Some great analysis on how Governor Schwarzennegger isn't starving education of it's funding.
1 posted on
01/27/2005 9:34:26 PM PST by
AVNevis
To: calcowgirl; FairOpinion; Eric Hogue 1380 KTKZ; ElkGroveDan
McClintock PING!
BTW, would anyone have an interest in a formal McClintock PING list?
2 posted on
01/27/2005 9:35:41 PM PST by
AVNevis
(You are never too young to stand up for America)
To: AVNevis
$9,508 per pupil?
That's considerably more than it costs for a quality private education here.
Actually, it's WAY more.
4 posted on
01/27/2005 9:40:02 PM PST by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: AVNevis
or a total of $285,240 per classroom
If that is starving, I'd hate to see what bloated is...
7 posted on
01/27/2005 9:44:33 PM PST by
swilhelm73
(Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger will become a vegetarian)
To: AVNevis
I thought Arnold cut spending.
To: AVNevis
State schools superintendent Jack O'Connell this week called for massive tax increases And that's okay with the good voters there??
16 posted on
01/27/2005 10:05:36 PM PST by
bill1952
("All that we do is done with an eye towards something else.")
To: AVNevis
That's $206 per pupil more than last year. That means every classroom of 30 students will receive $6,180 more next year than it did this year - or a total of $285,240 per classroom. McClintock is simply great. He cuts right to the heart of Democrat/liberal/scumbag hypocrisy.
To: AVNevis
Is there any state education association that says they are getting enough money for schools? I don't believe there is. All we ever hear is that it is not enough. They never provide a number for what is enough but always claim that whatever they are getting is not enough. Low test scores are a plus for the school system because they can claim a need for more money to raise scores. Hasn't changed scores yet but that doesn't stop the money grubbers for asking for more.
To: AVNevis
We're spending more on education than ever before and in the world of Sacspeak, a phantom cut is equated with a real spending cut! We should just hand over our wallets and starve. "Its all for the chilrun."
Denny Crane: "I want two things. First God and then Fox News."
28 posted on
01/28/2005 12:48:47 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: AVNevis
This is what I've been saying all along. Administrative overhead costs are out of control in the Cal public schools. Bump for later complete read.
29 posted on
01/28/2005 12:52:28 AM PST by
carl in alaska
(Blog blog bloggin' on heaven's door.....Kerry is a liar and rotten to the core)
To: AVNevis
Meanwhile, per pupil funding has grown 59.2 percent from $5,972 in 1995-96 to $9,508 At the same time my kids are receiving a better education with all the supplies they need at a Christian school for for $3500 a year. Their schools' test scores average 10 points above neighboring Elk Grove School District's scores.
To: AVNevis
That's only state funding. By the time you throw in lottery money, special programs for disabled learners, federal funds, and local contributions, total K-12 spending adds up to over $12,000 per child.
31 posted on
01/28/2005 8:35:21 AM PST by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
To: AVNevis
total funding for K-12 education has grown ... to $60.401 billion as proposed next year With a budget just over $100 Billion, K-12 education comprises about 60%, and that doesn't even include college-university funding. That seems too high.
$9,508 for every pupil in the California public schools
If we could reduce the number of illegal aliens in CA who fail to pay tuition* for the "free" education, we could save so much money.
* very few pupils pay tuition in CA public schools, but a finite number of nonresidents pay regularly
33 posted on
01/28/2005 6:04:33 PM PST by
heleny
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson