From the Sacramento Bee:

"But lawmakers acknowledged the plan does not solve the state's long term "structural deficit" and will leave the state facing billions of dollars of red ink in future years. Democrats said the gap would reach $4.7 billion, while some Republicans contended it could soar to $6 billion. "

We will never have more money, or more efficient spending unless we truly address what it at the heart of California's fiscal crisis.

Tim

This budget is a sham! It shortchanges schools by 3.1 billion as promised by the governor last year. When the governor claims it raises per pupil funding to $10,000 he includes federal funds that the state does not control, local bonds and parcel taxes, bake sales etc. A lawsuit has already been filed against the governor by a citizen in Ojai over shorting prop 98. The latest poll shows 59% of voters don't approve of the governor, 60% say they will side with teachers and school administrators in the special election and 57% say they view labor unions in California favorably, unions are twice as popular as the governor because people know unions represent the working man and woman, while the governor represents the corporations who have him in their pocket. This budget steals 5 million dollars from the children of Simi Valley, which means needed programs are not going to happen, but Tim Keaney thinks this is a good budget. Arleigh

Arleigh,

Good talking points! I see you got your memo! You see, some of actually read what's in the paper - I think your point about the bake sales is a good one - not a true one, but a good one. Right out of the O'Connel Playbook as quoted in the same article:

"In a statement on the Department of Education Web site, O'Connell said, "The $10,000-plus-per-student figure also includes money for education over which the state had no control. His calculation includes: $7.6 billion in federal funding, $1.5 billion to repay local debt service on locally raised money for school building projects, and $3.8 billion for other local revenues raised by local districts for their own schools -- everything from booster club bake sales to donations from local businesses."

Bake sales - SHEESH. Expect us to believe that? Ok - please point out the line item in any districts budget where "bake sale" funds are credited to the district funds. Truth man - give us the line item, the district budget, the page of the budget and we'll look it up. If we see "bake sale funds" we'll give you props, if not, we expect a retraction.

We all know that the $10,000 number actually includes General Fund (mostly salary and benefits of staff) and categorical funds from the state, feds, grants etc...

Oh - and can you also point out where I mention it's a good budget? I think that much state spending is a travesty. But I do plan on taking a ride on the non existent Santa Rosa Railroad that got funded, instead of school supplies for kids.

Tim Keaney

According to SFGate.com, for school year 04/05, the California schools received more than $7 billion above what is required by Prop 98. And 03/04 funding was almost $10 billion more than required. Per pupil spending for 05/06 is estimated to be over $7500/student. That's a whole lot of money. Doesn't sound like the schools are being short-changed, per Prop 98. So the question is "what's enough?"

Jerre

Jerre,

Interesting numbers - I will check out that article.

I wonder how Arleigh is coming along combing the budgets for the bake sale numbers? I would suspect, if the bake sale numbers are included in the budget, they would be somewhere near the gift wrap line item, probably right before the Cookie Dough Sales line item.

Of course, I suspect they're using the bake sale talking point as code - look at the initials = BS.

See, Arleigh either doesn't want a serious debate on school reform, or can't have one.

Arleigh - we're really looking forward to seeing those bake sale #'s. And your long term fundamental solutions to fixing our schools.

Tim Keaney

Readers,

It's been nearly a week since Arleigh Kidd, a local union leader and frequent poster to my blog, made a post that said that the $10,000 per child figure included dollars from "bake sales" at local schools.

This was a clear parrot of a talking point made the day before by State Sup Jack O'Connell. I called Arleigh on that point, and in this blog, told him if he thinks "bake sale" dollars are included in district budgets, then he should point out the line item in district budgets (In his position, I am sure he has access to these public documents).

We all know that the statement is a fallacy, and clearly just a talking point in order to distract people, and not debate the facts of school funding.

But doesn't Arleigh owe us an explanation? Doesn't this type of "talking point debate" lessen his argument, strain credulity and put a damper on Arleigh's credibility?

What do you think? How much time should we give this educational leader to come up with the numbers?

The clock is indeed ticking...

Tim Keaney