Credit: Alison Yin for EdSource Today

The Legislative Analyst's Office's graph shows that Gov. Brown's proposed budget would raise K-12 per student spending to $9,571, about $200 above the pre-recession level – when adjusted for inflation. The LAO notes that this number excludes any Prop. 98 funding for child care and preschool, since some of those programs have shifted in and out of Prop 98 over the last several years. It also excludes adult education in preceding years, since the new adult education program is funded out of the community colleges' appropriation in 2015-16 and is not being counted as K-12 spending.

Credit: Legislative Analyst's Office

The Legislative Analyst’s Office’s graph shows that Gov. Brown’s proposed budget would raise K-12 per-student spending to $9,571, about $200 above the pre-recession level – when adjusted for inflation. The LAO notes that this number excludes any Prop. 98 funding for child care and preschool, since some of those programs have shifted in and out of Prop. 98 over the last several years. It also excludes adult education in preceding years, since the new adult education program is funded out of the community colleges’ appropriation in 2015-16 and is not being counted as K-12 spending.

Increases in state money for K-12 schools and community colleges are projected to slow starting in two years, when temporary taxes from Proposition 30 start drying up. But for now, there’ll be buckets of money.

In the fiscal year starting July 1, schools are expected to receive $7.8 billion more than Gov. Jerry Brown had budgeted for them this year. That’s about a 12 percent increase, according to the state budget the governor announced Friday. The state cut schools disproportionately to other programs and services during the recession, and so they are entitled to a bigger share in the recovery, Brown said at a press conference.

The surge in revenue will raise what the state is obligated to spend through Proposition 98 next year for schools and community colleges to $65.7 billion. K-12 schools will get about 90 percent of the total, with the bulk of new money – $4 billion – going to the Local Control Funding Formula, a new system channeling more funding to districts with high concentrations of English learners and low-income students. It is now the primary source of schools’ operating budgets. That spending total would be an 8.7 percent increase, an average of about $670 per student more than districts got last year. The increase for schools, Brown said, “protects kids, particularly those who face the biggest barriers to success.”

But Brown, concerned about committing that much to ongoing spending, wants to use some of the new dollars for one-time uses. That will include $1.1 billion that districts will be encouraged to spend to implement the Common Core standards in math and English language arts, the new English Language Development Standards for English learners and the Next Generation Science Standards. Two years ago, the state appropriated $1.25 billion for that purpose.

Next year’s budget will also channel $750 million – $250 million in each of the next three years – for a career and technical education “incentive grant.” That money will supplement the $500 million budgeted the last two years for the Career Pathways Trust Program, which prepares students for college and careers, and will require matching money from districts, charters and county offices of education.

While Brown said that schools and community colleges deserve a bigger share of the new revenue, they are also legally entitled to it. In a rare alignment of fiscal stars, they will get nearly every dollar of the unanticipated increase in General Fund revenue this year because of the statutory requirements of Proposition 98, a funding formula for schools that voters passed in 1988. It requires that, in some high-revenue years, the state repay schools and community colleges for the Prop. 98 IOUs accumulated in poor revenue years.

This is a repayment year, and the new, higher Prop. 98 base obligation will continue to 2015-16. But the University of California and the California State University systems aren’t entitled to any of  that, since they are funded outside of Prop. 98. UC officials are threatening to raise tuition by 5 percent next year if they don’t get more than the $120 million that Brown has budgeted.

Other social and health programs will have the same problem. Nearly all additional non-Prop. 98 revenue in 2015-16 will go into a new rainy day reserve, not ongoing programs, under the terms of Proposition 2, which voters approved two months ago.

The proposed $65.7 billion generated by Prop. 98 in 2015-16 represents a 39 percent increase since 2011-12, raising per-student spending by $2,600 during that time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office calculated that the proposed average per-pupil spending will be about $200 per student above the pre-recession level of 2007-08, adjusted for inflation, although under the Local Control Funding Formula, many districts will get less (see graph, with caveats). Average per-student spending will still continue to lag behind most states. (Update: The Legislative Analyst’s Office issues an overview of the proposed state budget on Jan. 13. You can read it here.) 

Increased revenues will enable the state to pay the last $1 billion installment of the $10 billion in late payments owed to schools, known as deferrals, which compounded cash-flow headaches for many districts during the recession. However, districts will also be paying about $1 billion more in teacher and administrator pensions in 2015-16 under a deal to keep the California State Teachers Retirement System solvent. That obligation will rise to $3.1 billion per year in additional payments in 2019-20.

