Now that California’s education budget is sliding toward the abyss, a local activist asks WWFDRD? What would FDR do?
***********************************************************************
According to Friday’s San Francisco Chronicle, 10,000 California teachers expect to get pink slips in their mail boxes in the next couple of days warning of layoffs due to the governor’s pending budget cuts that include 10 percent whacked off the state’s education budget.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell painted an even darker picture on Friday by saying that when librarians and other educational support staff are added in, the layoff warnings sent this past Saturday total 20,000.
(Yep. You read right: twenty thousand.)
In Los Angeles, LAUSD’s Sup of Ed, Admiral David Brewer, has promised not to layoff certificated teachers if at all possible, but has sent out layoff notices to 3,000 administrative staff members. (Yeah, we’ve got a bloated administration at Los Angeles Unified but what do you want to bet that it wasn’t the upper level, highly paid folks getting the old heave ho, that it was instead the school psychologists and the college counselors.)
Special ed, music, arts, athletics, library, AP classes, tech classes….and anything else considered an “extra” is likely to take a hit said O’Connell on Friday.
Governor Arnold said that he hoped layoffs would be carried out only under a “worst-case scenario.” In other words, the 20,000 educators getting the layoff warnings, don’t know whether or not they’re really going to lose their jobs. Maybe, yes, maybe no.
Of course, unless the Republicans in the California State legislature agree to raise taxes, the worst case scenario is precisely what will occur this June.
Arnold made the “wost case” remark when he was in Santa Monica on Friday announcing the results of…..and I am not kidding about this….his Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence Report, a study three years in the making that suggests ways to fix California’s troubled schools.
The report calls for, among other things, an additional $10 billion for education. Instead, our state’s schools have been handed a 4.4 billion dollar cut.
That’s a $14.4 billion discrepancy between what our schools actually need in order to gradually bring them out of the basement of the nation in terms of test scores and graduation rates—and what they’re going to get.
Local education activist, Scott Folsom (who puts out the newsletter and blog 4LAKids) has reacted to California’s latest education agonies and ironies by asking what Franklin Delano Roosevelt would do if faced with our budget shortfalls.
Folsom’s imagined answer is after the jump:
In the Year of Education, education is to be saved by decimating it.
The long awaited Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence Report – itself based on the twenty odd volumes of the “Getting Down to Facts” reports released exactly one year ago Saturday – was finally released to absolutely no fanfare this week. The results of three years of hard work by the best and brightest thinkers became an afterthought handout at a luncheon in Santa Monica honoring a member of the committee who passed away in the interim between the writing of the report and its release — an event that was supposed to kick off the governor’s “Year of Education”.
A year, like last year’s “Year of Health Care Reform”, that is not to be.
In politics as in comedy, everything is timing. And with the state $14 billion in the red in the governor’s opinion the time isn’t right to release study that calls for an additional $10 billion for education.
• Especially as the governor has already called for $4.4 billion in cuts to education.
• And the governor’s party; a minority party controls the legislature[!] has pledged to NEVER raise taxes.
Seventy-five years ago this week Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke to the people of the United States in his first Fireside Chat. The nation in March ’33 was in dire financial peril; there was danger that banks across the nation would be forced to close.
Roosevelt said that the role of the government was not to slash services but to act. He proposed that government and the private sector had to invest in ourselves and our futures and spend their way of the crisis.Seventy-five years later the state and the nation again faces financial peril. Here in California there is real danger that schools might have to close because of the fiscal crisis. The Governor’s Committee on Educational Excellence Report actually offers a proposal to start to fix much of what’s broke short-term and long-term in California public education …by investing in our future.
We can cut and run or we can stand and deliver.
What would FDR do?
¡Onward/Hasta adelante!
And in a cheery counterpoint to the education news, the cover of Sunday’s LA Times opinion section featured an Op Ed by economists Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes reminding us that the cost of the Three Trillion Dollar Iraq war will “fall especially hard on Californians.” They estimate the “burn rate” at $12 billion a month for every additional 30 days we’re there. “With the full cost (including paying for veterans and replenishing equipment) easily double that.”
(Yes, I’m a broken record on this Iraq war cost issue. Don’t expect it to stop any time soon.)
Meanwhile, George Bush tap dances. Literally….and scarily.
FDR would spend the money where he needed the votes, just like he did with federal make-work jobs during the depression.
the cost of the Three Trillion Dollar Iraq war will “fall especially hard on Californians.”
That claim reminds me of the old joke about The NY Times headline: “World Ends: Women, Minorities Hardest Hit”.
But, everything has to do with Iraq when it comes to liberals. Was everything perfect with the schools before Iraq? What makes anyone believe the money for our mission in Iraq would automatically go to whatever cause they support?
Start thinking instead of reacting.
Woody is one of those Republicans who believe in “Magical Thinking” and right now that means that money never solves a problem – unless its a foreign war or a prison – so any talk of taxes would starve the economy’s animal spirits. Before he answers this with a cute remark let me say, along with Peter Schrag of the Sacramento BEE – if I wanted to live in Mississippi I’d move there!
rlc, if you moved to Mississippi, the average IQ of that state would go down, not to mention the graciousness of its people. And, the authors in the article that Celeste linked and the premise of this post are so flawed that I hope it isn’t a relection of their IQ’s.
