Home › Blogs › No Issues Left Behind
« Well, some kids left behind - but why? | Main | 90% pass »
March 24, 2006
California Golden Schools Initiative
I don't think there is any question that school funding, and the allocation thereof is a major point, and a critical area that needs to be looked at.
As I have said many times, it is a debate worth having.
The problem is, all we ever hear is the tired "well, we're 43rd in the nation" or "look at our per pupil funding". While we all know that all of those numbers depend on the methodology to acheive them.
Many states that have made educating their youth a priority, have worked together to establish:
1. Where are we now (from a performance/results standpoint)
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What programs and solutions get us there (i.e. what do we need to make it happen)
4. What does all of this cost?
5. How do we pay for it?
In California on the other hand, I don't see these components in the debate. I see:
1. Requests for more money (and funding on a statewide level is going up as tax revenues do because of Prop 98).
2. I see partisan politics.
3. I see California's youth falling further and further behind at a time in our nation's history, when we need them advancing at exponentially higher rates.
To me, the onus is on the education establishment to act on the 5 pieces of action I mentioned above. Show us where we are, where you want to go (and what that buys California Taxpayers, parents, business, teachers etc..), what you need, what is costs and how we pay for it. Period. Then, once it's all factored, put it into legislative form and get it introduced for debate in the Legislature.
If the Legislature fails to act - take it to the people. Tell us the plan, what the investment per taxpayer is, how it's going to work and get it passed.
This could be the single greatest piece of legislation in a long time in California. It could potentially win in a landslide at the polls. It could conceivably change California for the better forever. It could be a sea change of attitude, cooperation and leadership.
California could lead the nation again with the best public schools, but as in anything, a plan must be produced to pave the way, before the investment is going to be made.
The California Golden Schools Initiative is waiting for us - will we miss our opportunity, and fail our youth?
This writer hopes not.
Tim Keaney
Comments
Tim,
So you are tired of hearing we are 43rd in the Nation in funding. Again, I would ask, if you think money and performance go hand in hand. If they don't, then do you think we can slash the department budget of Simi P.D. BY 50% and still have a safe City?
Arleigh,
I think I am the only one debating this topic looking at the big picture. I am not being accusatory, I am asking you to MAKE THE CASE for better funding. You like to reference the SVPD - well, they do indeed make the case every year for their funding, and they seem to be doing a god job.
I think instead of rhetoric, or changing the subject, you should read my original post again, and tell us what we'd get for more funding.
In other words, make the case, sell the case, get the dough.
Not interested?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 27, 2006 10:29 AMWell, at least Sacramento (or a few of them) are looking at making the case. Even if the education establishment won't, there is clearly a sign that education funding is screwed up in California...
Here is a quote from the following story:
---
State Senators Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, are sponsoring a bill that would provide $200 million a year to boost funding for school districts that spend the least amount per student.
Simitian said it's a question of basic fairness.
"The larger issue is, 'Is it time to undertake a massive overhaul of the funding structure?' The answer to that question is yes, in my judgment," he said.
The lawmakers estimate it would cost about $400 million a year to bring all of California's districts to a comparable level. They said the measure introduced this year is practical -- and would make some progress by getting half that amount.
---
And now for the entire article...
Per-pupil spending varies widely between Calif. districts
By JULIET WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, March 26, 2006 1:10 AM PST
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget provides a $3.8 billion increase in education funding, enough to boost average school spending in California to a record level of $11,000 per student next year.
Behind that well-publicized figure, however, there are vast differences in the cost of a public school education. An Associated Press analysis of state school funding data shows that per-pupil spending varies widely between districts.
The discrepancy has created a persistent gap between well-to-do-districts and those that receive significantly less than the amount promoted by the governor and lawmakers, even though the state has spent a record amount on its public schools over the past two years.
The analysis was based on funding during the 2003-2004 school year, the last year for which comparable statewide figures are available. The information was collated from annual spending data that districts are required to submit to the state Department of Education each year.
Among the findings:
* Per-pupil spending in California ranged from $4,806 to a high of $34,279. Some rural districts spent far more than the median, or midpoint, of $6,857 per student because of extremely low enrollments combined with high operational costs.
* The amount of money that ends up in classrooms often is far less than the per-pupil amount promoted publicly because the state's budget includes spending for all aspects of public education, from charter schools to state administration.
* A handful of the state's 1,059 districts are so well-off they receive none of their basic funding from the state. Still, they are able to apply for millions in additional spending for special programs.
"We don't have equal education for all here in California," said Mary Louise Labrucherie, superintendent of the Valle Lindo Elementary School District in Los Angeles County. "They call us 'low-wealth.' They should call it 'high poverty.'
"The state of California is still giving more money to rich areas."
School funding in California is based on a 1976 state Supreme Court ruling, which concluded that the financing system was unfair and relied too heavily on local property taxes.
The case arose after a parent in the Los Angeles County city of Baldwin Park claimed it was unfair that the local school district spent just half as much in taxpayer money per student as the public school district in Beverly Hills.
Disparities remain despite a series of reforms since then.
During the 2003-04 school year, for example, the Valle Lindo school district received $5,224 per student, compared to the state average of $6,919. The 1,300-student kindergarten through eighth-grade district had the lowest per-pupil spending of all California districts with more than 1,000 students.
Labrucherie said she closely watches spending at the two schools she oversees, on everything from tissues in the classrooms to new carpets.
Saving on the most basic needs, she said, allows her to buy new computers and make needed repairs. The assistant superintendent, she said, "never lets a penny be spent without accounting for it."
Hundreds of miles away in Napa County, St. Helena Unified School District Superintendent Allan Gordon can offer his teachers higher salaries and better amenities than other districts, allowing him to retain some of the best. The highest teacher salary offered there, $79,095, was about $9,000 more than the state average in 2003-04.
The district is virtually the same size as Valle Lindo, with 1,350 kindergarten through 12th-grade students, but can offer much more, such as intensive tutoring and special art classes.
St. Helena spent $9,399 per student during the 2003-04 school year, thanks largely to the substantial property taxes generated by the region's wine industry.
The district is one of about 50 that receive no basic funding from the state, which typically contributes about two-thirds of a district's budget. It still receives state money to fund specialized programs such as teaching English learners.
"Since our tax base is so high, because we're in this wonderful, beautiful Napa County, we are able to spend about $10,000 per child," Gordon said. "The good news is I'm in a district that has more money than most. The bad news is this is what everybody should have."
When adjusted for regional cost of living, California's per-pupil spending ranked 43rd in the nation in 2003-04, according to Quality Counts, the country's largest survey of education funding.
The state's education spending has fallen behind that of other states, although the gap narrowed in the late 1990s as lawmakers grew concerned over lagging student performance and the technology boom pumped more money into schools.
California's system of state-controlled funding is unusual compared with other states, which typically allow for more local control over budgets and place a greater reliance on property taxes. Quality Counts said the funding disparity between districts is even greater in some other states.
After the 1976 Supreme Court ruling, California sought to shift more of the funding burden to the state. But its funding ability was diminished just two years later when voters passed the landmark Proposition 13, which limited increases in individual property tax assessments and made it harder to equalize funding between districts.
Still, the courts concluded nearly 20 years ago that the state had fulfilled the legal requirement to make school funding fair, said state Sen. Jack Scott, D-Altadena, chairman of the Senate Education Committee.
Change begun after the 1976 settlement, he said, "didn't create a world of total equality, but it made a tremendous amount in terms of distributing it."
California voters gave a boost to education funding when they approved Proposition 98 in 1988, guaranteeing a minimum level of funding for schools. While the initiative set a base level of funding for public schools, it did not fundamentally change the way the money is distributed.
Officials have not figured out how to completely equalize spending levels throughout the state, even as the overall education budget has risen.
Lawmakers are working toward that goal.
State Senators Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and George Runner, R-Antelope Valley, are sponsoring a bill that would provide $200 million a year to boost funding for school districts that spend the least amount per student.
Simitian said it's a question of basic fairness.
"The larger issue is, 'Is it time to undertake a massive overhaul of the funding structure?' The answer to that question is yes, in my judgment," he said.
The lawmakers estimate it would cost about $400 million a year to bring all of California's districts to a comparable level. They said the measure introduced this year is practical -- and would make some progress by getting half that amount.
Ideally, California would move to a system in which funding is distributed statewide as a per-student grant, with additional money allocated to districts for high-cost programs such as special education and classes for students learning English, Simitian said.
Schwarzenegger included the $200 million in the budget he proposed in January and has appointed an advisory committee of 15 experts to study education, including the distribution and adequacy of funding.
In addition, four private foundations have jointly funded a research project that includes an evaluation of how the state pays for its schools.
Even a partial solution for distributing money equitably would be welcome at Valle Lindo Elementary School District, Labrucherie said.
In the meantime, she has devised her own creative ways to deal with less money. The district shares maintenance costs with the city and county, for example, and asks administrators to work at both the district's schools.
"Every expenditure is scrutinized. You run it like your home," she said. "It's just the way it is, and you work with it.
"But it does sting when you think about it."
---end---
So, does anyone disagree that we need a more effective school funding system in California, and that California Educators should be leading the way?
Tell us what you need...
Tell us what it costs...
Tell us the results...
Tell us how to pay for it...
Make the case..
Hi Tim:
Here is a good article on the school funding question from the Sacramento Bee...
Hope all is well.