In two other areas, Brown had mixed news for school districts.

  • Brown’s budget summary indicated, and Michael Cohen, director of the Department of Finance, confirmed that the governor intends to end the current state program for funding school construction bonds, which has totaled $35 billion since 1998. Instead of issuing bonds and funding all districts on a first-come, first-served basis, Brown plans to scale back the state’s overall commitment and target money, on a sliding scale, to districts without the property tax base and financial resources to build schools, according to a summary of the budget (page 27). The document details his objections to the current system and says that the administration is open to discussing the new formula.
  • Brown also said the administration is open to changing the policy that places a cap on district budget reserves that the California School Boards Association has strongly objected to. Brown inserted the language, potentially limiting how much districts can keep on hand for emergencies, late in the budget process. “The administration appreciates the concerns expressed by stakeholders regarding potential caps on school district reserves and will engage in a dialogue with these groups in the coming months to protect the financial security and health of local school districts,” the budget summary stated.

Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

Expand Comments
Collapse Comments
  1. Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

    Also- Did anyone note the Statistic in Education Week’s Annual Rating on K-12 Education?

    Percentage of California students funded at or above the national average…
    For 20157.9% California ranked 42nd in the Nation

    Replies

    • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

      Sorry- pushed a wrong button

      2015 7.9%

      2014 19.5%

  2. Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

    Doctor- I have documented the lack of transparency for my District Capistrano Unified for years now. I even have Union Elected Trustees on audio tape preventing minority Trustees from making comments on the record during the Board meeting to adopt the budget. I also have an e-mail from an the Orange County Board of Education person that was assigned to sit in on the meeting to oversee the process documenting the fact that "Majority Board Members … Read More

    Doctor-

    I have documented the lack of transparency for my District Capistrano Unified for years now. I even have Union Elected Trustees on audio tape preventing minority Trustees from making comments on the record during the Board meeting to adopt the budget. I also have an e-mail from an the Orange County Board of Education person that was assigned to sit in on the meeting to oversee the process documenting the fact that “Majority Board Members blocked comments of minority board members using parlimentary maneuvers… it wasn’t pretty”.

    Sadly for students in the Capistrano Unified School District no one cares. We have cut $157 million from what was once $478 million dollar budget and the teacher salary schedule was reduced by 1.2%.

    Even more egregious was the fact that despite being told not to include new LCFF money in the 2012-2013 budget. Our District intentionally delayed teacher contract negotiations so that new LCFF money could be added to what was suppose to be a COLA only budget to trigger salary restorations from the 2010 teachers strike. SO $5.62 million of the $8.24 million our District received in new LCFF money went to salary restoration – then students received 3 furlough days.

    It is absolutely disgusting that anyone at the top of Public education would allow this blatant disregard for the law and students rights to continue.

    If you want to see the Orange County Department of education e-mail it can be viewed here:

    http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2014/12/june-27-2012-internal-e-mail-from.html

    Replies

    • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

      Dawn, FWIW, I think you are fighting a losing battle that is only going to wear you down and make you bitter. It is easier to fight City Hall than to fight a school district. You would have to either have board members committed to change or a legal ruling that would force their hand. From what you've said there are so many issues there's no one solution. At the same time, many … Read More

      Dawn, FWIW, I think you are fighting a losing battle that is only going to wear you down and make you bitter. It is easier to fight City Hall than to fight a school district. You would have to either have board members committed to change or a legal ruling that would force their hand. From what you’ve said there are so many issues there’s no one solution. At the same time, many of those issues are not unique to CUSD. If anything, with local control the possibility of any state intervention has gone out the window, but even before there was little the CDE ever did when districts violated Ed Code. Walk away or put your energy into forming some kind of parent/community interest group that could divide the work and exert influence at the poles. Or you could focus on getting the local media to write about the shenanigans ay CUSD. I respect the work you have done so far and it isn’t easy to give that up. All in all, CUSD is better than FUSD.

      • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

        Don – this is not just a District Issue- the way my district does business is probably done in many other places. It is a corruption of our political process – (Schools Districts advocating for thePassage of Prop 30) and if it is not stopped the quality of life for everyone will be reduced. I am not bitter- I am actually optimistic it can be changed if we ensure that laws on the books are up-held.

