Ten Million Dollar Lesson: The One Opponents of Measure C Need To Quit Hiding From
Written by David Greenwald Sunday, 05 February 2012 09:06
There are good reasons to oppose Measure C, that we can go on and list in detail. If I were going to create an argument against Measure C, I would start by making the point that the school district has had a net decrease in funding every year for the last five years.
During that time, the school district has done primarily three things. First, used one-time monies to temporarily get through the school year with minimal cuts and disruptions. Second, they have cut programs, staff, and teachers. Third, they have passed parcel taxes in 2007, 2008, 2011, and now are attempting another in 2012 as well. That is four of the last six years.
What they have not done is acknowledge that state revenue for schools may never return to normal and attempt to do things a new way.
I would argue Measure C is a bandaid and that the district has had five years to figure out how to do more with less, and have failed to do so.
And while that is the strongest argument, I think, against Measure C, it runs up against a huge brick wall in the form of $10 million dollars.
That is what, we learned this week, the district is facing. The district has been running a structural deficit, caused by the fact that, even if the state keeps funding the same, the district has higher obligations due to things like step and column increases.
The district has to this date been shoring up that structural deficit with duct tape and silly string. I don't mean to mock their efforts, I mean only to illustrate how precarious those efforts have been and really out of necessity.
We have to applaud former DTA President Ingrid Salim for calling on the teachers to take concessions.
But the bigger news is really that the $3.5 million in structural debt would meet the $6.5 million in lost funding if Measure C failed, and it would be a $10 million hole that would mean massive layoffs and likely school closures, the likes of which we have never seen before.
It would all come crashing down on us.
Those are all facts. It is within these facts that we now look at the arguments that the only two public opponents of Measure C have put up against the measure. They have an editorial in the Davis Enterprise this morning.
First they continue with the absurd argument that it is a new tax - as though it mattered. What difference does it make if it is a new tax or a renewal? The vote requirements are just as high and the money paid out is the same either way.
They argue: "Renewal of Measures Q and W would mean that you would pay $1,280 ($320 per year) in four years. Measure C is more expensive, costing $1,600 over five years, and has an automatic Consumer Price Index increase built in."
I have pointed out a number of times that $1280 over four years is the same $320 per year as $1600 over five years.
The only difference is that Measures Q and Measure W anticipated the CPI increase in advance, whereas Measure C will have an automatic inflator to keep the amount in the current dollar value.
They argue: "Clearly, it is a new, more expensive, tax. With the automatic increase per year, you will not even know the amount you will pay until you get your tax bill."
Clearly, it is a "new, more expensive, tax?" Well, that is not clear. If I pay $320 this year and $329.60 next year because there was a three percent inflation, it is not clear that I'm paying more money in real terms.
It is true that we will not know what we will pay until the tax bill is issued, but it is also true that we are talking about increases of 3% or less, unless inflation skyrockets over the next five years.
They continue: "The arguments in favor of C are a list of all normal things the school board is supposed to and expected to be doing with $59 million we, the taxpayers, pay them for the education of our children."
I suspect if Measure C funded things that we would not expect a school board to be doing with $59 million, they would be the first to let us know.
On the other hand, I wonder what the school board would be doing with only $49 million next year?
They then turn to the Sacramento Bee's article that argued that Davis schools did not even place within the first 15 in the Sacramento area.
"Scores for students in Davis schools are going down. How are they asking for more money when the product they deliver is diminishing in quality?"
First of all, they are not asking for more money, they are asking for the same amount of money with this measure. And second, if Davis schools really are going down - which has not been proven to be the case by anyone - are we expecting them to improve if we take away $10 million from their operating expenses?
They continue: "The school board blames it on the state instead of taking local responsibility for its mismanagement. The superintendent's salary was $200,000 in 2010, and the salaries of the two assistants superintendents average $157,000."
Of course they do not place these figures in context. The fact is that the district actually cut the number of associate and assistant superintendents in the last five years. They do not report the typical salary for those positions. They do not report the number of positions a typical district has.
It is difficult to play a nickel and dime game, when we are dealing with $10 million.