Angelides: I'll Boost K-12 Funding
Close loopholes and tax high earners, he urges; critics say he's already 'spent' that money.
Kevin Yamamura
Sacramento Bee
March 25, 2006
State Treasurer Phil Angelides said Friday he would close corporate tax loopholes and raise taxes on the highest income earners as governor to increase education funding for K-12 schools, the same tax proposals he's made to cut tuition at California's public colleges.
Speaking at a Capitol rally Friday organized by the California Federation of Teachers to criticize Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger for his education funding policies, Angelides called for higher teacher salaries and a full commitment to the state's Proposition 98 guarantee.
"It's time for a governor who's actually willing to ask multimillionaires to chip in, ask corporations to chip in, so we can have the best-educated kids and the best economy in the world," Angelides said.
Angelides has also proposed higher taxes on high income earners and closing corporate tax loopholes to finance lower tuition. And he backs director Rob Reiner's Proposition 82, a June ballot initiative to increase taxes on individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $800,000 to pay for preschool for any family that wants it.
On Friday, Angelides specifically cited low teacher pay as an area he would address as governor, suggesting that "starting salaries of $34,000" are not high enough to attract people to enter the profession.
The California Federation of Teachers, which represents 100,000 teachers and staff, has endorsed Angelides, as has the larger California Teachers Association. CFT President Mary Bergan said Friday that one reason the federation is backing Angelides over state Controller Steve Westly in the Democratic gubernatorial primary is that Angelides has proposed raising taxes to pay for schools.
Schwarzenegger's Department of Finance spokesman, H.D. Palmer, said the Republican governor increased funding for schools by $3 billion last year and has proposed more than $4 billion in increases this year without raising taxes, though education advocates believe that is still short of Proposition 98 requirements.
Former Finance Director Tom Campbell wrote in a 2005 letter that nearly 70 percent of Angelides' identified tax loopholes would require a major policy shift that could "inflict substantial damage" on the state's businesses.
Palmer also suggested that closing loopholes - which he said also includes tax increases on businesses - or raising taxes on high income earners will not solve the state's various funding issues.
"(Angelides) has spent these same dollars 10 times over," he said.
Angelides spokesman Brian Brokaw repeatedly declined to say whether the treasurer would seek increases on income tax earners beyond what is called for in Proposition 82.
If Proposition 82 passes, California would have the highest personal income tax rate in the nation on those earning more than $1 million, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office.
Westly, meanwhile, supports lowering the parcel tax vote threshold from 66 percent to 55 percent to make it easier for local communities to approve hikes to pay for schools if desired. And like Angelides, he supports Proposition 82.
But he does not favor raising other taxes, said his spokesman, Nick Velasquez. In order to increase school spending, Velasquez said Westly would strengthen enforcement efforts to force full compliance on taxes owed to the state.
"The controller believes we can, and should, do more to get these tax scofflaws to pay their fair share, before we ask those already paying their fair share to pay even more in taxes," Velasquez said.
Angelides has spent the early campaign season promoting a plan to cut tuition rates to 2003-04 levels for public colleges and universities.
Under his plan, a community college student would save about $500 over two years, a California State University student almost $2,000 over four years and a University of California student nearly $5,000.
The proposal would cost up to $1.6 billion more per year by 2010. To pay for that increase, he has said he would rely on closing various tax loopholes, increasing income tax rates for the highest earners and creating an endowment that uses state property as assets.
On Friday, he said he would use some of the same methods to pay for K-12 funding increases as well.
"This is the wealthiest state in the richest nation in human history," Angelides said.
"We have a $1.5 trillion economy. Under (President) George Bush, the wealthiest 1 percent in California, people making over $500,000 a year, are getting $15 billion a year in tax breaks. ... We need to ask the most fortunate to chip in again."
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 27, 2006 12:00 PMTim,
From what I understand the City of Simi Valley pays both sides of a police officers pensions into PERS, 8% on both sides. For Simi teachers the District pays half the pension cost and the teacher pays the other half. Looks to me that per-person a lot more is going into police in Simi then teachers, by your logic we can cut costs to police and maintain the same level of service, I'm saying that schools are underfunded, yet you have the same expectations for performance that you have for fully funded services like police.
Arleigh:
Are you saying that based upon the output of a program like police, this determines whether a program is fully funded or not?
That is... Low Crime = Fully funded police is the same as... High Test Scores = Fully funded Schools?
I know many police who work in low crime areas, but wouldn't agree they are fully funded and have requests blocked all the time.
With that logic in mind Washington DC has the highest per student spending yet some of the lowest test scores. Are they underfunded?
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 27, 2006 04:06 PMScott,
I think Arleigh and I finally agree on something. I think what he's saying, is that if Simi Valley schools had Mike Sedell and our City Council running the schools, as opposed to who they do have, our school finances would be better managed.