  3. Doctor J 1 year ago1 year ago

    Lost in the smoke and mirrors of additional funding are specific district actions to reduce or eliminate meaningful public and parent involvement in budget development which Is basically done behind closed doors only subject to Board rubber stamps after a "public hearing" on the deadline of budget adoption. Tonight the Supt will ask the Mt Diablo Board of Education to approve the 15/16 Budget Development Calendar that does NOT include meaningful public and parent … Read More

    Lost in the smoke and mirrors of additional funding are specific district actions to reduce or eliminate meaningful public and parent involvement in budget development which Is basically done behind closed doors only subject to Board rubber stamps after a “public hearing” on the deadline of budget adoption. Tonight the Supt will ask the Mt Diablo Board of Education to approve the 15/16 Budget Development Calendar that does NOT include meaningful public and parent input into the DEVELOPMENT of the budget which is all done behind closed doors. See this link. http://esb.mdusd.k12.ca.us/attachments/3e44ad90-626c-4504-9459-e4ae9478f66d.pdf

  4. Jessica Sawko 1 year ago1 year ago

    Hi John...In your article you describe the $1.1B for standards implementation as follows: "That will include $1.1 billion that districts will be encouraged to spend to implement the Common Core standards in math and English language arts, the new English Language Development Standards for English learners and the Next Generation Science Standards." What do you mean by "will be encouraged?" Does this mean they could spend it on something else? Will this funding be similar in … Read More

    Hi John…In your article you describe the $1.1B for standards implementation as follows: “That will include $1.1 billion that districts will be encouraged to spend to implement the Common Core standards in math and English language arts, the new English Language Development Standards for English learners and the Next Generation Science Standards.”

    What do you mean by “will be encouraged?” Does this mean they could spend it on something else? Will this funding be similar in “restrictions” as the $1.25B from two years ago, or more like the $400.5M we saw last year where the legislature included a recommendation that that is what the funds be used for?

    Replies

    • John Fensterwald 1 year ago1 year ago

      Good question, Jessica. The budget summary calls the appropriation "discretionary one‑time Proposition 98" money. That implies the administration will not require the accounting by districts that went with the $1.25 billion of two years ago and are free to use it as they want. Parents and teachers will need to follow the money. The Legislature may choose to add strings. If you read the full section (page 27 of the state budget summary), it looks … Read More

      Good question, Jessica. The budget summary calls the appropriation “discretionary one‑time Proposition 98” money. That implies the administration will not require the accounting by districts that went with the $1.25 billion of two years ago and are free to use it as they want. Parents and teachers will need to follow the money. The Legislature may choose to add strings.

      If you read the full section (page 27 of the state budget summary), it looks like the governor is going for a two-fer: counting this money to offset mandate obligations. Finally, it says the money should be used to “make the investments necessary to support new responsibilities required under the evolving accountability structure of the Local Control Funding Formula.” I don’t know what that means.

      • Jessica Sawko 1 year ago1 year ago

        Thanks John…that was my read on it as well. The two-fer approach is making me think it will be more like the funding last year. Throwing in costs for accountability under LCFF will only chip away at the “pot” for standards implementation. It will be interesting to see how this develops.
        As always, thank you for your great reporting!

      • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

        John, if accountability is evolving why is Brown is on record to delay changes to the LCAP that were suggested by various interest groups until after the new law plays out for a few more years? Regarding your comment that parents and teachers have to follow the money - neither have the tools to do so. Because the LCAP is not a budget document, the only way I can think of to … Read More

        John, if accountability is evolving why is Brown is on record to delay changes to the LCAP that were suggested by various interest groups until after the new law plays out for a few more years?

        Regarding your comment that parents and teachers have to follow the money – neither have the tools to do so. Because the LCAP is not a budget document, the only way I can think of to follow the money (if I had the time and resources) would be to examine every school site budget and try to piece together a district snapshot. Parents are not positioned to do in-depth research and discovery any more than teachers are. It is a sad statement on the state of accountability when verification rests on the shoulders of parent volunteers instead of the paid education professionals. Let’s call a spade a spade. There’s no real accountability.

