Hi Michelle -- thanks for responding. I dug up a few figures this evening -- some may be interesting.
$5,923 was the national average for per pupil spending in the 96/97 school year.
$5,267 was the per pupil average in Texas.
$5,260 was the per pupil average in California.
$8,000+ was spent in four states and Washington DC
$3,783 was the per pupil average in Utah.
During the reporting period, TX ranked 41st nationally in SAT scores.
High schools in Austin averaged a little more than 20 students per teacher.
The student-teacher ratio is 20 to 1 for Palo Alto H.S.
The average of all public high schools in the south bay area (both sides) is about 22 to 1.
Most school districts in the south bay are funded well above the CA average (Palo Alto Unified is currently funded at over $7,000 per pupil).
Numerous school districts in the south bay have high schools that boast average SAT scores over 1,200.
I recently moved from the western slope of El Dorado County in northern CA. The high school district there reports an average SAT score of 1,121. There are 24 teachers for each student and the per student spending is only $5,055
I could cite many more examples (some extreme in either direction) but I think CA schools can produce excellent students, at present funding levels, if two conditions exist:
One - Parents must be involved and have a bigger say than the professional education establishment.
Two - We must stop the use of our schools as a mini (not so mini) social services bureau. In CA, about 43 percent of the education money goes to teachers, a modest amount goes to facilities and an unGodly amount ends up providing transportation, food, medical care, counseling and special education programs.
There are some darn good public schools in CA and some hell-holes. FWIW, both my children attended public schools in Texas and California. They don't seem to have suffered from either experience.
Too many kids are lost by the time they show up for their first day of school. Extraordinary funding may reclaim a few of them -- not enough -- and we don't have the money.
Regarding the real estate examples you mention, I would say comparable homes in comparable neighborhoods in Austin would cost $200K+. If you can find one of those for $50K, buy it NOW. You can turn it for a huge profit. You can buy the same home in El Dorado County for Austin prices.
And don't forget the property taxes on the Texas home! Without a state income tax, they have to get the money somewhere. Guess where?
The real estate market in Silicon Valley communities is not normal -- even by CA standards. A young cousin and her husband bought their first home about 18 months ago -- a 1200 sf dump with a Saratoga address -- $370K. They've recently been getting unsolicited offers in excess of $800K.
FWIW my son and son-in-law (30ish) are teachers. Both own homes. LA and NYC. OK, I admit they both have successful wives.
Michelle, I didn't mean to pick on you last night -- I just thought you might be overstating the case. For all its faults (how's that for a pun?), I miss CA -- north and south.
All the best,
Michael |
