Tim,
The article states that California is 43rd in per-pupil funding. A few blogs ago I believe you asked where I got my information that we are at 43rd. Do you believe me now? Do you think funding and achievement are related?

I don’t know if funding and achievement are related. I don’t have enough information yet. I would like to see a study that shows, state-by-state, funding and academic achievement. If someone knows where to find that information, I would like to know.

But again I ask Arleigh, if you had as much as $1000 more per student, where do you think it ought to be spent and why. What areas of spending would get the greatest results in achievement?

Tim, when did you change your name to Jerre?
As I've said before, I would lower class size for all students in California and have agressive intervention programs for students not at grade level in any subject.

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

Tim,
Are you in favor of applying what you put above to the military and police? Would you want California police agencies funded at 43rd in the Nation? Do you think police funding and public safety are related?

Arleigh,

I'm actually baffled by that response. I have no idea how you want to discuss public safety, when what I am trying to do is help provide a pathway to better schools.

If you'd like to debate the issue at hand, that's one thing. If you'd like, on the other hand to debate the foresight and management of say, Simi PD, vs. SVUSD, I think you'd have a lot of takers.

But as my friend Brian likes to say, it's a fool's errand.

So let's get back on topic. Are you saying you disagree that California schools need to plan before asking for money?

Tim Keaney

Arleigh: I’ve spent a little time trying to find evidence of a correlation between class size and achievement, but I haven’t found a definitive study yet. Do you know of one?

“California sends a smaller percentage of high school students to four-year colleges than any other state but Mississippi – a trend that experts blame on too few counselors, teachers and college preparatory courses, a new study says.”

We can blog about this for quite some time, but I ask those of you who have kids in the public school system, are you OK with this? Do you have an expectation that you kids will go on to a 4-year college right from high school? Or do you envision another path? And what is that path?

You can’t really have an expectation that things in the high schools are going to change quickly. If you continue to be part of the public school system, how will you overcome too few counselors, teachers and college preparatory courses?

On these particular issues, what has been the direction over the last 10 years? Better or worse? And what direction will things go over the next 10 years? Will we have more counselors, teachers and college prep courses a few years from now? How will this be accomplished? What is the right ratio of counselors to kids, of teachers to kids? Do you care at all about college prep classes? If the plan for your kids is to go to a community college, college prep classes are not needed.

The opening statement is of no consequence to you if you don’t plan on your kids going to a four-year college. But if you do plan on your kids going to a four-year school, the finding should be a wake-up call.

Jerre,
If you read that study then you would know that the study said California could send more kids to a four year college if we cut class size and raised per-pupil funding.
Tim,
My point is that you have to look at the big picture. You like to say that schools should do better any if they are funded poorly. By your logic police, fire, the military etc, should also be able to do the same job no matter what their funding. If funding and performance do not go hand in hand then I would again ask if you would feel safe in Simi if we funded our police at almost dead last in the state?

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

Hello:

Had an opportunity to read an article in newsweek international on Chinese tech investment in Russia. Currently, China is buying up Russian scientists and scientific assets located in Siberia home to "52 scientific institutes, 18,000 scientists, and half a dozen nobel prize winners" that have been neglected since the end of the cold war.

Essentially, China is working to become the scientific and manufacturing center of the world and spending more and more of it's resources into the Russian Academy of Sciences to foster faster development of new technology. When Clinton signed Most Favored Nation status to China it neglected to discuss trade secrets diffusion.

What China is now working to do is encourage foreign investment using the benefits of the world trade organization rules while building like products through their own growing industrial base.

China is quickly understanding the coming knowledge economy and is investing in it big time. My question about spending is simple...What are we buying with additional spending here in the US or in California?

There seems to be a lack of focus of what the additional funds will be going for. Seems we keep obsessing about the size of the dollar amount than what that dollar is going to get us.

I know we are now the world's policeman, but shouldn't we be looking over our shoulder a bit to see who is going to be running past us in a few years in the global economy?

Scott

Smaller class sizes for all students, more counselors, more school nurses, targeted intervention programs at all levels, alternative schools at the middle school level, better pay for teachers to attract the best and brightest to our classrooms.

Arleigh - you must have been a tough kid when it was time to do your homework...

This is a nice "I'm going to answer as little as possible" kind of answer.

I guess what you are telling me, is the CTA hasn't even calculated what it would cost to reform the schools in California.

What a pity.

Besides Arleigh, I started the whole debate with the following sentence:

"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."

So I don't know what other kind of invitation you need to make your case...

Tim,
You crack me up! You asked what more money would fund, I told you and then you freak out. Don't ask the question if you can't take the answer. In terms of "reform" that is your take on things. My take is that we have good things in place, and we know what works, but underfunding, due to republicans in Sacramento, prevents best educational practices from being fully implemented. I asked you what exactly your "business model" was and you refuse to answer and duck the question. Have some guts like I do and answer questions.

Wow... apparently, you and I define "freaking out" in different ways.

Arleigh, my point in this whole discussion, is that perhaps educational leaders should be taking the same approach as the Gates and Hewlett Foundations, and Stanford are undertaking.

They are going to be doing a tremendous amount of research and discussions regarding educating California's kids. I would think having teachers at the table would give it some credibility.

Far from ducking your questions, frankly, I am still asking them.

Tim

Tim,
Teachers are at the table. You have said many times that "Everything is boken and a business model will fix it". Again, what is broken, and what business model?

Arleigh,

First - Both Democratic candidates for Governor say the system is broken. Do you disagree with them? Angeledies has clearly stated the schools are broken - but he has the CTA endorsement.

Second - The statement you are attributing to me above has quotations in it, i.e. "Everything is broken and a business model will fix it".

I never said that, nor can you point us to anywhere in the blog where I did say that.

Are teachers at the table with the Gates Foundation and Stanford? Who? The CTA? Why didn't the press releases mention the participation of the CTA?

So...what subject would you like to change next?

Isn't it time to start proposing some real fixes for California's schools Arleigh?

Tim,
So now you don't think a business model works? Is that because 90% of all businesses fail in the first 5 years? I don't agree with anyone that California schools are broken. I do agree that the financing of California schools is broken and we need more funding to do the things I listed above.

heavy sigh... Aren't you tired of this BS? I've asked simple questions, but all we get readers is more of the same. Energy crisis, Dick Cheney, Business models and failings... La La land...

Don't you realize I have the ability to scan and search the entire blog? Not once did I mention "business model".

Arleigh, you've answered what schools would do with the money (according to you of course), But you seem to not want to discuss:

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?

You may want to answer only # 3, but I am keenly interested in #'s 1, 2, 4 & 5, as are a lot of people. I'm not demanding that you debate it, but I would really appreciate it if you don't have anything to say about them, then stop trying to change the subject.

Answering # 3 only gets us 20% of the answer....

Tim,
You just don't get it. But I am glad to see you are now realizing that business does not have all the answers.

Neither sadly, do you as an educator.

No one has all of the answers Arleigh, but at least I am asking the tough questions. You don't seem to attack Stanford, or the Gates Foundations when they propose to do, pretty much what I am suggesting.

Maybe you should consider me less of an enemy. Everyone wins with better public schools, but apparently you don't agree.