 98 was enacted setting 40% of the state's general fund for K-14. We were told, at the time, that that level of funding would be adequate. Besides noting that we are 44th in funding, tell us more, Arleigh.

I have done some reading about school size. As I recall, elementary schools work best for the students when the school has between 200 - 400 students. Middle school and high school work best with 400 - 800 students.

I'd like to hear what you think about school size, Arleigh.

Jerre

A question I've been really bothered for awhile is child poverty. According to recent stats CA is home to 13% of the nation's child poverty? What are the effects of poverty on a child's educational abilities?

How are schools dealing with poverty-stricken children? Should children be punished for the financial mistakes or shortcomings of their parents?

Scott

Hola amigos,

This thread is very civil and although I don't have muhc to add, I wanted to give y'all shout outs.

Brian Dennert

Welcome back Brian. I'm glad you spend more time in my blog than your own :)

Scott; Do you think it's the case that kids are being punished for the financial mistakes or shortcomings of their parents? I'm not convinced that's the case, and if it is, then it might very well be the parents doing the shortcomings once again.

I know that our schools offer the same curriculum to all students, and in many cases, disadvantaged youth get free or discounted meals and other resources to help them. Where problems might occur is when a parent has a drug problem, or is absentee, then the student might not get the at-home support they require, or parents might not attend conferences with teachers (and the stories are legend).

If it's the district finance issue you mean, where a property tax rich district has more resources than a sales tax rich district, remember, most state funding is driven by ADA - Average Daily Attendance. If kids are in school, then their district is getting paid for them.

I'd welcome more input or examples of where kids are being punished for issues out of their control?

Tim

p.s. Happy 4th of July everyone. Happy Birthday to the country that invented the Internet, and gives us the freedom to blog. Remember the soldiers this year.

This is from today's New York Times and it discusses heavily how the formulas in NCLB do not adequately deal the shifts in populations and funding...

It's a little long for a blog, but worth it for the information...

Look forward for some feedback...

July 4, 2005

Federal Spending Increases, but More Schools Will Get Less Money for Low-Income Students
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY

WASHINGTON, July 3 - A new analysis of federal money that public schools receive for low-income students shows that a record number of the nation's school districts will receive less in the coming academic year than they did for the one just ended.

For the 2005-2006 school year, spending under the Department of Education's Title I program, which helps low-achieving children in high-poverty areas, is increasing by 3.2 percent, to $12.6 billion.

But because of population shifts, growing numbers of poor children, newer census data and complex formulas that determine how the money is divided, more than two-thirds of the districts, or 8,843, will not receive as much financing as before.

The analysis, based on data from the department, was made by the Center on Education Policy, an advocacy group for public schools. A similar study by the group last year showed that 55 percent of the schools would receive less money than they did in the previous year.

"It's an alarming number," said Tom Fagan, a former department official who conducted the analysis. "It's clear that the amount of overall increase is not keeping pace with the number of poor kids."

Susan Aspey, a department spokeswoman, defended the spending levels for Title I, saying, "President Bush and Congress have invested record amounts of funding to help the nation's neediest students."

But Mr. Fagan said the increasing number of districts that are losing money is making it harder for the schools to meet the goals of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, the Bush administration's signature education program, which measures progress through annual tests in math, reading and science. That is giving critics of the program more ammunition to accuse the administration of underfinancing the program while demanding greater results.

Title I provides the largest component of financing for No Child Left Behind.

"The federal government is concentrating more money in fewer districts," said John F. Jennings, the president and chief executive of the Center on Education Policy. "It means there is lots of anger and lots of tension. They're asking us to do more and more with less and less."

The law that created No Child Left Behind requires that money allocated for Title I above a 2001 baseline of $8.76 billion come from two grants that contain specific qualification requirements. One requirement is that a school district is eligible for an increase only if more than 5 percent of its children are from low-income families. Comparisons are based on 2002 census figures, which are the latest available.

The report states that "districts close to this minimum often move in and out of eligibility for these grants, losing and gaining relative large sums from one year to the next."

Many of the nation's largest metropolitan areas have no trouble in exceeding the standard, and as a result are getting significant increases for the coming year. Los Angeles leads the list, with an increase of $53.4 million, followed by Philadelphia ($29.3 million), Chicago ($20.5 million) and New York City ($18.1 million).

The increases are attributable in part to another characteristic of the grants: they use weighted formulas to determine allocations so that per-student spending is higher in high-poverty districts than it is in lower-poverty districts.

But Title I money for school districts in many smaller communities is more vulnerable to short-term shifts in population, including an influx of immigrants, middle-income families seeking more affordable housing and high-income families weary of big-city living.

That helps to explain why the Conejo Valley Unified School District, which includes bedroom communities about an hour's drive west of Los Angeles, will lose 37.6 percent of its Title I money from a year ago, the largest percentage drop of any school district in the country, according to the study.

Conejo Valley's decrease, $475,000, reflects an unintended consequence of spending formulas. The number of Title I students for the coming year will increase, to 3,050 from 3,000 last fall, Superintendent Robert Fraisse said. But because of an overall population increase in the area, the percentage of Title I students in district schools will fall to a projected 4.83 percent.

"We were shocked," Mr. Fraisse said. "Even though we will have more individual students eligible, the area has become less poverty-intense, so it doesn't matter the number of kids we have."

As a result, the district is eliminating some of the programs intended to help achieve the goals of No Child Left Behind, including remedial reading classes, summer school, the purchase of new software and family resource counselors, who serve in outreach programs to parents of children who do not speak English.

"We have a lot of enthusiasm toward educational reforms," Mr. Fraisse said. "But this has taken the wind out of our sails. Principals are worried. Teachers are worried. I am worried."

A similar fate awaits children in the San Diego school district, which led the list of districts that are losing Title I support in actual dollars, $4.1 million. Scott Patterson, the chief financial officer, said the district is losing up to 1.5 percent of its students a year because of population shifts.

Mr. Patterson said the district was likely to cut back many of the same programs that Conejo Valley is dropping, as well as an after-school program to help children in reading and math.

All Title I money is paid to the states, based on their number of poor children as measured against the national average, 6.04 percent for the coming year. The states distribute the money to their individual school districts. The analysis found that 41 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, would receive increases, led by Texas ($65.6 million), Pennsylvania ($45.1 million) and Florida ($33.1 million).

Leading the nine states that are losing money are New York ($15.2 million), Ohio ($13.3 million) and Oregon ($7.1 million). New York and Oregon are gaining poor children, but their totals are less than the national average. Ohio has fewer poor children than it did a year ago.