I couldn't agree more...
However, since we know that this is pie-in-the-sky thinking by Arleigh, I'll simply ask a few questions:
1. Where are we now (from a performance/results standpoint)
2. Where do we want to be?
3. What programs and solutions get us there (i.e. what do we need to make it happen)
4. What does all of this cost?
5. How do we pay for it
Arleigh, are you telling my readers that you can't at least answer 1-3?
Tim Keaney
Tim,
If you are saying that funding and the ability to offer programs do not go hand in hand, or to lower clas size, then you are living in fantasy land! I think we have a good police force and low crime in Simi because they are fully funded, cut their funding by 50% and then we will see how good Seddell and the City really are. The problem with trying to debate on this blog is that except for myself and Scott, everyone else will deny the truth if it does not fit their view. It reminds me a lot on an old Monty Python skit where John Cleese would keep denying the truth, no matter what the facts were. We can't start a debate Tim until you admit that public schools in California are badly underfunded.
See Arleigh - you are missing the whole point. This isn't about me and what I think - it's about convincing tax payers and parents that schools are under-funded, and by how much, and what programs are missing, and then making a business case for the appropriate level of funding.
It's not about whining that no one will listen to you - we'll listen, when you actually start saying something.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 01:05 PMTim,
You won't even admit that we are 43rd in funding, despite posting that information in your blog. If this isn't about you or what you think, why should it be about me and what I think? In terms of a business model, which one? Enron, World Com, Tyco, Adelphia, Health South? Or how about the business model of health care in America. A new report said that our health care system is "mediocre" at best compared to the rest of the world. We have health care in this Country controlled by the free market, yet, we have prices going up by 20% a year, people have fewer choices, some people cannot afford it at all. I thought the idea behind the free market was that competition drives down prices, improves quality and gives people lots of choices?
The Star just posted that 90% of high school seniors have passed the exit exam. The ones who have not are mainly in areas where poverty is rampant and where there are large numbers of students who do not have English as their primary language.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at March 28, 2006 02:17 PMArleigh:
I would hardly agree our health care system is the result of a free market as you argue. Estimates show that government health care regulation artificially inflates the cost, which is passed on to health care consumers like you and me. Regulation costs have become so punitive it essentially pushes prices out of reach for working people.
This is the opposite of a free market.
It's more an industry where big financial actors have the benefit of regulation to squelch smaller players from entering the health care delivery business.
It is estimated more individuals would be able to purchase health insurance if the cost of regulation were not so high.
Government has perverted the health care market just as government perverted the energy markets that led up to the electricity crisis in California.
Think about it, if regulation were a lot less, smaller more efficient businesses would get into the health care market thus reducing prices. Current regulation reduces competition and only allows the biggest players to remain in the game.
If smaller businesses could get into the business of health care, prices would drop for consumers. The problem is regulation disallows rational economic behavior.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 28, 2006 04:12 PMBe more specific about the regulations you are speaking about. No business in this Country is completely un-regulated.
Posted by: Arleigh Kidd at March 28, 2006 04:17 PMGuys,
If you think I am going to let you turn this into a debate on healthcare, forget about it. I didn't say give me a "business model" Arleigh, I said "make the business case" for more funding.
SO far, all we're hearing are talking points.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 04:37 PMTim:
I'm not totally digressing because I believe health care is heavily related to education. Just ask how many years a nurse has to go to school before he/she becomes a nurse?
Yet, nursing shortages in public schools and the private sector abound us. I would argue that if we can't get enough nurses maybe we need to look at the regulations to get more people into the field. Maybe, we should be looking at nurses with less educational background that can do basic non-risk oriented type things.
Would anyone disagree that poor healthcare or no healthcare directly coorelates to poorer performance in school?
Programs like First Five in Simi Valley and Moorpark offer an array of health services to the less affluent. It's a great program, but we really need to take a harder look at the cost of doing business as an impediment to lower healthcare prices.
Arleigh: If you want an example of a regulation that increases administrative costs check out HIPPA. The amount of compliance paperwork involved forces company's to hire whole departments of people to keep up with the regulation. If you have to hire a staff of 15 to keep up with the paperwork for regulations, what happens to your personnel expenses?
The question I have for you is would you rather see a Healthcare company spend money to pass paperwork from department to department or reduce prices so more people can afford health insurance?
I would rather see less paperwork and more people getting the healthcare they need.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 28, 2006 05:09 PMTim,
You said give me a "Business Model" so I asked which model you are talking about. 90% of all new businesses are out of business within 5 years and most lose money every year before going out of business costing taxpayers millions in lost revenue. Maybe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should be helping small businesses instead of spending millions running ads trying to save Arnold. Many Charter Schools that followed a business model have gone out of business leaving kids without a school. Our public schools cannot afford to go out of business. In terms of health care it impacts businss (In a recent survey of CEO's the cost of health care was their major concern) and it is also affecting School Districts who are trying to provide health care for employees. Unfortunately, Bush has done nothing except push health savings accounts that do nothing to address the underlying issues and rising costs. Scott I think one way to address this problem is to make everyone have health insurance. If you remember when car insurance rates went through the roof a law was passed making everyone have car insurance and guess what, rates dropped and have been basically stable since then.
Tell us what you need...
Tell us what it costs...
Tell us the results...
Tell us how to pay for it...
sigh....
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 06:06 PMBrian,
Are you enjoying how the debate is playing out? Do you think we're closer today to better schools?
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 06:09 PMOk - I think I'll go ahead and change up the debate. Here is my dream elementary school:
1. A fully funded and stocked library
2. A fully funded and stocked technology lab
3. Each classroom has sufficient working computers
4. non-english learners get intervention in early grades and have support all the way through grade 12
5. Full Day Kindergarten
6. Music Instruction, Science Instruction with music teachers and science teachers
7. Librarians
8. Significantly more parental and community involvement, following the systematic method of Keys 2.0
9. Full time instructional aides
10. Teachers given annual spending budgets to stay current with trends and to purchase innovative supplies.
To me, these are just the BASICS of running an elementary school. If you're reading this, and you agree, or want to add anything, post it.
Then, we can have the costs/investment discussion.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 28, 2006 08:09 PMTim:
I don't think there is anyone who reads or posts on this blog that doesn't agree with your dream school. However, the ongoing debate is how we are going to fund it.
Not one of us probably agrees on where the funds should come from. Not one of us probably agrees on what the term "fully funded" means.
Arleigh: You are absolutely right on mandatory health insurance. I believe Republican Dr. Keith Richman and Democrat Joe Canciamilla proposed that legislation, but it's been bottled up by the partisans.
I would support a mandatory requirement, but my question is enforcement. How do we enforce someone to have health insurance?
Like my administrative analysis professor used to say, a law that cannot be enforced is not a law.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 28, 2006 11:06 PMScott,
Thanks for your comments. I tyhink what I am asking people to do, is to be courageous enough to put the partisan politics aside, and get to the facts.
For example, let's say that if we could build a consensus that our schools need $100 billion a year to provide California kids with everything I proposed - a world class education. Enough to institute the right programs that will accelerate kids into the 21st Century.
Well, $100 billion is about the size of the California State budget.
So, you'd have to examine:
Property Tax allocations
Construction Bonds
Usage taxes
Debt repayments
The ED Code (which ties the hands on the usage of dollars)
You would need a task force to go over all of the needs and all of the dollars and develop the legislation if needed.
Again, I think we need to stop being accusatory, and railing about funding - and put a plan in place for world class schools.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 29, 2006 08:37 AMTim:
To your list, we should add for the high schools "a fully-funded sports program, all sports, both boys and girls teams."
Posted by: Jerre Reimers at March 29, 2006 08:41 AMTim:
Your approach is a good one, but behind the partisanship there is real disagreements on fundamental tax and spending priorities.
A Task Force is a good idea, but the problem is how do you get buy-in from the legislature, all with their different interests and disagreements based on their hometown needs.
The perameters must be set for something like that...
If you asked the legislature and the Governor to form a bi-partisan task force and the legislators consented to accept the results of their work without seeing them, than true reform could occur.
But I can tell, no legislator or Governor would seed over that kind of control to a task force on education. Instead, we usually see the select committee get together and make recommendations that no one acts on.
Are you suggesting that this task force be structured kind of like binding arbitration?
The other issue I see are inexperienced legislators. Because of term limits most legislators finally get good at their position in about two years. Their time horizon to get things done is extremely short.
I guess what I'm trying to say is term limits has destroyed a real counterweight to getting things done. It's also created much more reliance of legislators on lobbyists who know their industry and know Sacramento.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 29, 2006 08:57 AMTim,
I'm still waiting for an answer on what "business model" you are talking about. I read this morning that the CEO of GAP was given 15.2 million in stock options, even though the company is not doing well and he missed his performance targets. I was also reading that a popular tax strategy is to start a home based business in order to write off the office space etc, and that the IRS allows you to lose money 4 out of 5 years. How much are these phony businesses costing taxpayers? That money could be used to fund your Elementary school goals.
Closing tax loopholes is important in every case, whether it's a business tax loophole, schedule C loophole or anything else.
However, if you close the IRS tax loopholes, which is important, that is going to increase funds going to the federal treasury (which are at an all time high already).