Are they advocating we eliminate the positions of superintendent, associate superintendent, and assistant superintendent? What is their point, other than they claim the district is mismanaging their resources?
The question that they need to address is how the district can continue to provide the same level of quality education if they cut $10 million from the budget. Even if we completely eliminate the three positions they argue are overpaid, that only gets us to $500,000, a twentieth of the way there and we all know elimination of the superintendent's position is not practical and likely not legal.
They write: "The school board is using senior citizens unethically. They will exempt seniors from paying the tax but want their votes to help pass the measure, forcing the rest of homeowners to pay."
If that is their argument, the opponents need to challenge Proposition 13, which allows senior exemptions for parcel taxes. This is completely legal and it is not legal to exclude people from voting in a general election based on their tax status. So this is a non-argument.
They argue: "The school board is out of control; trustees hit us with Measure A last May, which raised the taxes by 62 percent to $520 per year. Now, trustees hit us again with Measure C."
The school board is out of control? So the trustees asked the voters to approve a two-year parcel tax last year - which the voters did. We can argue over whether or not they should have, but the fact is the voters approved it and in a democracy, when two-thirds of the people agree on anything, we tend to grant it to them.
So now the current parcel tax expires this year. The argument these two are making is that the district is out of control asking the voters to renew the existing parcel taxes? Really?
Finally no argument from Granda-Randall is complete without the undemocratic argument that has been shot down by the county clerk's office and the court.
They continue to lie to the voters: "The all-mailed ballot is an undemocratic, unconstitutional process that violates your constitutional right to vote by secret ballot." It is none of those.
They continue the discredited argument: "Once you put that envelope in the mail, you have no control. Anyone opening it has your name, address, signature and knows how you voted."
This is, in fact, completely untrue. They have no idea how you voted, because the process to verify the signature is a separate process from the opening and counting of the ballot.
They continue the lie: "During Measure A, 16,033 (97.3 percent) ballots were opened and scanned before the polls closed. This is a questionable process. Ballots are opened and counted only by the elections office staff, and there's a significant reduction in oversight to maintain the integrity of an election."
This argument has been shot down, they have been corrected, a JUDGE THREW IT OUT, arguing it was clearly false and misleading but they keep repeating the false and misleading statement - which by definition makes it a "lie."
Sorry, at this point they are lying to the voters on this argument. It has been explained over and over again that the exact same safeguards and public procedure is in place for this form of voting as exists when you cast a secret ballot. They may not like it, and they can state so, but to continually lie and mislead is really deplorable. To me that really discredits anything further that they have to say, because once they lie once, it is hard to discern truth from prevarication.
In short, the opponents of Measure C continue to make spurious claims and miss opportunities to make valid criticisms of district policy.
In the end, the voters have a choice - it is not a great choice, but they have a choice. They can choose to make the school district figure out how to educate the students in this community with $10 million less in money next year or they can agree to extend the $320 parcel tax for another five years, understanding that that figure will be adjusted upward depending on the rate of inflation over the next five years.
---David M. Greenwald reporting
There are a lot of people happy with your store, but you are against a Home Depot coming to town because they then might not be as happy with your store.
That is not true. But it is another discussion entirely, which I'd be happy to have somewhere. I am saying most parents are happy with the schools because (1) the parcel taxes keep passing and require supermajority to do so, and (2) polls indicate that overall American parents are happy with the schools their students attend. I urge parents who are unhappy with their kids' schools to get involved. School board members are approachable. More to the point, schools will work with you to get the right placement for your child, and there are many choices within DJUSD.
I think DaVinci is growing slightly slower than the rate parents and students want it to grow. It is a sign that some parents and students in Davis prefer that alternative. If most eventually preferred it, great. The district has shown willingness to change. The unions have not obstructed that (so far as I know, the teachers at DaVinci are members of DTA, but I could be wrong).
I don't think DaVinci requires supplemental spending any more. I could be wrong. Facilities costs might increase if it expands and requires more space.
I am still trying to understand exactly why you are voting against Measure C. How will reducing the funds available enhance the kind of change you say you want?
wdf1: did you ever check this link out?
http://www.hmheducation.com/fuse/index.php?
