Making College More Affordable (and Less PC)

Outside of the 50 or so top schools, American higher education is troubled. This is especially true as tuition soars and students receive diplomas of questionable value. In 2014, for example, the average bill at a private college for tuition plus room and board was $42,419; at a public school the tab was $18,943. And the long-term trend is for even larger increases. Meanwhile, in 2013 students typically graduated with $28,400 in debt they can scarcely pay back while many have difficulty finding decent jobs thanks to “expertise” in gender studies and similar empty calorie majors.  

Fear not, however, Hillary Clinton has a rescue plan. The gist of her solution is a $350 billion ten year infusion of federal funds for both public universities and students struggling to pay off loans (they could only re-finance the loans). About $175 billion would go to states to free students from having to borrow to finance their education. In exchange for the infusion, recipient states would be obligated to boost their higher ed spending and (somehow) slow the rate of tuition increases. Funding would come from capping the value of itemized tax deductions of the wealthy. Tougher rules would be imposed on for-profit institutions while schools that serve low-income and minority students would receive financial assistance. Lastly, there would be greater transparency regarding graduation rates. All and all, open the flood gates for ever more college education, though the value of the degree is increasingly being questioned.

This plan is doomed even if Hillary is elected. It fails to address the meager employment prospects of many of today’s graduates and it is hard to imagine Republicans in Congress voting for a tax-the-rich scheme that so obviously rewards a major Democratic constituency. Hillary is just pandering and ineptly so.

But the good news is that many of the cost problems bedeviling our colleges are reversible if there is sufficient political will.

Let’s start with soaring tuition. This cannot be fixed by handing out yet more Washington subsidies. After all, tuition has climbed as federal funds to college students similarly climbed. A far better solution is to cut tuition cost and this is hardly rocket science; hundreds of profitable corporations regularly slash costs and these lessons can be applied to universities.

Think of students as consumers over-charged for a shoddy degree. Fortunately, such excesses have long been covered by consumer protection laws. Just as the government now regulates telecommunication fees, it should enact legislation requiring schools to disaggregate their services so financially hard-pressed students, like Verizon customers, can buy a barebones “education only” plans. Outside cost accountants can determine the price of this “academic only” option and thus free students from forcibly subsidizing dormitory housing, meal plans, recreational facilities, activity fees (including expensive speaker fees), healthcare, and all of today’s university mandated social engineering (e.g., mandated workshops on the joys of diversity). My guess is that few students want these imposed frills and left to their own, would save thousands per year while the PC infrastructure would go into the dustbin of history.  

Then schools should be required to hire an experienced corporate cost cutter (see here) and perhaps pay them a commission for eliminating waste. For example, many schools supply expensive remedial education to their troubled admittees. What about requiring youngsters pay for their previous sloth but now permit outside firms to bid on these services? So, rather than State U tutoring semi-literate John, he will buy his literacy lessons via the Internet from a low-cost private provider (and out-of-pocket payments might even motivate him to learn). Meanwhile, students would no longer be required to buy expensive dead tree textbooks thanks to having all books available as e-books (schools might have to subsidize publisher royalties but think of the money saved by scaling back college bookstores). A once $75 chemistry book could now go for $5. Actually, this is already happening and many books are free. Similarly, the school’s library can be drastically slimmed down by developing networks for costly reference books, specialized research librarians and Google Books.

What about giving students first crack at campus jobs? Surely they can mow lawns or flip burgers. Berea College has long used this no-brainer policy and students pay zero tuition.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

[EDITORIALS] Collection of recent Oklahoma editorials

The Journal Record, Oklahoma City, Aug. 18 - The last wave of Oklahoma students returns to classrooms this week. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, most of them live in a dual-income household with married parents. About 90 percent of married fathers are in the workforce, as are 74.7 percent of married mothers with children between the ages of 6 and 17. The days of one parent waiting for the school bus with a platter of warm cookies and a cold glass of milk - wherever that might have happened - are gone.

Great thinkers have pondered the problems of one calendar for students and an entirely different calendar for workers. Such contemplation gave rise to year-round school calendars that provide the standard 180 instructional days and spread breaks throughout the year, many on a 45-on, 15-off cycle. It also gave rise to all-day schools, where students may attend from 7:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., with late-afternoon classes available in subjects such as music, athletics and cooking, as well as remedial academic tutoring. Proponents contend low-income students spend all that free time on street corners with nothing but trouble for entertainment.

Those in favor cite better academic achievement, especially among underprivileged children. Some of the studies have shown that students from low-income families lose a lot of academic ground in the summertime; students from higher-income families who are more likely to spend their summers at private camps and completing reading challenges do not.

Other scholars decry modified school schedules, arguing that longer days and shorter breaks rob children of their childhoods. They contend that the traditional school calendar fosters valuable learning outside the classroom, providing time for parents to choose their own activities and allow their children to interact with nonclassmates.

Opponents to modified school schedules make one other intriguing claim: The business community would suffer if there wasn’t a pool of cheap, teenaged labor available to fill seasonal jobs.

There is another approach. The traditional school calendar doesn’t work today, and schools should continue to explore alternatives. But they should collaborate with the business community, which should be willing to evaluate work schedules, too. America is not a land of family-friendly workplaces, despite the occasional Silicon Valley outlier, and Oklahoma is no exception.

If Oklahoma’s school and business leaders worked together, we are confident they could devise a coordinated schedule that would result in well-cared-for, educated children and happy, motivated employees who weren’t constantly struggling to coordinate their children’s schedules with their own.

___

The Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, Aug. 18 - A judge’s decision declaring an abortion-drug law a “special law” in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution certainly disappointed those opposed to abortion on demand. But the ruling’s implications may extend further, even to the point of hindering efforts to combat drug addiction.

Last week, Oklahoma County District Judge Patricia Parrish overturned a state law regulating use of some abortion drugs. The law required that abortion drugs be administered in accordance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration label instructions. Many of those drugs are now provided in ways that don’t comply with those guidelines. Since the law applied specifically to abortion-inducing drugs, Parrish ruled it amounted to an unconstitutional “special law,” citing a prior decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court.

This raises questions that extend well beyond abortion regulation. If the Legislature cannot pass laws that restrict the use of specific drugs under certain circumstances, then does that leave other similar laws subject to successful legal challenge?

One example that springs to mind is a law requiring that all pseudoephedrine products be placed behind the counter. That law imposes strict limits on the amount of pseudoephedrine an individual may purchase in a month, and requires tracking of purchasers.

That law treats similar medicines and customers in decidedly different fashion. Nonprescription allergy medicine without pseudoephedrine can be purchased with little difficulty. But that same consumer must jump through several hurdles to buy a nonprescription allergy medicine containing pseudoephedrine. Both products treat the same problem. Both may provide the same benefit to the same customer. But the two products are treated very differently under state law. Does this

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA: Tough Education Reform, not More Borrowing and Spending, is What Students Need

Last week the California Policy Center published a major new study that compiled, in exhaustive detail, both the amount that Californians have borrowed to finance public school construction and upgrades, as well as documented the abuses that have diminished the return on these substantial investments. Californians simply don’t realize how much borrowing is going on.

In 2001, voters passed Prop. 39, which lowered the threshold for passage of a school bond from 66 percent to 55 percent. Prior to the passage of Prop. 39, only 42 percent of school bond proposals would pass – since then, 88 percent of them pass. The scale of this borrowing is amazing: Since 2001, Californians have approved 911 local school bond measures totaling $110.4 billion. In addition to local bonds, voters approved three state measures which added another $38.8 billion.

If the proceeds of these bonds were being spent efficiently, on worthy projects, under repayment terms that were fair and appropriate, there would not be an issue. But they’re not. Thanks to costly project labor agreements, environmentalist lawsuits, and a shocking lack of public oversight, school construction projects – along with all public infrastructure projects – cost far more than they should.

When considering what projects might be considered worthy, at whatever cost, one of the biggest reasons cited for local bond proposals is to fund “deferred maintenance.” For examples of this, view the summary of the2014 Local Elections provided by CalTax (scroll down to “Bond, School”), and read the “description” column. “Upgrade and repair,” “modernize and upgrade,” “fix leaky roofs,” “make safety repairs,” “repair outdated heating and ventilation systems,” etc., etc. But why can’t maintenance work come out of existing budgets? For that matter, why wasn’t the work done using funds from earlier rounds of local school bond proceeds, instead of deferred?

This is not a rhetorical question. California’s K-12 student population has been stable for nearly 20 years. At6.2 million students, it has actually declined slightly. Meanwhile, over the past 14 years, $146 billion has been borrowed and spent to maintain and improve schools for these 6.2 million students.

That’s $10.4 billion in construction spending every year, which based on 30 students per classroom, equates to approximately $50,000 per classroom, per year. Could you maintain one classroom and that classroom’s share of common facilities if you had $50,000 to spend, year after year?

How much is enough? Since 2001, construction bond proceeds have poured $700,000 into every K-12 classroom in California. Why do the roofs still leak?

When it comes to the terms of this debt, the story gets even worse, because these bonds are complex financial instruments with ample room for “gotchas” that harm taxpayers. One of the worst examples of this are so-called “capital appreciation bonds,” which don’t require any payments for 10-20 years, then demand massive sums of principal and interest payments, long after the original promoters have retired, and often after the improvements and upgrades have worn out again.

It is relevant to discuss California’s $146 billion in school bond debt in the context of all California’s state and local debt. A few years ago the California Policy Center attempted tabulate it, including unfunded liabilities for pensions and retirement health care for state and local government employees. Those findings, using a 5.5 percent discount rate to estimate pension liabilities, and using our updated amount for school bonds, come in at $976 billion. That’s $76,250 of debt per household. Just interest payments on this debt, at 5 percent per year, come out to $3,812 per household per year.

The topic of school bond debt is vast and complicated, which is one reason why there is rarely meaningful public debate. The California Policy Center’s complete study on California’s school bond debt, including appendices, came in at 361 pages (view PDF), and took a team of researchers lead by policy analyst Kevin Dayton nearly a year to write. Here are key recommendations from that report:

• Provide adequate and effective oversight and accountability for bond measures.
• Enable voters to make a reasonably informed decision on bond measures.
• Eliminate or mitigate conflicts of interest in contracting related to bond measures.
• Reduce inappropriate, excessive or unnecessary spending of bond proceeds.
• Improve understanding of bond measures through public education campaigns.

And here are a few additional recommendations:

• Make construction bond proposals contingent on enforcing the Vergara ruling – making it possible to fire bad teachers, changing layoff and retention criteria from seniority to merit, and extending the time period required to acquire tenure.
• Hold teachers accountable for the academic progress of their students, and prohibit construction bond proposals for any school districts in violation of the state’s teacher evaluation law, the Stull Act.
• Reduce the number of administrators and support staff, increasing the proportion of public education employees who actually teach in classrooms. This will result in a proportionate reduction in support facilities, at the same time as it frees up budgeted funds to be used to perform deferred maintenance.

The reason Californians have borrowed $146 billion in recent years for school construction is because Californians believe there is nothing more important than educating children. That’s a noble sentiment. It’s why Prop. 39 passed back in 2001, carving out an exception to California’s two-thirds vote requirement for new taxes. And while the process of approving and spending all this money has been riddled with corruption and excess, it would be inaccurate to say all of this money was wasted. But all the money in the world will not improve California’s educational system, if great teachers and principals aren’t given the latitude and incentives to inspire their pupils, and if poor teachers and administrators are not terminated.

Californians should reform their system of K-12 education before borrowing another dime for construction. The return-of-investment is simply far better.

*   *   *

Ed Ring is the executive director of the California Policy Center.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Massachusetts Schools Ranked Tops in Nation

If you’re sending your kids to public school this year, what kind of education are they getting? That’s the question one study set to answer as back-to-school season gears up.

And the results are music to the ears of Massachusetts parents.

WalletHub recently broke down the best and worst public school systems in the country, using its own formula to come up with a ranking for each state. The site ranks Massachusetts tops in the nation — second in “school system quality,” and first in school safety.

The study used public data available for 13 metrics, including student-teacher ratios, dropout rates and test scores. It also came up with a safety ranking based on bullying incidents, incarceration rates and a school safety survey.

While not in the top 5 in student-to-teacher ratio, SAT scores or lowest dropout rate, Massachusetts ranked highest in the nation in both reading and math scores, accounting for the commonwealth’s high overall ranking.

In addition to Massachusetts, WalletHub’s top five included Colorado, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Kentucky.

The five worst: Louisiana, Arizona, Nevada, District of Columbia and Alaska.

Massachusetts had the safest schools, with Oklahoma, New Mexico, Kentucky and Hawaii rounding out the top five. D.C. was the least safe, followed by Indiana, California, South Dakota and Colorado.

For the full results, check out the full study, which includes a breakdown of each category, here.

Via: Westford Patch

Continue Reading....

Opinion: How long do LGBT youth have to wait before school 'gets better'?