I'm not sure how that helps California schools and the funding issue, unless you are looking for additional federal funding. But that would also go to all of the other states, which woulnd't close the funding gap one iota.
I think we need to stay focused on California revenue and California services as we look at California's schools.
As for the GAP, if I was on the board, I'd be asking to fire the CEO if he's missing his performance targets, but I have't studied that stock at all.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 29, 2006 10:49 AMArleigh:
The federal tax code is pretty regressive and punitive toward American citizens. I think if taxes were reduced and made easier to pay and easier to understand, the federal government would collect way more funds to supplement Tim's school programs.
Think about it, when the governments take the kind of money they take on a yearly basis, it takes it out of the hands of people that could grow their business, invest it in other businesses that create jobs, or buy things that grow the economy. Government essentially is stifling growth with it's tax structure.
If they took less, the investment and growth in the economy would increase the amount of people working and our economy would skyrocket. It would also increase the amount of people paying taxes albeit at lower rate.
As for GAP, When Bush signed Sarbanes Oxley, which punished business America for Enron and Arthur Anderson, basically Bush guaranteed CEO pay would increase to the levels you see now. On every financial statement and 10K, CEO's and CFO's now have to trust that their staff of accountants are telling the truth and be personally liable if their accounting department is wrong. By the way, most CEO's are not accountants... This encourages huge payouts from Boards of Directors.
I would have preferred that criminal penalties for people who did what Arthur Anderson, Enron, and others be given much stiffer penalties and time in jail. Instead all business America including small businesses were punished, which again undermined growth.
Think about it, there is a new profession called a Sarbanes Oxley compliance officer that most corporations have to hire to make sense out of what government codified. Too bad small businesses already saddled with high taxes, regulation, can't afford to hire a compliance officer like that...
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 29, 2006 12:12 PMTim, Scott,
Studies show that for every dollar we send Washington D.C. we only get back 79 cents in services. That means for every 100 billion we are shortchanged by 21 billion! If Washington gave us back at least a dollar we would have billions more to spend on California schools without raising taxes. Remember Arnold was going to be the "Collectinator" and correct that problem before he became the "Impotentnator"?
This is exactly why we need to cut taxes at the federal level even more. We also need to phase out the alternative minumum tax and end the capital gains tax.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 29, 2006 03:31 PMArleigh,
You don't really believe that each state should get back from the feds, exactly what they put in do you?
If each state got back 100% of what it puts in, then there would be no national defense. Do the FEDS take too much from people in taxes? yes. Do I ever expect California to stop being a donor state? No. California tax collections would have to go through the floor for that to ever happen.
Sorry, but frankly, I don't want the FEDS to pay to fix California's schools. I think that should be a priority of Californians.
Posted by: Tim Keaney at March 29, 2006 07:38 PMTim,
National Defense is a part of that figure. National Defense includes research and bases.
So, that air force base in south dakota or a naval base handed out because the majority party put pork above patriotism? That is what is hurting California.
California is hurt because we are a creative, tax producing state. We are not a welfare state like many that depend on the federal government for hand outs.
Of course we should focus on helping ourselves, but we should get back a fair share of the money we produce, not hand it off to a state that doesn't create new things.
And on top of that, the federal government is imposing the rules that drive out costs up, so therefore they must be PART of a solution, even if that solution is to stop handing money over to unproductive states.
Posted by: brian at March 29, 2006 09:53 PMBrian,
We're getting WAY off topic, but:
1. California sends more to Washington in income tax dollars because our population and economy DWARF the size of other states.
2. Most of the "costs of doing business" in California are California driven costs, not federal:
Workers comp rates
Living wage statutes
burdensome workplace regulations
I also don't think it's fair to call other states "welfare states" because they are smaller or haven't created as many jobs as California.
Tim
I think Brian raises a good point. Maybe, if we were paying less money to the feds, we'd be able to increase our cash outlays to schools in California.
Again, what is the encouragement to even work hard and innovate? We live in a "more you make the more they take tax system." What does that encourage?
Why should I fork out my hard earned taxes, so some congressman in Texas can pork out a crawfish sanctuary in his home district?
Would I rather see those funds hit my local school. Damn right I would?
I'm tired of being a donor state. Maybe, if we actually cut these states off they'd actually get off their butts and innovate and grow their economy instead of wait for California to bail them out.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 30, 2006 09:13 AMJust put this story in your head when you think about being a donor state.
Right now, FEMA puchased 10,477 manufactured homes for the victims of Katrina. Currently, we have Katrina victims barely affording rent in these hotals that can continue to increase prices because demand is so high. So while these people are getting gouged where would you say these manufactured homes are?
They are sitting in a hay field in Hope, Arkansas collecting dust unused and unkept.
You know people were really angry after 9/11 when they found out United Way and the Red Cross didn't give all the money to help the victims. Yet, we all sit here watch this kind of madness and incompetence everyday.