        As mentioned in another comment, here in SFUSD there are plenty of schools that have large numbers of target students (free and reduced, ELLs and foster) which don’t get any supplemental or concentration money. Putting aside how S and C recipient schools use the funds, would it even matter to the CDE if a district chose not to meet the needs of many of the target students and chose, like they do here in SFUSD, to focus on a few schools instead?

  5. Don 1 year ago1 year ago

    John, after all the adulation given to Governor Brown for his education budget the fact remains (as you mentioned late in the article) that we are funding students on average only negligibly higher than we did two years short of a decade ago, and that's true after three years of the largest tax revenues in California's history. The picture of districts awash in "buckets of money" hardly jibes with the daily reality of … Read More

    John, after all the adulation given to Governor Brown for his education budget the fact remains (as you mentioned late in the article) that we are funding students on average only negligibly higher than we did two years short of a decade ago, and that’s true after three years of the largest tax revenues in California’s history. The picture of districts awash in “buckets of money” hardly jibes with the daily reality of class sizes bursting at the seems, wholesale shortages of counselors, librarians, nurses, and the widespread reduction of non-core art and music programs across the state.

    While the Governor is meeting the built-up obligations to districts during these good times and paying them back only what they are owed after the shakedown a few years ago, the current good economy has grown long in the tooth. It would be unrealistic to expect windfall revenues to continue unabated over the next few years.

    With so much focus on the underfunding of students, we assume that the shortage of dollars is the main obstacle to student achievement. Let me remind people that during the Great Recession, a group of some of California’s worst performing schools received a windfall influx of dollars through federal school improvement grants with little if anything to show for it. Here in SFUSD schools ultimately received about 50 million dollars over three years, yet those schools, like the vast majority of SIG-recipient schools across the nation, failed to move the achievement clock a tick forward. Even the US Department of Education came clean and acknowledged the wholesale failure of the program. So Brown can dispatch dollars to districts and let them do as they please with them, but let’s not imagine that this is going to, in itself, improve the outcome of students. He said, this “protects kids, particularly those who face the biggest barriers to success.” Providing students extra funding might be construed as protection, but that’s a long way from education. How will they ever learn if we never learn?

    And even if one agrees with the premise of LCFF’s educational theory and its formula to provide compensatory education to targeted students, there is absolutely no guarantee that a targeted student will receive even a penny of the district revenue he generates from S and C grants. SFUSD is an example of how pet programs, focused on only a few select schools to maximize results, can suck up all the compensatory dollars while ignoring the vast majority of underperforming target students across the district. And if the slick “social justice advocates” who lead our district can turn their backs on so many underperformers and still sleep well at night you can imagine how little they concern themselves with average and higher performing students. That said, all the focused and costly attention on Superintendent Zone schools has barely moved the dial. Is there a lesson to be learned?

  6. Jon Bath 1 year ago1 year ago

    Are you guys for real? This is an excellent article that gives a lot of insight into the relationship into the funding levels from prop 98, LCFF, and prop 30. Yeah I want as much funding for schools as possible as well. But we live in a democracy with lots of competing interests. If you would scan the news reports after Brown's announcement you would see that the groups that are the most disappointed in … Read More

    Are you guys for real? This is an excellent article that gives a lot of insight into the relationship into the funding levels from prop 98, LCFF, and prop 30.

    Yeah I want as much funding for schools as possible as well. But we live in a democracy with lots of competing interests. If you would scan the news reports after Brown’s announcement you would see that the groups that are the most disappointed in his budget are those work with the poor.

    There is plenty of money coming to schools right now with the change to LCFF. Lots of districts don’t even know how to spend this influx as it doesn’t have strings attached and I bet you will see a big increase in district reserves as they were not able to even deploy the new teachers and programs fast enough.

  7. Jon Bath 1 year ago1 year ago

    I wonder how the 8.7% of the new money coming to LCFF has been apportioned? Is that an 8.7% increase for each category? Base, Supplemental, Concentration. I wish there was more public understanding of what was going on as I don't think we are going to see lots of quantitative data to show the new money was well spent. But if a community really values something there should be lots of qualitative data. I am … Read More

    I wonder how the 8.7% of the new money coming to LCFF has been apportioned? Is that an 8.7% increase for each category? Base, Supplemental, Concentration. I wish there was more public understanding of what was going on as I don’t think we are going to see lots of quantitative data to show the new money was well spent. But if a community really values something there should be lots of qualitative data. I am going to miss Jerry Brown he has saved our schools.