I am still wondering when it gets better. People in the media, even in government, say it gets better. Just hang in there, they say, it gets better. But for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth still in school, how long do they have to wait — before it gets better?

Ten years ago, on July 20, 2005, same-sex marriage became legal across Canada. Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage, and overnight, Canada became a tourism destination for same-sex weddings.

With that profound and historic change in legislation, Canadian lesbians and gay men finally attained rights equal to those of other Canadians. Since then, many same-sex couples have exercised their right to marry. Just like straight couples.

Many observers would say that gays and lesbians have now achieved equal rights in Canada. Like the struggle for equal rights for women, the fight for equal rights for lesbians and gay men is old news. But is this true for all LGB Canadians? What about teens still in school?

Catherine Taylor at the University of Winnipeg and Tracey Peter at the University of Manitoba have described schools as “the Land that Time Forgot” when it comes to LGB youth. They argue that while LGB adults may enjoy equal rights in Canada, younger cohorts do not.

A national survey of homophobia by Taylor and Peter under the auspices of Egale Canada, a human-rights organization, found that LGB youth were three times more likely than straight youth to report feeling depressed about school, and feeling like they didn’t belong at school.

Some would say that everyone gets bullied from time to time, and this is true. It is also true that the effects of being bullied are more severe for some. According to Egale Canada, while 7 per cent of youth attempt suicide annually, 33 per cent of LGB youth attempt suicide. The statistic is even higher for trans kids.

Has legalizing same-sex marriage made a difference in terms of discrimination based on sexual orientation? The McCreary Centre Society in Vancouver has been collecting data from British Columbia high school students since 1992, data that can begin to answer this question.

Over the last 15 years, discrimination of high school students based on sexual orientation has in fact increased, especially for those students identifying as bisexual. In other words, making same-sex marriage legal in Canada has not made things easier for LGB students.

Recent research, however, shows that having explicit anti-homophobia school policies and other measures such as gay-straight alliance clubs reduced reports of victimization and suicide attempts on the part of LGB youth.

Surprisingly, researcher Elizabeth Saewyc at the University of British Columbia’s Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre (SARAVYC), found that explicit anti-homophobia measures also protected straight students from bullying.

Anti-homophobia school policies work. LGB youth in schools with explicit policies feel safer and more connected to school. Feeling safer and more connected means these young Canadians stay in school longer and get a better education. And that’s good for Canada.

We have heard that LGBTs are always asking for “special” rights, or rights that go beyond those of other Canadians. Having the right to a safe and supported education is not a “special” right. It is the constitutional right of every Canadian.

As we remember the 10-year anniversary of the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, we should consider that not all Canadian gays and lesbians have equal rights. The most vulnerable lesbians and gays — the youth — have not yet achieved equal rights in Canada.

Canadian schools shouldn’t have to be the land that time forgot. Not for LGBT youth. Not for anybody.

Hilary Rose is an associate professor in the Department of Applied Human Sciences at Concordia University and a member of UBC’s SARAVYC research team. Her research focuses on sexual minority youth and Canadian family policy.

Via: Montreal Gazette

Continue Reading.....

Don't Give Obama More Power Over Schools

After spending most of June giving President Obama new authority to negotiate trade deals with low-wage countries in Asia, congressional Republicans are now poised to spend July giving Obama new authority over education in America's public schools. This is a big disappointment for those of us who worked hard to elect a Republican Congress last November. We expected the new Congress to take power back from the president, not give him more.

For the past 50 years, the engine of federal control over local schools has been Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. It was the first in a series of socialist laws that President Lyndon Johnson promised would lead to a "Great Society" after we won his declared "war on poverty."

Johnson's Great Society legislation was speedily enacted by a Congress in which Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than two to one (295-140 in the House and 68-32 in the Senate). Despite the trillions of dollars spent since 1965, we're no closer to achieving a Great Society; by many measures, America's education and social welfare are much worse today than when those programs were launched 50 years ago.

Republicans had an opportunity to dismantle the failed regime of federal control when they regained control of both Houses of Congress in 1994 and then elected a president in 2000. Unfortunately, George W. Bush campaigned on the slogan "Leave No Child Behind" as his signature domestic agenda item, and John Boehner, then chairman of the House Education Committee, produced a bill that rebranded the old ESEA under the new title "No Child Left Behind."

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) promised to bring all children (including all demographic minorities measured separately) to 100 percent proficiency by 2014. Of course, that didn't happen, and nearly everyone now recognizes NCLB as a complete failure.