Still want to be a donor state?
I'd just assume California give the money to a non-profit to actually help the victims instead of the federal government who can't even get mobil homes to people who were homeless.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 30, 2006 09:25 AMTim,
I'm glad to see Kaylee blogging, but one high school experience does not represent every high school experience. I took my son to Royal's registration the other night, since he is going into 9th grade, and they told us exactly which classes he needed, to be on the UC/CSU track, etc.
We do need more Counselors as I have said before. I do think California should get back a dollar in services for every dollar we send, otherwise we are a donor state giving welfare to places like Texas. They could give us the money back in the form of education grants that could be used to hire more counselors and to pay for all the unfunded mandates of NCLB.
Arleigh:
Could it have been that the counselors gave you special treatment because you run the school district? :)
I've heard from numerous people that you run things at SVUSD...
I think it'd be awesome if CA got $1.00 for every $1.00, but think as Tim said, it'd be pretty tough.
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 30, 2006 07:46 PMHi all:
Phil Angelides presented an education plan today. I'm listing it below for your review.
"Angelides’ Teachers for Our Future plan will address the teacher shortage by:
Restoring and expanding California's teaching fellowship program to attract bright young people and mid-career adults to teaching.
Rolling back Arnold Schwarzenegger's fee increases on teacher training.
Identifying the pay and incentives California needs to attract and retain talented teachers.
Restoring funding for teacher support.
Doubling the number of public school counselors to support teachers in the classroom.
Expanding homeownership assistance for teachers."
Arleigh: When did Arnold put a fee increase on teacher training? I also have never heard about teacher support funding being cut.
Tim: Doesn't this sound a lot like your dream school? Sure everyone agrees with it, but when we start talking about funding the wheels come off the wagon... I've read in the LA Times that Angelides spending plans have spent the same money a couple of times over.
I also wish Angelides would talk about credential reform....
Scott
Posted by: Scott Blough at March 30, 2006 07:59 PMScott,
Could you please call everyone on the School Board and everyone at the District office and explain to them that I run the School District? It would make my life so much easier in negotiating contracts, etc, if it were actually true. Heck, when I was President of the Teachers Union in Simi I was never even invited to the Red Ribbon Rally as a VIP. The reality versus what some people have invented in their own minds are two entirely different things.
Great Article in the LA Times yesterday. Seems we are not the only ones trying to figure out how much we need to run an effective school. The state's major research institutions with help from the Bill Gates Foundation are going to figure it out.
Tim: Would you think it is appropriate for both sides of the political spectrum to agree to the results of this study and abide by the recommendations prior to seeing the results?
Study to Examine Public Schools
By Mitchell Landsberg
Times Staff Writer
March 31, 2006
For years, state Sen. Don Perata recalled, California officials shrugged off the issue of public school funding by saying, "Thank God for Alabama and Mississippi, or else we'd be last."
California isn't scraping bottom anymore, although it still ranks in the lower half of all states in per-pupil spending. But one thing hasn't changed: No one can say with certainty how much money it would take to properly educate all children — if that's even possible.
That should change, Perata, a Democrat from Oakland, and others promised Thursday, with the launch of a major research initiative aimed at determining how California can meet its educational goals and what the price tag will be.
Spearheaded by Stanford University, with $2.6 million in funding from four philanthropic organizations, the project will bring together scholars from around the nation to conduct 20 studies into California's K-12 public school system.
The studies, to be completed by the end of the year, will be aimed at giving state officials the information needed to reform the system, with a focus on whether funding is adequate and whether it is allocated efficiently and fairly.
That will mean taking on some politically delicate topics such as the discrepancies between rich and poor districts, and the difficulty of assigning the best teachers to the neediest schools.
"We admit we have an achievement gap, and that achievement gap is unacceptable," state Supt. of Schools Jack O'Connell said in a telephone news conference about the research project. "We need a clear idea of what it's going to cost to meet the different educational needs of our very diverse student population."
The project will be led by educational economist Susanna Loeb of Stanford and will include researchers from 17 schools or research institutions, including USC, San Diego State, the University of Pennsylvania, the Rand Corp., UC Berkeley, UC Davis and UC Santa Barbara.
Funding comes from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation and the Stuart Foundation.
Loeb said the study would focus on three areas: the current state of school financing and governance; how the state can use its resources better; and what it would take to meet the needs of all students.
Ted Mitchell, the former Occidental College president who heads Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's advisory committee on education, said no state had attempted a comparable study.
"There really is no marker in the history of school reform for this kind of collaborative, bipartisan, independent research," he said. He added that there is broad consensus in Sacramento now about the need for meaningful educational reform.
Perata pledged that the study would not suffer the typical fate of a state-sponsored report.