We have 1300 or so public high schools with how many teachers (many crappy) teaching the same subject? Say algebra. Why not take the best of them and video their best performance and embed the video into a robust iPad-powered curriculum with high-end graphics and interactive and context-sensitive workbooks with ongoing quizzes, games, challenges, contests for individual and group problems and endless reference libraries at the students fingertips and an online, real-time, 24x7 video chat help with real tutors. Why not project these videos as part of the lesson plan on a big screen during lecture with a "teacher" trained to use the software to facilitate and answer questions… track progress, with the same reports automatically going to the parents, and manage a team of tutors that can be college kids working to pay for their education?
Teachers spend how much time creating lesson plans, producing materials, grading papers? Use technology to help teachers focus on what they should be doing... helping the kids that need help. We could reduce the number of teachers by automating much of the trivial work they do today, and buy the technology and hire more counselors to help the kids in other areas.
With this platform, the kids can even go on vacation with their family and stay caught up. When kids are at home sick then can better stay caught up. If they fall behind, then have tools available to help them including being able to request help from a pool of low-cost, high-quality tutors (the college kids we hired to help our sons with Algebra did a much better job explaining concepts that do their teachers).
There is not an industry around that is not exploiting technology to provide better service at a lower cost. Education is not because the unions use their political power to prevent it.
Don: "I am still trying to understand exactly why you are voting against Measure C. How will reducing the funds available enhance the kind of change you say you want?"
Don, what do you think would happen if Measure C fails? What would all the parents depending on those programs start to demand?
JB: what do you think would happen if Measure C fails?
You will see programs and teachers cut, mostly from the posted pink slip list. You only have to look at other school districts to see the pattern. I could post dozens of news stories from this year and last (I used to do that). CST (California Standards Test) subjects will tend to be preserved over those subjects that don't get tested. That's why you see these things get cut. That's the tyranny of NCLB.
JB: ...with the reports that the US is treading on the bottom of the list of testing outcomes and graduation rates…
Because collectively we don't address the childhood poverty issue in this country because we're too uptight over whether some undeserving parent will get more than he/she deserves.
This was 5-6 years ago -- source for above:U.S. Government Does Little to Lessen Child Poverty Rates
wdf1: I think we circle the wagon on this topic, but how do you suggest we go about solving childhood poverty? Remember that we have been fighting the war on poverty in this country since the first European settlers arrived. We have had much higher rates of taxation, and much lower rates of taxation. We have spent trillions and approved one surge after another. However, apparently we still are not winning the war and never have.
You do of course know that Unicef has adopted a definition of poverty that is based on tagets set relative the measures of the general population. It is described as those families with income below 50% of the national median. How convenient is that for all those other envious countries out there with their economies in the tank? How wonderful is it that the US is the top donor nation helping all these other countries raise the standards of their poor? How nice is it for them to point at the US even while US poor are in the top 80% of global family income?
I'm certainly not saying that we don't have childhood poverty problems in this country. But it is disengenuous to measure it this way. Is a family with a large flat screen TV, air conditioning and cell phones in poverty?
The simplest definition of poverty is severe deprivation of any combination of the following: food, water, habitation, sanitation, health care, education, information. While I have seen strict monetary definitions, I don’t think most NGO’s would use those in assessing poverty or proposing policies for mitigation of poverty. A monetary basis is just a useful relative measure; i.e., for comparing poverty rates over time.
You solve childhood poverty by making sure children in low-income families have sufficient food, decent housing, access to low-cost health care, access to free education, and information. Fortunately, water and sanitation aren't as commonly issues in this country. Usually providing those things requires cash from the government. Schools happen to be very convenient places to provide some of them.
"I would urge them to put it on the ballot again at the earliest opportunity and fight harder to pass it, meanwhile supporting any move to eliminate the 2/3 requirement for such votes at the state level."
Ah, I see. You guys are just working to approve those local supplemental tax payments until you can secure your holy grail of a public sector money train... overturn that evil prop-13!
With all due respect, I don't think anyone chasing that dream has a clue as to the economic devastation it would cause. Talk about a wind-down. Businesses and wealthy property owners would begin to leave en masse. Property values would fall as a market adjustment to compensate for the increased tax bill. Families would lose their homes. Businesses would close. New potential property owners would be priced out of the market.