    Replies

    • John Fensterwald 1 year ago1 year ago

      That would be 8.7 percent increase in total LCFF funding, divided among the districts based on their entitlement. The numbers of high-needs students in a district would decide how much each district gets.

    • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

      No matter how anyone chooses to "re-state" the facts- the truth is that California's new LCFF is designed to fund students at 2008 levels by 2021... meaning that the State chooses to intentionally underfund education so that excess tax money can be retained by the state to fund "other " things... rather than pay for a "basic" education for "every" student. The fact remains that there is only 2 things that the State … Read More

      No matter how anyone chooses to “re-state” the facts- the truth is that California’s new LCFF is designed to fund students at 2008 levels by 2021… meaning that the State chooses to intentionally underfund education so that excess tax money can be retained by the state to fund “other ” things… rather than pay for a “basic” education for “every” student. The fact remains that there is only 2 things that the State of California is Constitutionally obligated to pay for … education and a state militia. So to be legal… the state cannot steel money form education to fund new entitlements unless the taxpayers choose to “look the other way”… that is unconstitutional.

      What was that quote” Stupid is as stupid does?

      Jerry Brown’s master plan for those of you who are to stupid (or to busy)… is to keep tax rates where they are… to continue to underfund education ( Despite RECORD high revenues) and then to relax laws so that we can vote to tax ourselves at the local level … wake up dummies! That would be equivalent to having voters voluntarily voting to tax them selves there times for the same “educational”service. Why would any thoughtful, intelligent person vote to do that?????

      http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/

      • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

        You're 100% right! We should reduce welfare, prisons, and many other things. But the powers that be don't want the poor kids to be able to compete fairly with their kids for the few upper middle class jobs left, for then they might win? Only some will have good jobs, and the rich would prefer most kids don't have such an opportunity. Asians are proving a problem for the rich, taking their … Read More

        You’re 100% right! We should reduce welfare, prisons, and many other things. But the powers that be don’t want the poor kids to be able to compete fairly with their kids for the few upper middle class jobs left, for then they might win? Only some will have good jobs, and the rich would prefer most kids don’t have such an opportunity. Asians are proving a problem for the rich, taking their spots at UCs. The rich are loathe to hold them up as an example and encourage poor white, black and Latino kids to follow said example. They want their own kids to get those jobs by birthright and not have to work harder than other kids. If they make sure only the elite get a decent education, their kids can get it without sacrificing fun high school years. Gee, as Church Lady used to say, how convenient!

    • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

      My school receives $7,002 per student under the new LCFF with it projected to increase to $8,500 by 2021. We will not even have enough funding to pay the new CalSTRS and CalPERS contributions. If you would like to try and understand how bad it is for my District you can read the details at the link below. Jerry Brown's new funding formula intentionally underfunds wealthy suburban school districts depriving every student in the District of … Read More

      My school receives $7,002 per student under the new LCFF with it projected to increase to $8,500 by 2021. We will not even have enough funding to pay the new CalSTRS and CalPERS contributions. If you would like to try and understand how bad it is for my District you can read the details at the link below.

      Jerry Brown’s new funding formula intentionally underfunds wealthy suburban school districts depriving every student in the District of their constitutional right to an adequate education irrespective of an individual students wealth race or ethnicity.

      You will see many schools fail because of a lack of funding over the next few years.

      http://disclosurecusd.blogspot.com/2014/11/re-research-brief-toward-grand-vision.html

      • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

        I have to say Dawn, wealthy suburban districts deserve some of this. Many suburban districts initially became popular due to one of the great evils of the 20th century, white flight. Just as the end of slavery would have been fixed by 40 acres and a mule and reconstruction, the end of reconstruction kept minorities down. It was the same with busing and integration and Brown v. Topeka. Whites, instead of … Read More

        I have to say Dawn, wealthy suburban districts deserve some of this. Many suburban districts initially became popular due to one of the great evils of the 20th century, white flight. Just as the end of slavery would have been fixed by 40 acres and a mule and reconstruction, the end of reconstruction kept minorities down. It was the same with busing and integration and Brown v. Topeka. Whites, instead of embracing school integration, made private schools more popular the more back and brown kids who were around and set up exclusive suburbs with virtually no black and brown kids intentionally. If they had tried to follow the percentage of the cities that most came from and put in low income and high density housing and public housing to ensure they didn’t become segregated all white suburbs, we wouldn’t have had a lot of the segregation and inequality problems which resulted from white fight. They should have made an effort if affluent whites were fleeing to the suburb to create low income housing to ensure their suburb didn’t increase segregation, but they actually wanted segregation. Look what happened to that poor Latina girl in Orinda who was wrongfully kicked out of a school last month. If the wealthy suburbs want to complain about this, first they should all find space to put in more low income housing for minorities and more public transit to the main Cities instead of trying to be elite all upper middle class segregated spots with no poor people. Suburbs need to be a part of solving racism and inequality of opportunity and segregation and homelessness and bigger state issues too if they want to complain about funding. Do you know how many of San Francisco and Los Angeles’ homeless population originally came from Orange County and got a free bus ticket paid for by an elite suburb? Then we have to pay for them. These problems should be solved by all people, and suburbs shoved too many of the state problems onto others in the past to be righteous in complaining now. They also had a lot of proof they didn’t let minorities in before, which is why they are so segregated now.

        • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

          Floyd – Every child deserves a basic education. Why would you feel that kids today should be punished simply because they happen to live in a wealthy area. What about the poor and english language learners in wealthy Districts.

          • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

            Dawn, please just follow up in 20 years, see which kids are making more money. See if these weathy suburban kids really become victims and make below average incomes and have below average educations because of this. Somehow I will put myself out on a limb and predict the kids you are complaining about getting more money will be poorer than your kids and these kids in the suburbs and have less education … Read More

            Dawn, please just follow up in 20 years, see which kids are making more money. See if these weathy suburban kids really become victims and make below average incomes and have below average educations because of this. Somehow I will put myself out on a limb and predict the kids you are complaining about getting more money will be poorer than your kids and these kids in the suburbs and have less education on average. Call it a hunch. In my predictions, with hindsight, the kids getting more money are the ones we should be ore concerned about.

            • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

              Floyd-

              Unfortunately what you will find in 20 years (if we stay on the path we are on) is that everyone will be equally uneducated.

            • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

              My kids are getting a great education and are in the top 3% of state tests consistently and at a high school (Lowell) in the top 50-100 list in Newseek, 1st west of the Mississippi. And Don can attest, all at schools getting far less than their fair share of funding because they are deemed good schools and in SF, the money is diverted to the SZ schools (Superintendent Zone). I'm very happy … Read More

              My kids are getting a great education and are in the top 3% of state tests consistently and at a high school (Lowell) in the top 50-100 list in Newseek, 1st west of the Mississippi. And Don can attest, all at schools getting far less than their fair share of funding because they are deemed good schools and in SF, the money is diverted to the SZ schools (Superintendent Zone). I’m very happy with their education. If you took only Asians at schools that are considered bad in California and took their test scores, we’d be #1 or #2 behind Luxembourg on international comparisons. Parenting and home support is a far bigger factor than a few dollars here and there, and Don is mad about the dollars just like you. However, it is very possible to get a world class education in California at most schools. Why do you think last year’s study, ‘The Public School Advantage’, proved no advantage to private school nationwide after adjusting for income? I’m not saying most Americans are getting a great education, but I am saying with good parenting it is possible, and you will probably find most kids in wealthy suburbs in 20 years will be more educated and higher earning than these kids you are complaining about, black and Latino kids in less respected schools. They’ll probably look back on their childhood and feel they were generally fairly privileged compared to kids in East LA.

              My point about the areas which are seen as wealthy suburbs is that some of this is karma. Jerry Brown was there during this white flight trend and he is liberal and resented it. It was not a good time for the black and brown kids left behind and was a conscious attempt by whites to evade Brown v. Topeka instead of embrace it. Many whites openly stated they didn’t want their kids going to racially diverse schools in the ’60s and ’70s, some still say it now and most who don’t act like it but say something liberal sounding to seem politically correct. Historically, burgeoning suburbs made an effort to attract upper income whites and no effort to diversify and attract equal numbers of poor and minority residents to ensure schools remained diverse. They made many entirely elite and unaffordable for minorities and in addition to active discrimination by real estate agents, made no effort to include public housing to ensure the creation of their suburb did not add to racial and class segregation in the larger metropolitan areas the suburbs were a part of. This was the whole basis of the 1970 lawsuit Serrano v. California.

