Out of curiosity, how many illegals do you think own homes in California and are paying property taxes?
Not that I care, but how many illegals in California are renting property whose owner is paying property taxes?
Funding isn’t the issue for the CA schools - it’s the fact that we are educating far more kids than the system (budget, facilities, staff, etc.) is intended to. Throwing more money at this problem won’t solve it.
You’re kind of contradicting yourself there. You listed “budget” as your first constrained resource, and then claimed increasing the budget won’t solve it. By definition an increased budget solves a budget constraint. Money also solves facility constraints and staff shortages.
I’m not saying “more money” is an appropriate solution, just pointing out the inconsistency.
Your second premise, I suspect, is correct. Except maybe the property tax part.
Yes, I can see your point about the apparent contradiction. However, the budget is predicated on a headcount and when the headcount has a large variable - like illegals - then it’s really hard to plan for that. Same would be true for facilities. That was the point I was trying to make. If you don’t know how many kids you are going to have show up, how do you plan (budget, facilities, staff) for it?
did you skip the part where I mentioned that illegals contribute $1.5 billion a year in taxes to the State of California?
And, it is uncommon for more than one, two or four families to share a share a single rental. Or, live in converted garages that are rented out. Or, to live in other facilities that are otherwise under the radar.
did you skip the part where I mentioned that illegals contribute $1.5 billion a year in taxes to the State of California?
No, I just didn’t care to respond to that. My main point of this thread was that our Education Commissioner has his head up his ass re school performance and what to do about it.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you had posted this:
*In related news, Gov. Christie is recommending legislation that would cap property tax (which are the main source of school funding) increases at 2.5%. Why he’s intruding in local funding issues is beyond me. And how did limiting increases work for California? *
and, for what its worth, the Christie proposal is to only limit annual increases to 2.5% - whereas, in Massachusetts it was a hard cap of 2.5% of the assessed value.
Oh, I’m sorry. I thought you had posted this:
*In related news, Gov. Christie is recommending legislation that would cap property tax (which are the main source of school funding) increases at 2.5%. Why he’s intruding in local funding issues is beyond me. And how did limiting increases work for California? *
and, for what its worth, the Christie proposal is to only limit annual increases to 2.5% - whereas, in Massachusetts it was a hard cap of 2.5% of the assessed value.
Actually, I don’t care about the taxes that illegals do or don’t pay in California, which is what seemed to gain your interest.
And the Massachusetts 2 1/2 legislation limited both property taxes to 2.5% of assessed and annual increases to 2.5%, as in Christie’s proposal. For what it’s worth.
So if it’s all about money, please explain Washington DC. Highest per student funding, horrible schools.
Throwing money at a problem will not fix it.
In Massachusetts, the total annual property tax revenue raised by a municipality shall not exceed 2.5% of the assessed value of all taxable property contained in it. Under Christie’s proposal, they are only adopting the second provision of MA 2.5, which is that the annual increase of property tax cannot exceed 2.5%, plus the amount attributable to taxes that are from new real property.
As for you not caring about California - then don’t bring it up in the context that by limiting increases you have somehow irreparably damaged the public education system. You asked the question.
In Massachusetts, the total annual property tax revenue raised by a municipality shall not exceed 2.5% of the assessed value of all taxable property contained in it. Under Christie’s proposal, they are only adopting the second provision of MA 2.5, which is that the annual increase of property tax cannot exceed 2.5%, plus the amount attributable to taxes that are from new real property.
As for you not caring about California - then don’t bring it up in the context that by limiting increases you have somehow irreparably damaged the public education system. You asked the question.
You said
and, for what its worth, the Christie proposal is to only limit annual increases to 2.5% - whereas, in Massachusetts it was a hard cap of 2.5% of the assessed value.
I replied
And the Massachusetts 2 1/2 legislation limited both property taxes to 2.5% of assessed and annual increases to 2.5%, as in Christie’s proposal. For what it’s worth.
I guess you didn’t understand that “as in” referred to the latter part (the annual increases) that you left out of your original statement of what Mass. was doing. Sorry for the confusion.
As for California: I don’t care what their issues are with their financing of education. Whether it’s illegal immigrants sucking up resources or the cap on property tax increases, it’s still a funding issue. I didn’t say I don’t care about California: I said I don’t care about whether illegal immigrants are the root problem. By enforcing a cap on increases they eliminate the possibility of adequately funding their schools no matter what the reason for the shortfall.
I don’t know how to copy/paste the graph from this article in the WSJ, but it seems like math scores have remained pretty constant over the past 15 years or so.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125552998655384945.html. I think I recall seeing a similar graph of the massive increase in spending over the same time period, especially in NJ … something like a 25% increase. So, if you’ve increased spending by 25% and test scores have remained basically constant, then what? Is it reasonable to consider paying teachers less? If you can get an equivalent education from the local private school for half the money, then what? vouchers? I think these things are reasonable considerations.
In the WSJ article, there’s also a comparison of where US math scores compre to other countries. I gotta think the US is spending waaayyyy more per student than anywhere in the world, even on a relative basis. Teachers make a ton of money and they are evaluated on the dumbest possible measure … perserverance.
In related news, Gov. Christie is recommending legislation that would cap property tax (which are the main source of school funding) increases at 2.5%. Why he’s intruding in local funding issues is beyond me…
Maybe because everybody in the New York/New Jersey region is going to see The Cartel.
Here are the historical NAEP math scores for NJ for 8th graders:
1990: 270
1992: 272
2003: 281
2005: 284
2007: 289
2009: 293
and for 4th graders:
1990: 227
1992: 227
2003: 239
2005: 244
2007: 249
2009: 247
You were saying about math scores remaining basically constant?
Edit:
My math teacher wife did the calculations on the numbers I found online and determined that, from 1999 to 2007, spending per pupil in NJ went up an average of 5% per year.