....I don't know how old you are, but if you think the younger generation has much sympathy for the older folks who consistently pass laws for themselves like social security, prescription drug entitlements and proposition 13 you are sadly mistaken....
Maybe what you should be doing is getting these poor unfortunate youths off there butts and vote.
Now about schools, more money isn't the answer. I'm going to paste a post below from Geof Hollingsworth an SI member that I found interesting regarding prop13 and California's school system. As I recall Mr. Hollingsworth is a professor at the University of Berkley. end
Paste:
Prop. 13 has had little or nothing to do with school quality. Real Estate taxes in CA don’t go to the local school district, but rather to the State which then distributes that money along with other state revenues across all potential uses. There is a requirement that a minimum percentage of the revenues be allocated to education, so it might seem that at the margin an extra dollar of tax revenue would lead to a few cents of extra education spending. In fact it often doesn't work out that way since they get to count non-classroom spending and the spending on the community college system. The failure in our schools is not related to spending. Let me re-phrase that-our problems will not be solved just by allowing the current system to spend more money. Like most parents, I have my thoughts on what needs to be done before more money will help (informed also in my case by coming from a family of teachers). Those of you interested only in Real Estate should be reaching for that “next” button right about now….
I believe there is a direct correlation between the quality of a school and the degree of local control of the school. In California we have completely inverted that, with all control vested primarily at the two competing state bureaucracies and their complicit county boards. They have created long lists of “you must always” and “you must never” ‘s, all aimed primarily at the needs and requirements of the eductaion industry (teachers unions, special interest groups, textbook and supply vendors, contractors, and the largest districts). As a result, less that half of the money spent in K-12 in California ever reaches the classroom, with most of the money spend either writing the rules or filling out the reports proving that the local district is in compliance with them. Here is my solution:
1. The California Education Code should be legislatively fixed for all time at 250 pages of 10-point type (by reference, there were 13 volumes the last time I checked, running well over 2000 pages). The focus should be on what students should know, not on how teachers should teach. They can put anything they want in there, but when they reach 250 pages, any further additions have to be accompanied by something being removed.
2. Fix the number of State Education staffers at 100, including consultants.
3. Eliminate the county boards completely-they serve no purpose other than obfuscation and paper-shuffling, driving up costs and driving down flexibility.
4. All remaining power is vested in the local elected boards, subject to oversight by the state on how the local schools are doing in meeting the “what do students know” objective. A majority of the local board has to be composed of individuals who will have or have had school-aged children in the district within the prior 3 years.
5. Eliminate tenure which serves only to keep poorly-performing teachers from having to confront their inadequacies.
6. Simplify credentialling so that anyone with a relevant degree able to pass a relevant exam and background check can get a provision credential, converted to a permanent one after a certain period based on how they perform in the classroom. Private schools have very few teachers with credentials, but the Physics teacher probably majored in Physics at Berkeley. To suggest that he is not “qualified” to teach in comparison to someone in the public system with a BA degree from Upper Overshoe is ludicrous.
7. Institute a big chunk of teacher’s salary which is merit-based, and related to how their students are doing on the “what should students know” criteria. I would like to see the best teachers earning enough from teaching to be able to live in the communities where they teach, which in our area means certainly in excess of $100K/year. Top teachers should earn as much or more than their Principals, and top Principals should make as much as their district superintendent.
I think there is enough money going in the top to be able to pay teachers well if we could just keep the money from being siphoned off before it gets to them. And think of all of the Real Estate which would become available for multi-tennant housing once those state and county staffers (and their consultant hangers-on) vacate their offices (obligatory RE content). If I am wrong and it takes more money, after the above are put in place I will be happy to pay it! |