        • tom 1 year ago1 year ago

          You are making ridiculous arguments this time Floyd in regards to inequality. This country prides itself in equal opportunity no matter what race someone is – just look at all the highly achieving “minorities” who make the right decisions to work hard to better their situation, and insist their children do the same. Equal opportunity does not result in equal outcomes, no matter how much money the government redistributes.

    • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

      Follow the money Jon. We're hearing it will make a difference. What if it just goes to across the board raises with no change in absence policy or LIFO? Will that close the achievement gap? I doubt it, maybe theoretically it will mean slightly more people start as teachers, but most are locked into long careers so the impact is minor. They should put that money into free tutoring and … Read More

      Follow the money Jon. We’re hearing it will make a difference. What if it just goes to across the board raises with no change in absence policy or LIFO? Will that close the achievement gap? I doubt it, maybe theoretically it will mean slightly more people start as teachers, but most are locked into long careers so the impact is minor. They should put that money into free tutoring and Kumon like supplements for the poor and very poor, and motivational speeches to encourage all kids to put in the same amount of time most Asian kids put in now, 20+ hours a week with parental tutoring and a high priority placed on weekends and free time dedicated to reading and scholastics, and how that will double your income as an adult.

      We’re just getting slight raises. In 5 years no one will say this money closed the gap. None of this stuff is a game changer. If they had plans to really focus on the achievement gap between Latino/black and white and much more significantly, Asian, students, and spent the money in ways that would close that gap, I’d be excited. This money will be water under the bridge. It won’t make a difference.

      • Dawn Urbanek 1 year ago1 year ago

        Floyd- That is the same reasoning as saying the current American population should forever be apologizing for slavery 200 years ago. I don't understand why any student in California should be deprived of enough funding to have a basic education especially with all the new programs that are being set up. For you to pick winners and losers just because your children are taken care of shows no appreciation for the bigger picture. I don't think … Read More

        Floyd-

        That is the same reasoning as saying the current American population should forever be apologizing for slavery 200 years ago. I don’t understand why any student in California should be deprived of enough funding to have a basic education especially with all the new programs that are being set up. For you to pick winners and losers just because your children are taken care of shows no appreciation for the bigger picture. I don’t think any educated person (no matter what wealth or ethnicity) wants to live in a society of uneducated unemployable people. How sad that you think it is justified to steel the future of students simply because of where they happen to live.

        • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

          Dawn, who among these students is seriously underprivileged? If it is a wealthy suburb, do you think these suburbs were designed to be segregated or do you think they made an effort to increase integration? Slavery should be atoned for. Why do African Americans earn under 65% what whites earn on average? If it is due to historical racism, we need to provide opportunities and make up for past racism to … Read More

          Dawn, who among these students is seriously underprivileged? If it is a wealthy suburb, do you think these suburbs were designed to be segregated or do you think they made an effort to increase integration? Slavery should be atoned for. Why do African Americans earn under 65% what whites earn on average? If it is due to historical racism, we need to provide opportunities and make up for past racism to ensure the new generation of kids earns roughly equal salaries, on average. To do so, we need to make more of an effort to provide extra education to the former victims of slavery and and theft than the wealthy. Unfair decisions continue to be made. The wealthy control salaries, right? From 2008-2014 they decided annual salary changes. They decided 95% of the increase in GDP should go to the top 1%, and they didn’t do 95% of the work, so unfair oppression is still happening. If it isn’t historical racism, it’s genetics, or it’s effort. However, if it’s effort, we need to take responsibility for convincing underperforming minorities to work harder and provide more support, holding up examples of immigrants who do outperform white kids. If we don’t do that, we’ll continue to have a nation where whites earn 1.5 times what blacks do on average, and that should not continue much longer at all, we should fix that disparity. How? Reduce the influence of the past. Inheritance taxes, affirmative action, more spending on tutors, scholarships, educational assistance, etc. Not only that but many of the rich use private schools knowing the poor can’t afford it. If we really want to change the income difference between blacks and Latinos and whites and Asians, we can’t just do what we’ve done since 1965 because it hasn’t worked. We have to try more drastic approaches.