With the continued flood of moochers to this once great state, I don't doubt the potential for that liberal 2/3 vote dream to occur. I will be one of the first to leave when that happens... before the nightmare begins.
The truth is that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem
See this report by the Cato Institute on the real cost of public schools. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/h...index.html
A study of 52 California school districts by Pepperdine University showed that K-12 spending rose 21.9% from fiscal 2003-2004 to 2008-2009, outpacing state income growth and inflation.
On a per-student basis, spending jumped 25.8%, because attendance declined 3.1%. Even as budget woes hit California, per-student spending was flat at $9,875 in the latest year.
Not that all that money actually went to the students: Classroom expenditures as a share of total school spending fell to 57.8% from 59%. Less than half of school spending was for teacher salaries and benefits.
That means the billions of dollars in extra funding helped hire tens of thousands of new administrators to push papers, not grade them.
Certificated supervisors and administrators enjoyed a 28% pay hike per student over the five-year span. Pay for classified supervisors and administrators shot up 44% over that time.
General Fund spending per capita reveals a significant increase of 95.9 percent from FY 1990-91 to FY 2008-09 (an average of approximately 3.81 percent a year). In FY 1990-91 the state spent $1,350 per capita. In FY 2008-09 that number is $2,644
The number of state government employees rose 36.7 percent from FY 1990-91 to FY 2008-09 to over 356,000.
From FY 1990-91 to FY 2008- 09, General Fund K-12 education spending increased 191.5 percent (6.11 percent a year on average)—a greater rate than the overall General Fund budget grew. Higher education spending rose 107.7 percent (4.18 percent a year) during the same period.
until you can secure your holy grail of a public sector money train... overturn that evil prop-13!
You certainly make a lot of assumptions. Since you are quoting me when you leap to this conclusion, let me state that I oppose overturning Prop 13. It caused a lot of problems, but it also solved a serious problem. I would support various budget reforms, but I think they are unlikely. But I don't think local parcel taxes should be subject to a 2/3 majority vote. And I believe it would take a state vote to make that change.
"But I don't think local parcel taxes should be subject to a 2/3 majority vote. And I believe it would take a state vote to make that change."
I think you are correct. And with that state vote, what is to prevent an overturn prop-13 vote on the ballot? Maybe I am missing something here. A tax is a tax, right?
"You solve childhood poverty by making sure children in low-income families have sufficient food, decent housing, access to low-cost health care, access to free education, and information."
If it wasn't for the damn uneducated, illiterate, law-breaking, screwed-up, error-prone, lazy, drug-using, promiscuous adults… solving this problem would be so much easier. 12-22 million illegals have certainly contributed to the difficulty.
Increased transfer payments to families will not solve the problem. Never has, never will. Ask the Muslim immigrants to France how they feel about all the free stuff given to them. Last I checked they were rioting in the streets in their designer leather jackets because there were not enough jobs.
There are five things we should do:
1.Secure the border and implement immigration reform that requires first generation illegals unable to prove they can provide financially and their families to return to their country of origin and apply for legal entry.
2.Reduce taxes and regulations and enhance government programs to help with economic development. Grow the economy so there are more jobs. A growing economy provides people a ladder out of poverty. Government transfer payments (i.e., wealth redistribution) only provide a lock into poverty.
3.Reform the education system to increase graduation rates and crank out a highly-skilled, ready-to-work force.
4.Cut off direct government payments to able-bodied individuals unless they also work. Provide government assistance to connect people with jobs… including agricultural jobs that are in plentiful supply. Workfare should replace welfare.
5.Unleash the power of the free market to lower the cost of healthcare. Incentivize underserved territories with tax breaks.
JB: I'm certainly not saying that we don't have childhood poverty problems in this country. But it is disengenuous to measure it this way. Is a family with a large flat screen TV, air conditioning and cell phones in poverty?
Given that the countries being compared are strong, industrialized economies, I think we are as close to making equivalent measures as you can get. We are not comparing the U.S. to a third world country. I note that Italy, Spain, and Greece are not on the list, countries that seem to have weaker economies at present. The chart stats above are dated 2000. That suggests to me that these kinds of investments have likely benefits in the long term. I also note that several countries with the lowest effective child poverty rate are ones that perform well on the PISA test (international standardized test).
The U.S. has spent significant money on two wars and a big bank bailout. The U.S. has the capacity to address this issue.
JB: I think we circle the wagon on this topic, but how do you suggest we go about solving childhood poverty? Remember that we have been fighting the war on poverty in this country since the first European settlers arrived. We have had much higher rates of taxation, and much lower rates of taxation. We have spent trillions and approved one surge after another. However, apparently we still are not winning the war and never have.
Is this an argument to give up on the issue? Child poverty was at its lowest about 40 years ago, which coincides with the point at which we were spending the least in inflation-corrected dollars on education.
JB: With the continued flood of moochers to this once great state...
Children will nearly always be "moochers." I wouldn't use that as an excuse to avoid helping the poorer ones.
See this report by the Cato Institute on the real cost of public schools.
Non-teacher salaries are equivalent to those offered in neighboring districts. Davis administrators have taken compensation cuts, and as a percentage of total spending, admin. spending in Davis is about as low as you'd find in the area. I've also posted before the link showing that school staffing levels in California were very low compared to other states before the recent recession. But if you want to make a more effective argument on the issue of non-teacher spending in Davis, you may want to get together with the DTA leaders. Some of them make similar arguments. Don't forget that they're union folk, though, and might bite and be rabid.
Your donations to the Davis Bridge Foundation will be more effective if Measure C passes. Children served by that organization tend to benefit most from the programs funded.
JB: 1.Secure the border and implement immigration reform that requires first generation illegals unable to prove they can provide financially and their families to return to their country of origin and apply for legal entry.
On that score, Obama actually is your man. He has done more to enforce border security and regulations against hiring illegal immigrants than Bush ever did. Illegal immigration to the U.S. is down by most reports.
1. Not attainable, but not an unworthy goal. The impact on California's agriculture and economy of abruptly implementing your policy would be very severe. Fortunately, it isn't possible.
2. If reducing taxes grew the economy, the Bush tax cuts would have us in unbridled prosperity. Government transfer payments are keeping millions of people fed and housed.
3. We've been over this.
4. I believe that was the goal of welfare reform in the 1990's. Did you have something more in mind? I gather it has worked to some degree. But when there's a recession, there will be more need. How do you propose "connecting people with agricultural jobs"?
5. The free market will not lower the cost of health care.
"Is this an argument to give up on the issue? Child poverty was at its lowest about 40 years ago, which coincides with the point at which we were spending the least in inflation-corrected dollars on education."
I don't get your point here. It seems you are making a case for spending less on education... or that spending less on education correlates with lower poverty.
Personally, I think education spending has zero measurable correlation to the rate of poverty. However, I think education service quality has a very strong correlation to the rate of poverty.
Obama's record on immigration is mostly circumstancial and related to his crappy performance with the economy. Once the economy heats up again, illegals will start streaming in again. Obama and the Democrats continue to ignore their consitutional responsibility to secure the border and instead keep harping that we should implement "comprehensive immigration reform"... which translated means amnesty for millions of potential Democrat votes.
Obama's record on immigration is mostly circumstancial
Spend one minute googing it, Jeff. You're flat wrong. Here's a starting point --
Deportations: http://thehill.com/homenews/ad...portations
Border patrol: http://www.politifact.com/trut...er-agents/
I think education spending has zero measurable correlation to the rate of poverty.
Education, if I recall, was the ticket out of poverty. But apparently you don't believe there is any correlation between education spending and, um, learning, or something.
Don,
Most experts agree that the decline in the number of unauthorized immigrants is closely linked to the US recession. Studies have found that historically, recessions affect unauthorized workers disproportionately, as they are more likely to work in industries that are sensitive to business cycles, such as construction, manufacturing, and hospitality. In addition, unauthorized immigrants tend to have less secure contractual arrangements with their employers than do native-born and lawful-immigrant workers.
"Education, if I recall, was the ticket out of poverty."
I agree assuming we have an economy that is growing and producing jobs as fast as the need for them develops.