"Our commitment is that this will not die on the shelf," he said. "It could be and should be the centerpiece of the governor's State of the State [speech] next year, and should be the driving force behind what we do legislatively and with our budget in 2007. We have a lot riding on this."
Posted by: Scott Blough at April 1, 2006 01:17 PMI want to congratulate Stanford, as well as these foundations, for reading this blog and stepping up to the plate to do as I suggested.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at April 3, 2006 01:38 PMTim
Would you agree to a binding arbitration recommendation for the state assembly, senate, and Governor?
Whatever the reforms, the legislature and Governor must implement.
Scott
Posted by: Scott at April 3, 2006 04:56 PMArleigh:
Do you think the districts should share space with charter schools? Below is an article from the San Diego Tribune... Do you agree with proposition 39 that voters approved in 2000?
Charter school fight at district's door
Treatment called unfair and illegal
By Maureen Magee
STAFF WRITER
March 15, 2006
Determined to keep their fight for classroom space alive, nearly 200 charter school advocates rallied at the San Diego education center yesterday to protest what they say is unfair and illegal treatment by the district.
Charter school students, faculty members and parents rallied yesterday in a show of solidarity at the San Diego education center.
Representatives from 24 charter schools asked the San Diego Unified School District board to reconsider a proposal to have some charters share campuses while denying the use of district space to others.
Parents, students and educators delivered their message during a scheduled school board meeting with signs, chants and sharp words.
“They should rescind what they did and bring the charters to the table so we can have a voice in the decision,” said Luci Fowers, principal of the Albert Einstein Academy Charter School.
The charter school issue wasn't up for discussion by the board yesterday, but Superintendent Carl Cohn hinted that a new arrangement is in the works.
“We hope in the next couple weeks to continue that discussion and to come up with final offers that will be much closer to the desires of the charter schools,” Cohn said.
Two dozen publicly funded charter schools have been feuding with the San Diego district over their right to lease district buildings, as allowed under state law. Two charters – KIPP Adelante Preparatory Academy and Fanno Academy – filed a lawsuit against the district over the matter.
In response to requests to lease district facilities from 24 charter schools, the board announced a plan two weeks ago to offer the use of nine campuses to 15 charter schools. Nine other charters were denied use of district facilities.
Charter school principals plan to meet today to develop a counterproposal. Meanwhile, Cohn is scheduled to talk with charter school employees and families Monday at O'Farrell Community School in Skyline.
“We're very hopeful,” said Vincent Riveroll, director of Gompers Charter Middle School in Chollas View. “This is all happening because of parent involvement. They cannot turn a deaf ear to all these people.”
The district has until April 1 to make a final decision on the charter schools' requests to use district buildings.
Charter schools are publicly financed schools that have autonomy from local and state education codes. They are run by their own boards of directors and control their schools' hiring, budget and educational programs. In exchange for independence, they commit to raising student achievement.
After repeated denials for use of district buildings, KIPP and Fanno sued the district, saying it failed to comply with Proposition 39.
Approved by voters in 2000, Proposition 39 allows charter schools to seek use of district-owned buildings. However, San Diego Unified and other districts have struggled to balance their own needs with those of charter schools.
Posted by: Scott at April 3, 2006 05:32 PMScott,
To answer your question for me above... only if I write the reforms.
No, the reform debate would need to be tied to the school funding formula debate.
Tim
Posted by: Tim Keaney at April 3, 2006 06:18 PMGood point Tim,
I have an inkling this will make a good blog topic, but will be unfeasible when applied to Sacramento politics.
Arleigh would have us believe that being 43rd in funding automatically means that schools in California are under funded. In truth it only means that we are 43rd – which is neither good nor bad, it’s just 43rd. Arleigh, where does teacher pay rank compared to other states?
The purpose of the Stanford-led study is to tell us how much we need to spend to achieve a desired result. The voters will then decide if it is worth the dollars.
Jerre'
The Rand Study, done by the Conservative Rand Corporation, showed that California teachers have not received a real raise since 1969. They also placed California teacher salaries at the bottom of large states. Jerre would you be happy to hear that police and fire funding were 43rd in the nation for California? Since funding means nothing do you support cutting police funding in Simi Valley by 50%? I mean can't the police in Simi use Tim's business model and give us the same or better product for 50% less funding? A new poll shows that 62% of Californians disaprove of the job Bush is doing, also that 78% of Californians want more money going to k-12 Education. Looks like you are in the minority Jerre.
Tim, I am looking forward to seeing the conversation unfold here.
Your blog entries on inner city education are interesting, but ideas about suburban education strike closer to home for me.
I would like to see more macro stories about suburban education in the future when you run across them.
Posted by: brian at March 24, 2006 04:41 PM