I wonder where they would be, fiscally, without the children of illegals.
Best guess: From 1885 to 1950 Hispanic surnames were a relatively stable 15% of California's population. Today, over 50% of the births and almost 40% of California's K-12 school population have Hispanic surnames. An educated guess would be that about 1/3 of school age children in California can trace their heritage to illegal immigration. Based on today's education budget, that equates to a savings of about $20B (that's Billion with a B) annually.
In light of these numbers, the $1B reduction proposed hardly seems fair.
How about the payouts to teacher-molested kindergarteners—among other school children—I've been reading about at FR. Some settlements have been described as "hefty".
Those are becoming the equivalent of payouts by the RC church, but are paid for by even deeper pockets—from taxpayers. Monies intended "for education".
BTW, RobinOfKingston: Clinton is presently touring Wolfeboro, NH, summer home of Mitt Romney.
He will be passing the real estate signs of an agent named "Robin Kingston"!
“I wonder where they would be, fiscally, without the children of illegals.”
They would still be in the same mess even without illegals. These teachers and their unions and school administrators have a long list of wants that have nothing to do with the child’s education, i.e. health programs, food programs, special ed classes. The list goes on. Just last week a study was released of how our students stack up against students from 30 other countries. We were 21 overall and 25th on math. The study did say our students do feel good about themselves.
Kicking the illegals out of the classroom would reduce the "average daily attendance" numbers. That's how the school gets paid. That would reduce the number of teachers and classrooms needed. The teacher's union wouldn't stand for anything that would reduce the number of jobs available. The only thing acceptable to the schools is another tax increase.