"But apparently you don't believe there is any correlation between education spending and, um, learning, or something"
There is no evidence that increased spending improves education outcomes. In the areas with the highest poverty levels and the highest education spending levels, there is no evidence that those high spending levels decrease the poverty levels.
Interesting to note that the same study you cite (http://www.migrationinformatio...cfm?ID=774) on immigration also shows that increased border security and interior enforcement had no effect (compare Arizona to Florida).
I also note that you fail to give credit to Obama for enacting stricter border policies and increasing deportations. So apparently nothing will work, and nothing he does is worthy of your praise.
There is no evidence that increased spending improves education outcomes.
Sure there is. There are lots of studies, some of which support your statement, and a lot which don't. Here is a good overview:
http://www.ascd.org/publicatio...tates.aspx
" ... can we locate strong studies, and if so, what have those studies found? Indeed, we can find such studies (see, for example, Biddle, 1997; Dolan & Schmidt, 1987; Ellinger, Wright, & Hirlinger, 1995; Elliott, 1998; Ferguson, 1991; Harter, 1999; Payne & Biddle, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1997a, 1997b). Although we do not list all of them here, the examples we cite will indicate typical findings. As a rule, such studies report that level of funding is tied to sizable net effects for student outcome."
I don't get your point here. It seems you are making a case for spending less on education... or that spending less on education correlates with lower poverty.
I probably assumed too much in that statement. I have not checked recently, but I believe that forty years ago (~1972) we were spending, proportionally, a lot more on poverty/welfare programs (i.e., "Great Society" programs). Based on what I see, education spending could probably be spent more efficiently if child poverty issues are addressed appropriately.
Personally, I think education spending has zero measurable correlation to the rate of poverty. However, I think education service quality has a very strong correlation to the rate of poverty.
I'm not sure what you mean in the first sentence, but usually the case of Washington, D.C. public schools is trotted out as an example of how high education spending hasn't produced results. But it is also worth noting that Washington, D.C. by itself has one of the highest (or highest) poverty rates in the U.S.(source). I would anticipate that the D.C. child poverty rate would be higher still.
Increase wealth distribution to the poor and you decrease some measures of poverty, but not the root causes of poverty.
Increase education spending and you increase the number, pay and benefits of employees of the education system, but you do little if anything to improve education outcomes, and hence, little if anything to improve the measures of poverty while also doing little if anything fixing the root causes of poverty.
Fixing the root causes of poverty requires education reform combined with economic growth... and public services to encourage people to work and help them find work. The only way out of poverty is a job. The only way toward higher prosperity is personal growth through education, hard work, practice, persistence, execution, risk-taking and a little luck.
The absolutely worst thing that has happened to the poor in this country in the last couple of decades has been Obama’s economic policies. Economies are cyclical. However, we have never had a jobless recovery like this one. It is all the market uncertainty injected by Obama’s policy moves and rhetoric that has dissuaded companies from hiring. Unemployment under Bush averaged about 5.5% and was 6.6% when he left office. Unemployment under Obama has averaged 9.3%. Meanwhile annual deficits have skyrocketed 4-5 times what they were under Bush.
You want to help fix poverty… vote for the Republican in 2012.
Increase education spending and you increase the number, pay and benefits of employees of the education system, but you do little if anything to improve education outcomes,
Another of your statements debunked.
Again: http://www.ascd.org/publicatio...tates.aspx
" ... can we locate strong studies, and if so, what have those studies found? Indeed, we can find such studies (see, for example, Biddle, 1997; Dolan & Schmidt, 1987; Ellinger, Wright, & Hirlinger, 1995; Elliott, 1998; Ferguson, 1991; Harter, 1999; Payne & Biddle, 1999; Wenglinsky, 1997a, 1997b). Although we do not list all of them here, the examples we cite will indicate typical findings. As a rule, such studies report that level of funding is tied to sizable net effects for student outcome."
You want to help fix poverty… vote for the Republican in 2012.
Poverty went down in the Clinton years, and up in the Bush years.
http://www.epi.org/publication...me_trends/
Increased spending on education has not resulted in improved outcomes.
Increased spending on education has not resulted in improved outcomes.
Increased spending on education has not resulted in improved outcomes.
http://www.heritage.org/resear...chievement
Maybe if I just keep repeating this fact it will eventually stick.
It won't stick, Jeff, because I've provided you with a link that reviews many, many studies and concludes otherwise.
"...can we locate strong studies, and if so, what have those studies found? Indeed, we can find such studies
(see, for example, Biddle, 1997;
Dolan & Schmidt, 1987;
Ellinger, Wright, & Hirlinger, 1995;
Elliott, 1998;
Ferguson, 1991;
Harter, 1999;
Payne & Biddle, 1999;
Wenglinsky, 1997a, 1997b).
Although we do not list all of them here, the examples we cite will indicate typical findings. As a rule, such studies report that level of funding is tied to sizable net effects for student outcome."
For the record, the article you are linking is based on studies by economists, which are discussed in the one I cite above:
"Many studies based on these models have since appeared, and most have not reported significant net effects of school funding, a fact noted by Eric Hanushek, an influential economist with conser-vative political ties. Hanushek has declared repeatedly that level of funding is not related to achievement in the real world of public education (see, for example, 1989, 1996a, 1996b)—a conclusion welcomed by those opposed to funding reform proposals.
Hanushek's claims have also attracted opposition. For example, meta-analysts Rob Greenwald, Larry Hedges, and Richard Laine have noted that the bulk of studies by economists have reported positive net effects of funding, and if one combines their findings through statistical aggregation, the resulting pooled estimates suggest sizable effects of funding (Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hedges & Greenwald, 1996; Hedges, Laine, & Greenwald, 1994). Educators and those motivated to redress inequities in funding have welcomed this conclusion, but Hanushek and others have attacked it, and the issue has remained unresolved."
The citation I provide then goes on to give a much more detailed overview.
"-analysts Rob Greenwald, Larry Hedges, and Richard Laine have noted that the bulk of studies by economists have reported positive net effects of funding, and if one combines their findings through statistical aggregation"
Translated: we found a way to push the numbers around until we got a result that made us and and our friends happy.
The should require complex statistical models. Simply look at the standard measures of outcomes and compare the costs.
Most on the left don't even debate this fact... that increased spending, in general, has not improved outcomes.
"Moreover cutting funding has a stronger negative effect than raising funding has a positive effect. You need to remember Measure C is a status quo measure - it keeps current funds in place but does not increase them in real terms."
I am looking bigger picture and into the future here. If these extra services are valuable enough for Davis to justify a supplemental tax, then they should be core services and available to all kids including those in other communities. We should be working on that problem instead of voting for temporary measures that become a pressure-relief valve for only us. So we pass Measure C and then we can breathe a big sigh of relieve while the rest of Rome burns. Bravo!... NOT!
With all due respect, I find liberal thinking on this to be so hypocritical and bass-awkwards.. Ya'll rail against unequal outcomes for adults, but support unequal opportunity for children. Don't you feel the slightest bit of guilt over the demonstration of elitism and privilege? “Hey Dixon, Hey Woodland… see us… aren’t we special?”
How would you feel with two groups – one that could afford cake and ate it in front of the group that could not afford it? I’m guessing that your egalitarian senses would start firing and you would demand that the cake be shared equally among all people. We are hearing that word "fair" all the time now... Obama said it more times in his last State of the Union speech than any President before. Now here we are with the cake representing something much, much more profoundly important (the lives of children), and you and Don and wdf1 seem to be saying “get your own damn cake (supplemental funding)” to the rest of the state. Obama buys the cake of private school for his kids, while demolishing a taste of cake that was a DC schools lottery voucher system that offered the same private school education for hundreds of underprivilaged kids.
I say earn your real cake and eat your real cake… but for the metaphorical cake of public education services, make sure that every single child is provided a robust and level playing field of opportunity.
If this is our ideological difference, then it again confirms my pride to be a conservative Republican.
We are waiting for Superman, and the left is Kryptonite.
And just to repeat:
"Increased spending on education has not resulted in improved outcomes."
Debunked.
Weak rejoinder: you don't believe statistics.
Followup: those you disagree with are hypocrites. And you change the subject.
