and spent 12 percent below the national average per pupilHow much did they spend per pupil, if you only count students who are in this Country legally?
Hello, Teachers’ Unions. It does not have to do with MORE MONEY for your retirement funds and your union thugs.
Third world people, third world results.
That’s a good question, but there are more important questions that we should be asking:
1.) How many California “students” are illegal aliens?
2.) How many of those “students” do not speak English?
3.) How much money was wasted on educating illegal aliens?
4.) Why the hell are we wasting money on the education illegal aliens?
They shouldn’t be here, nor should we be wasting resources on them. Their miserable performance on standardized tests are a major factor in why California schools are rated at the bottom of all 50 states.
Diversity is not a strength. It is a leach that is sucking this nation dry.
“...The state ranks among the worst in students per teacher and spent 12 percent below the national average per pupil even before the recession....”
Note the “metrics” used by education dullards.
I’ll bet some good teachers, some good discipline and NO UNIONS would turn out some good students.
And, liberal idiots, spending per student and quality are not two necessarily correlated qualities.
Oh, forgot, education degree. Trying to actually determine correlation would be beyond your simple uneducated minds.
Also, we know comparing by states that more education spending doesn't equal better quality. If it did, DC would be ranked #1.
Separately, private schools spend less, charter schools also often spend less as well, and both get better results.
money does not equal good schools, especially when ‘sex-ed’ starts with pre-k pornography