California Voters Get An "F" On Education (Jill Stewart Slams Stupid Voters On State Budget Alert)

A recent Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that while Californians have strong opinions on what to do about public education, they have no idea what's going on. I give the public an “F” in Education.

As a wonderfully sneaky test of awareness, PPIC asked Californians in a recent survey how much of the state budget is spent on public schools. They were clueless. Only one in three knew that public education is by far the biggest item, sucking up half the budget--very roughly, $50 billion of $100 billion.

Ignorant voters insist more money pour into the schools, not knowing California spends more on schools than the entire operating budgets of each of the 49 other states, including New York.

Here’s reality: The National Education Association (NEA) and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) rank California in the middle on per-pupil-spending. We’re at the comfy median. We do not “under-fund” our schools despite our many troubles.

The PPIC poll shows how misconceptions are driven by partisanship in California. Democrats tend to believe (ridiculously) that California’s prisons get the most state money. Republicans tend to believe (absurdly) that social welfare gets the most state money.

People are ignorant in part because our crisis-driven media often lazily push the myth that California is near “the bottom” in school funding. That myth is a product of the education lobby, led by the California Teachers Association, which makes sure California teachers earn the highest salaries in the nation, yet constantly whines that schools are under-funded.

The myth was furthered in January when Rand Corp. released a just-plain-wrong study showing California wallowing near the bottom.

Rand had not returned my call by press time, but state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer notes that Rand included “all children who had excused absences” in California but didn’t attend school. The 49 other states did not inflate attendance in this way. Rand has acknowledged that by dividing spending by an inflated student count, it probably affected California’s outcome.

Eric Hanushek, at the Hoover Institution, notes, “We’re not even close to eighth from the bottom---nowhere near that. We are at or near the middle in the nation.” Frank Johnson, a respected statistician for NCES, adds, “California per pupil funding is near the middle. Some people are presenting data in a way that supports their (political) views.”

According to the NCES, California spent $7,552 per student in 2002-03. The national median was $7,574. We’re $22 short, so no wonder our kids are near the bottom in math and reading! Fresh NEA data mirrors the NCES data. Its "Rankings & Estimates" report shows that California in 2003-04 was in the exact middle, ranked at 25th, spending $7,692 per pupil.

California voters imagine themselves to be well-informed. The PPIC poll says, “72 percent believe voters should make decisions about the budget and governmental reforms rather than abdicate that responsibility to the governor and legislature … But when it comes to the budget, how much knowledge do residents bring to the table? Only 29 percent of Californians can identify the top category for state spending (K-12 education).”

Palmer, of the Department of Finance, explains: “People just do not get that when California adds billions each year to the schools---which we do---adding another $1 billion means you multiply $1 million by one thousand.”

The education lobby loves to cite a 2002-03 national average per-pupil spending of $8,041, in order to make California seem $489 behind other states. That “average” is badly distorted by three states and Washington D.C., who spent $11,057 to $12,568 per pupil---far more than any of the other 47 states.

Washington, D.C. schools spend princely sums to no effect in schools so infamously bad that National Assessment of Educational Progress tests for 2003 showed L.A. kids beating D.C. kids in English. That’s remarkable, since 43.2 percent of L.A.’s kids were struggling to learn English as a second language; only 12.5 percent of D.C. kids were struggling to learn English as their second language.

Meanwhile, New York City’s kids beat L.A. kids in English by a modest margin (yet only 17 percent of NYC kids are struggling to learn English), but the NYC “victory” in 2003 was fake since sly New York officials painted over their own achievement disaster by preventing huge numbers of low-achieving and immigrant kids from taking the test. California, to its credit, did not do that sleight of hand.

So much for the power of money to change the schools. The more typical states in 2002-03 spent 6,000 to $8,000 per child---including median California. The lowest-spending state, Utah, spent less than $5,000 per pupil to no apparent ill effect.

Recently, California’s fair-minded and non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office questioned the constant whining. “The analytic basis for pursuing the national average as a spending goal is unclear,” it said. California “should be concerned more with how its students perform.”

Quite a concept. But instead we hear again and again from the overwrought adult lobbying groups, including the intellectually corrupt CTA, an awful, “me-first” trade union that previously brought us “whole language” and “bilingual” education. Now the same bunch is insisting that “smaller class size” is the extremely costly way to fix the schools.

Studies have failed to show that kids achieve better when they’re around 20 instead of 30 students. Yet California is foolishly pouring billions into the class-size fantasy because it “sounds right.” Today, Proposition 98 guarantees that huge sums are diverted to schools each year---with no guarantee we spend it any better than do the terrible public schools in Washington, D.C. and NYC.

Even though Prop. 98 sucks up so much money that our freeways cannot be maintained and our health programs must be curtailed, California voters say education is a top-most worry---with many voters wrongly convinced that funding is the issue.

If only California voters put less energy into mere fretting about education, and more energy into actually becoming educated.

When it comes to the state budget, California has stupid voters. They think we don't spend enough. As conservative Democrat Jill Stewart points out, the number one spending item in California is education and thanks to Proposition 98, it sucks up half the $100 billion state budget each year. So in real terms, California spends more on kids than all the other 49 states combined. What voters should be asking is not whether we're spending too little but rather whether we are getting our money worth in proven results for the money we do spend on education. People who don't know what their government actually spends don't know how to make responsible budget decisions. Never mind that our freeways are falling apart and health care is being compromised. We must put our kids first no matter how much money it costs since California's electorate mistakenly thinks its not a priority. What a laugh.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Jill Stewart points out in her article Utah is the lowest spending state in the country and the kids there seem to be doing fine. Would someone please explain me the logic behind allocating half the state government budget annually to education regardless of other needs? Thanks to Prop. 98 our state government is dysfunctional and the politicians live in terror of retribution from the education lobby for not pandering to its insatiable greed. Which has nothing to do with doing it for the kids as people seem wont to believe.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

What I am concluding is that the ever-increasing dollars going to "education" in CA is going to the salaries and benefits of the employees (teachers/school administrators) and then secondly to upkeep/infrastructure, such as that is (needs improvements)...but what I'm trying to express is that it appears that the California Teachers' Union is enjoying (1.) increasing salaries by way of making society feel guilty for their trade and personal demands (2.) increasing benefits [health care which is exceedingly generous and retirement which is even moreso generous for teachers].

The CTA (also) has a huge fund available to benefit Democrats and various entertainers who Democrats consider worthy of their promotions (mostly "minorities" and "women" as issues, and they seek out individuals who they think can best promote those areas...Puffy Combs received millions of dollars from the CTA at the decision of Democrat Dianne Feinstein's investor husband, who is involved with managing/investing the CTA union dollars).

They actually just "gave" Combs last year or a few years ago millions of dollars to roam around the media and promote social issues, as they have and do with others. As if all those millions didn't originate from taxpayers in the state, while Combs drank his expensive champaigne, promoted his expensive parties and peers...all by California taxpayer funded dollars.

How the Democrats in CA can continue to plead for "human rights" and such is beyond me, since it's the quite mortal human taxpayers in the state they seem to regard as indentured servants.

And the taxpayers think the schools are still under-funded despite getting a 50% budget entitlement. No other state allocates half its general fund to education. So is all that money helping our kids learn the three Rs? Inquiring minds would like to know.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

Senator Dianne Feinstein's husband, Howard Blum... donates millions to the Brookings Institute "to fight poverty," the very same Institute that Teresa Heinz(-Kerry) is a director (and also funder) of... Blum is the guy who manages the Calfiornia Teacher's Union funds, at least to a great degree, as I understand it. Just do a Google search on Howard Blum, investor and the CTA...at least he's a reliable, responsible investor but then again, it seems that he favors investments that always benefit Democrats, ha. The issue is the union itself. Because it does not seem that they are concerned about education so much as they are concenred about education as an industry for-to-fund others (and pay lucrative health and retirement benefits to union members).

One thing that is left out of this article is the fact that although California does spend over $7,000 per student enrolled at the budget level. We rank almost dead last when you look at the money per student each school gets.
The hard cold fact is that most of the money stays in Sacramento and it spent on consultants and special interests, such as text book publishers. In reality the education budget is nothing but a pot of money the legislature uses to payback large supporters.

One thing that is left out of this article is the fact that although California does spend over $7,000 per student enrolled at the budget level. We rank almost dead last when you look at the money per student each school gets. The hard cold fact is that most of the money stays in Sacramento and it spent on consultants and special interests, such as text book publishers. In reality the education budget is nothing but a pot of money the legislature uses to payback large supporters.

Yes, that is interesting and probably a decent assessment of it.

So is all that money helping our kids learn the three Rs? Inquiring minds would like to know. It depends on where you live and your perception I guess. Having had many students move from California here (maybe 10-15 over the years), I did find them to be lower. ONE big factor was their cutoff date of December and there were other factors involved too such as immigration of non-English speakers.

I got a first grader who turned 6 at the end of November. He knew a few letters and about 2 sounds. He was not ready for first grade in any way at all, but state law said he HAD to be in first grade because he had gone to kindergarten. He had everything going against him too. His mom was divorced, his uncle was abusive physically, he had lived in four different places and gone to four different schools in one year, English was his second language, he didn't get much support at home, his real dad was in jail, and so on and so on. The first day he fell asleep. He couldn't even copy things off the board. I worked with him and worked with him and in the month and a half I had him, he did learn some things, but then before you knew it he was moving again. The poor kid never had a chance. I often wonder what happened to him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.