Conclusion: you oppose the school tax for purely ideological reasons. The rationales you have given have not held up. Now you have just resorted to name-calling. And your ultimate goal is to do so much damage to public school funding that people will rise up in protest and demand some amorphous "reforms" (even though the "reforms" you call for are already present in DJUSD) or seek privatization.
"Don't call me a hypocrite"
Sorry Don. I should not call people names.
You can't afford to pay for a parcel tax for all the communities in California that cannot afford it, so that was a silly response. Also, you have not advocated this before, so your call current to arms is too late and too weak to be counted.
Since you support unequal education services (let's call it an education service wealth gap), do I understand that you also do not have any problem with a growing gap between the rich and the poor?
You have not debunked a thing. There are multitudes of studies and data proving without a doubt that higher education spending does not improve outcomes. If money were the solution, we would have already solved the problem.
You troll the Internet and find one study/article that fits your template and then claim debunking. You can put in all the subjective controls you can create until your face turns blue to get the statistics to match your worldview. For example, wdf1 likes to point out poverty as a factor. Other "scientists" point to things like homogeneity of the population (note it is always telling when the same argument is not used when using countries like Norway as the supposed education model we should follow).
The issue is much simpler. We are a nation that is what it is, and our education system, despite increases in costs that far exceed inflation, is doing a worse job and providing fewer services than it has. Davis may shine by comparison, but so does a piece of coal next to a pile of soot. We have other examples like DC where double and triple the spending has not made a measurable difference.
I will give you this... if California would spend $20,000 per student on K-12 education, I would expect outcomes to improve. But we would receive pennies on the dollar improvements and a huge cost to cuts in other service and tax increases that cause wealth and jobs to flee the state. The education establishment is a beast that cannot change and will not change fast enough and profoundly enough to meet our growing needs.
At one point it was a supplemental tax, now it's a core tax. You are looking at 10 million cut - those are not going to be supplemental programs.
Then it is a supplemental tax for core education services... an even bigger problem since so many will walk on egg shells every four years we have to renew this damn thing.
Note Don how the water works foes used the fear of this tax vote to help their cause?
There is a lack of positive correlation between spending and results. you can find a tidbit here and there, but not enough evidence to correlate the two... by a long shot. Like I wrote, we could certainly
BTW... why are PISA 10th grade reading scores for Hispanic students in America in the same neighborhood as those in Mexico, despite the fact that the USA spends four times as much per pupil?
There is an example of negative correlation between spending and results.
JB: BTW... why are PISA 10th grade reading scores for Hispanic students in America in the same neighborhood as those in Mexico, despite the fact that the USA spends four times as much per pupil?
Sorry, I don't know the context for the PISA discussion, but where's the link?
Wasn't the PISA test in Mexico given in Spanish and the U.S. test given in English? How well do you think you would do if you took a PISA test in Spanish?
Most Mexican immigrants to the U.S. were poor in Mexico. You'd have to be poor in Mexico to make immigrating to the U.S. (illegal or otherwise) worth all the risk. If you're middle or upper class in Mexico, it's mostly not worth it to immigrate up here.
So if Hispanic U.S. students score about the same as Mexican students, I guess I'd figure that might be right.
JB: Since 1978 when I graduated high school, total public school education inflation-adjusted spending has increased by 31% (NEA-confirmed). Yet, the services and service levels have declined. Graduation rates are lower. The measure of US education outcomes compared to other industrialized countries has fallen. I had a long list of electives that I could take that are no longer offered at most high schools.
When you were in school (in California, right??), the local school board had far more control over revenues to the schools, and with that more stake in determining what kind of local schools they wanted. When Prop. 13 passed, shortly after you graduated, all that changed. The state stepped in to supplement lost revenue from rolling back property taxes, and the state has been calling the shots ever since. You want to vote against Measure C because you want to keep supporting that kind of model?
JB: We are waiting for Superman...
We are "waiting for Superman" if we wait for the state to fix our problems. Superman ain't coming.
Most people I know tend to operate on a rule that "charity begins at home". I will take care of myself and my family first, then my neighbors and then people I don't know, etc. You seem to work by a different principle.