          What do you feel we should do? Or do you feel it is OK if 25 years from now the average black and Latino kid earns two thirds what the average white kid does, when they are in their late ’30s and ’40s? If it is not OK, what should we do to fix it? We have to create equal opportunity. Do you feel suburbs should have been more proactive in attracting poor residents of Latino and black heritage to ensure suburbanization didn’t create apartheid? What responsibility does the larger society have?

          • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

            Floyd, in a recent comment at 3:58 am you said some SF schools are getting far less than "their fair share". In your last comment you basically claim with a straight face that students in Dawn's district should make due with less to atone for racism. Dawn hasn't yet figured it out, but you're not exactly logical to say the least and your talk of social justice seems more like "not in my neighborhood". You're … Read More

            Floyd, in a recent comment at 3:58 am you said some SF schools are getting far less than “their fair share”. In your last comment you basically claim with a straight face that students in Dawn’s district should make due with less to atone for racism. Dawn hasn’t yet figured it out, but you’re not exactly logical to say the least and your talk of social justice seems more like “not in my neighborhood”. You’re taking up bandwidth with your boorish repetition and self-contradiction.

            • tom 1 year ago1 year ago

              Thank you Don for pointing out the contradictions. Floyd seems to be a good advocate for education, but I didn’t realize until now he is very confused about democracy and a free people.

            • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

              We need to do something to make up for past racism. If in 20 years, blacks are still earning far less than whites, we've failed. Not to mention Latinos. We haven't gone far enough yet to make things equal. I'm not as upset about the funding in SF as you are Don. I think we need more funding for all schools, but we really need drastic action to close the … Read More

              We need to do something to make up for past racism. If in 20 years, blacks are still earning far less than whites, we’ve failed. Not to mention Latinos. We haven’t gone far enough yet to make things equal. I’m not as upset about the funding in SF as you are Don. I think we need more funding for all schools, but we really need drastic action to close the achievement gap and we’ve barely lifted a finger. It’ll take hundreds of years to fix at this pace.

            • Don 1 year ago1 year ago

              Floyd, For Christ sakes, you spoke at length and I mean - AT LENGTH - about the $50M School Improvement Grant and the total waste that was. Was that "barely lifting finger"? And that was only a fraction of what has been spent on compensatory education yet the achievement gap is as bad as ever. As a person who speaks continuously about the need for personal effort; you of all people … Read More

              Floyd, For Christ sakes, you spoke at length and I mean – AT LENGTH – about the $50M School Improvement Grant and the total waste that was. Was that “barely lifting finger”? And that was only a fraction of what has been spent on compensatory education yet the achievement gap is as bad as ever. As a person who speaks continuously about the need for personal effort; you of all people should know that no matter how much is spent on lifting achievement, it will never rise unless the individual asserts his or her own sense of responsibility. Racism is not keeping African American students from achieving in school.

            • FloydThursby1941 1 year ago1 year ago

              Don, I agree that most of the spending has been unimaginative and ineffective. As you know I oppose seniority and LIFO. I agree most of the money in SF has been a complete waste. In fact, we may find that all of it has been. That doesn't mean we should stop trying. What I noticed was that Dawn described the district as wealthy and suburban, and I feel these communities … Read More

              Don, I agree that most of the spending has been unimaginative and ineffective. As you know I oppose seniority and LIFO. I agree most of the money in SF has been a complete waste. In fact, we may find that all of it has been. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying. What I noticed was that Dawn described the district as wealthy and suburban, and I feel these communities were built intentionally to encourage segregation and even evasion of the positive societal impact of Brown v. Topeka. As a society, we have to promote equal opportunity and equal achievement, which does include effort absolutely. But we have to ask ourselves, why do so many feel there is no point in making an effort, even in the face of many being rewarded for making said effort? What could we do to change that? Money isn’t enough, but we need a solution. It is very complicated.

        • tom 1 year ago1 year ago

          I agree Dawn that ALL kids need to have an adequate education no matter where they live! If they are in the suburbs, their family likely contributes more to the tax base. Floyd clearly is mistaken if he thinks families that work hard and flee crime-ridden urban centers, and happen to be white, should dig further into their pockets to provide low-income housing, and if they don’t it’s because they are racist! Ridiculous.

          • Gary Ravani 1 year ago1 year ago

            Tom:

            You should check out part of a paragraph in a document that asserts part of the obligation of government in this country is to “promote the general welfare.” It’s called the Preamble to the Constitution.

Template last modified: