Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DavesM who wrote (11084)	10/6/2003 9:08:11 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Thanks, Dave. I'll take a look.

To: DavesM who wrote (11084)	10/6/2003 9:26:00 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Dave, I'm watching the Red Sox Athletics game out of one eye and the monitor with the other. Hope this makes sense. Can you tell me who StateNet is? Do they bring an agenda to these questions? As I read this report, assuming the source is a reasonable one (they claim it's from an AFT study), the following quotes leap out at me. 1. When an adjustment for cost of living is made, California is 16th. Certainly says something negative about Hassett's methodology which is where this argument started. 2. On spending per pupil, again assuming these numbers can be trusted, California ranks below the average, ranking 29th. California spends $6,816 per pupil; the national average is $7,463. Certainly says something negative about Hassett's methodology which is where this argument started. 3. There is a line to the effect that teachers' salaries are not enough to support a family in some portions of the state. There's more from this one, but that's enough. Best I can tell, the second link, from the Palm Springs paper, makes roughly the same points. If I've missed something critical, let me know.