With their current historic majority in both Houses, there's a new opportunity for Republicans to dismantle the 50-year failure of money poured into local public schools with strings attached. Unfortunately, Republicans, once again, are on the verge of just rebranding the same failed programs with new and overly optimistic slogans: the "Student Success Act" (in the House) and the "Every Child Achieves Act," ECAA, (in the Senate).

Via: Townhall

Continue Reading...

Banning the American Flag and Reconquista

A federal court has ruled that an American school student has a right to free expression -- unless that American might be threatened for that expression by others, in which case state officials have the right to quash the offending expression to appease potential aggressors. 

Which, ipso facto, means Americans have no right to free expression at all.  For if it’s not the government’s role to protect expression that is thought to be offensive by a vicious mob, what purpose does the First Amendment have?  “Safe” expression needs no protection, after all.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled upon the constitutionality of a decision by the administration at Live Oak High School in 2010.  On May 5th of that year, student Daniel Galli and his friends had the unmitigated gall to wear shirts emblazoned with that offensive symbol that we call the American flag.  Fearing that the unruly ex-denizens of another country would be infuriated at the mere sight of it on a day they hold in reverence, the vice principal asked him and his friends to turn their shirts inside out.  

May 5th, of course, is the holiday more commonly referred to as Cinco de Mayo.  And apparently, Mexican-Americans would be prone to engage in a bit of the old ultra-violence if some haughty American had the audacity to brandish the American flag in America on a day in which Mexico won a victory in a battle against the French way back when.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

ObamaCare Devastating Local Govt. And Public School Workers

Posted February 21, 2014

State And Local Officials Have Conceded That ObamaCare Has Forced Municipal Governments And Public Schools To Cut Hours Of Part-Time Employees. “Cities, counties, public schools and community colleges around the country have limited or reduced the work hours of part-time employees to avoid having to provide them with health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, state and local officials say.” (Robert Pear, “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts To Bypass Insurance Law,” The New York Times, 2/20/14)

Despite The Obama Administration’s Second Delay Of The ObamaCare Employer Mandate, The Hours Of Teachers, Prison Guards, And 911 Dispatchers Have Been Cut. “Even after the administration said this month that it would ease coverage requirements for larger employers, public employers generally said they were keeping the restrictions on work hours because their obligation to provide health insurance, starting in 2015, would be based on hours worked by employees this year. Among those whose hours have been restricted in recent months are police dispatchers, prison guards, substitute teachers, bus drivers, athletic coaches, school custodians, cafeteria workers and part-time professors.” (Robert Pear, “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts To Bypass Insurance Law,” The New York Times, 2/20/14)

• The City Of Medina, Ohio, Reduced The Hours Of Part-Time Employees From 35 Hours A Week To 29. “In Medina, Ohio, about 30 miles south of Cleveland, Mayor Dennis Hanwell said the city had lowered the limit for part-time employees to 29 hours a week, from 35. Workers’ wages were reduced accordingly, he said. ‘Our choice was to cut the hours or give them health care, and we could not afford the latter,’ Mr. Hanwell, a Republican, said. The city’s 120 part-time employees include office clerks, sanitation workers, park inspectors and police dispatchers.” (Robert Pear, “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts To Bypass Insurance Law,” The New York Times, 2/20/14)
   
• In Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, Hours Were Reduced For Part-Time Employees Such As 911 Dispatchers, Prison Guards, And Emergency Responders. “Lawrence County, in western Pennsylvania, reduced the limit for part-time employees to 28 hours a week, from 32. Dan Vogler, the Republican chairman of the county Board of Commissioners, said the cuts affected prison guards and emergency service personnel at the county’s 911 call center.” (Robert Pear, “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts To Bypass Insurance Law,” The New York Times, 2/20/14)

School Districts Across The Country Are Reducing Hours Of Part-Time Employees Because Of ObamaCare

ObamaCare Is Having “Unintended Consequences For School Systems Across The Nation,” According To A Connecticut Schools Superintendent.  “Mark D. Benigni, the superintendent of schools in Meriden, Conn., and a board member of the American Association of School Administrators, said in an interview that the new health care law was having ‘unintended consequences for school systems across the nation.’” (Robert Pear, “Public Sector Cuts Part-Time Shifts To Bypass Insurance Law,” The New York Times, 2/20/14)

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading....

CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS PREPARE FOR TRANSGENDER RIGHTS LAW

With a law that spells out the rights of transgender students in grades K-12 set to take effect in California, school districts are reviewing locker room layouts, scheduling sensitivity training for coaches, assessing who will sleep where during overnight field trips and reconsidering senior portrait dress codes.

But administrators, counselors, teachers and school board members also are watching and waiting. The law, the nation's first requiring public schools to let children use sex-segregated facilities and participate in the gender-specific activities of their choice, could end up suspended within days of its Jan. 1 launch if a referendum to repeal it qualifies for the November ballot.

To obtain a public vote on the law, passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, a coalition of conservative groups called Privacy for All Students has collected hundreds of thousands of signatures. Counties have until Jan. 8 to verify them through random spot-checking.

Depending on how many are found to be valid, the secretary of state will approve the referendum, determine that it failed or order a review of every signature.

"We don't know what's going to happen when kids come back from their holiday vacation," said Republican state Sen. Steve Knight, who voted against the law. "Are there going to be 15-year-old girls talking in the bathroom and in walks a boy? What are they going to do? Scream? Run out?"

The California School Boards Association is acting on the assumption that the law will stand and that, even if it does not, existing state and federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as year-old California Interscholastic Federation rules under which athletes may petition to play on a sports team that does not correspond with their biological sex, already compel schools to accommodate transgender students.

Via: Breitbart
Continue Reading....

California's budget outlook is the best in a decade, analyst says

TYPICAL LEFT WING MEDIA HYPE!! ALL IS NOT WELL IN THE GOLDEN STATE

SACRAMENTO -- California's finances are bouncing back after a lengthy recession, and tax revenues are primed for strong growth over the next several years, according to a report issued Wednesday by the Legislature's budget analyst.

"We now find that California’s state budget situation is even more promising than we projected one year ago," said the report from the Legislative Analyst's Office. "The state’s budgetary condition is stronger than at any point in the past decade."

The state is on track to end the current fiscal year next June with a reserve of $2.4 billion, more than twice the original estimate of $1.1 billion, thanks to higher-than-expected tax revenue, the report said. California's school funding formula is also expected to send $3.1 billion more to schools.

By 2020, state revenue could be $27.1 billion higher than the latest projections for the current fiscal year, according to the report.

Increased revenue could help cushion the state when temporary taxes under Proposition 30 expire in 2018. The analyst's office projects a $9.6-billion surplus that year.

"This helps prevent a 'cliff effect,' " the report said.

The analyst's office cautioned that surpluses are dependent on several factors, most notably continued growth in the stock market. More federal budget standoffs in Congress, like the country has experienced in the past year, could harm California's finances.

Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez (D-Los Angeles) issued a statement saying the new numbers "validate the wisdom of the fiscal actions the Legislature and governor have taken." He said he would continue pushing for a new ballot measure to help California save money in a rainy day fund, something the state has lacked in recent years.

Via: LA Times

Continue Reading....

California: Brown’s School Plan Pushes Money, Not Reform

A year ago, Gov. Jerry Brown convinced voters to pass Proposition 30 on the November 2012 ballot. It raised taxes $7 billion, with most of the money promised for K-12 schools. This year, Brown included his school-financing reform package in a trailer bill to the 2013-14 State Budget.

School financing experts are beginning to ask questions about whether Brown’s financing reforms will produce any results while holding local school districts accountable for how the money is spent.

Louis Freedberg, executive director of the EdSource school reform group, warned on Oct. 16:

“There are great expectations that the historic – and necessary – reforms of California’s outdated and opaque school financing system signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown this summer will translate into improved student performance.

“However, there are several potential weaknesses in the law that could threaten its ability to produce the results Gov. Brown has in mind. Whether these are addressed at the outset – as the law is being implemented – could determine whether this reform will succeed over the long term in improving the academic outcomes of our lowest-performing students. …

“The most  transformative dimension of the new funding system is that it provides additional funds to districts based on the number of low-income students, English learners and foster children in attendance in a district. However, there is a danger that many school districts will spend funds in a scattershot fashion, rather than targeting the funds on programs and services that are likely to produce the greatest gains in student achievement.

“The law gives little guidance as to how funds should be spent. In fact, that is one of its main purposes:  to give school districts unprecedented control over how to spend state education funds. However, a preponderance of research – in California and elsewhere – shows there is no direct relationship between how much money a district spends and students’ academic outcomes.”

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....