The co-authors of the book discussed are ultra-liberal and have twisted facts and assumptions to fit their desired outcome. Both are typical of people in academics and both are an insult to the standards deserved by their students. How can you be so suckered into it? This is also a disgrace to honesty and journalism. Why, the Nobel prize should tell you something.
Liberals just love to get their hooks into some study like this which supports their desires and then ride it together in their herd mentality. Few of them have original and logical ideas. And, to them, all the money belongs to the government and that liberals have some entitlement to spend that money where they want.
And, it’s not conservatives who want to throw dollars at problems. I want a great military, but I want it as inexpensively as possible. At least wars come to conclusions, and the Iraqi surge, which disappeared from the news, has achieved positive results–which is more than I can say for the direction of California’s education system.
If we fought the wars only approved by liberals (none), I wonder what would happen to the military-industrial complex and the military bases in California. What would be the result to the economy of California and the jobs of its “priority citizens, which you think you are, without the military research, orders, and personnel from which you benefit but disdain. Check with Berkeley if you aren’t sure.
Support your schools without the help of the money that the military provides your state in fighting for freedom in Iraq. Mississippi will gladly take that money if you have a problem with it.
Oh, and if you use the methodology of the book authors to see the cost of California’s education, it would make the cost of the Iraq mission seem pale in comparison. Just think about the long-term costs to society of having kids drop out of school, remain stupid, turn to crime, and not contribute to the well-being of our nation because California is failing to teach these students–and, more money for liberals won’t solve that.
I’ll give Celeste’s buddy, Paul White some credit for explaining the approaches of liberals to solve problems–“There’s No Right Way to Do the Wrong Thing.”
Quit your whining.
You’ve outdone yourself: a mixture of RNC talking points, ad hominem nonsense and glittering generalities.
If those are RNC talking points, then they get them from me, as I never read theirs. You can talk about ad hominem nonsense when you criticize one of your own authors for attacking the people of an entire state. Regarding the generalities, you never accept specific references unless written by liberals, so that’s just too bad. Anyway, these are my views and not a college dissertation.
For what California wants to spend on education per pupil, the state could afford to send its students to the best private schools.
FYI: According to the state’s legislative analyst’s office, California is 25th in the US in terms of per pupil spending, and in terms of dollar amount spends just under the national average. If Schwarzenegger’s threatened education cuts go through, that figure will drop by nearly $800 per student per year.
By the way, I don’t believe that Arnold wants to make these cuts. I honestly think he gets it. At heart, I think he’d like to be an education advocate. Unfortunately, I don’t believe he’s a strong enough deal broker to be able to wrestle the Repubs in the state leg (and the Dems, they’re not blameless) into doing what needs to be done, which includes raising some taxes, making prison budget cuts and releasing those 22,000 low-level, non-violent offenders a few months early. (The horror!)
Celeste, did you research how California computes its “per pupil spending” and how that formula is misleading and how it changed when education lobbyists wanted to skew the statistics to get more money and how it is dishonestely understated? There are numerous links with proof, but I’m not taking a chance of including them with your filter that blocks comments with more than one.
I never accept statistics from liberals because I inevitably find that they are lying with them–not you, you just fall for them.
But, if you want more money for schools, it sounds like its time for a huge property tax and sales tax increase in California. Enjoy! The rest of the nation appreciates getting the businesses that move out of your state because of the high taxes.
This post is a complete waste–except for whiny liberals.
Interesting link, Woody. For the year given, 2000, L A and San Francisco both spent above the state average per student, at just under and just over $10,000/per pupil, respectively, while San Diego spent significantly less, around the state average (under $8000). Yet, in S. F. and S. D., students at all grade levels tested on the SAT-9s (from 2nd to 11th) had an avg. of about half scoring at least 50% or above. In L. A., only about 25% did on avg., as low as 19% for 9th graders. (Even a 50% rate is pretty dismal, considering the benchmark is a score of 50% or above. L A’s test scores suggest widespread illiteracy.)
Clearly, the liberal notion that throwing more money at the problem and raising taxes on homeowners (less than 38% in L A County even own homes now, we have such an unusually high % of renters) will “fix” everything is bogus. What are the real differences between the cities? Percentage of illegals and people in poverty to whites and the middle class, maybe?
Look at the demographics and communities of San Diego and S. F. by comparison — these are borne out by recent data released the the State for L A. Any wonder that looking around at other cities, seeing what homeowners get there for their tax dollars, more are moving out than moving into L A. Per SCAG (Southern Calif. Assoc. of Governments) there’s an annual net exodus of several hundred thousand people, from blue collar to “affluent” while the only net immigration and population growth is from Mexico and Central America, and their high birthrates.
One reason being, the lack of local schools for these people, with even schools in the heart of affluent Westwood like Emerson Middle and University High consisting mostly of kids bused in, and the attendant problems with gangs, low academic achievement, etc. They’ve got gang counselors, uniforms to discourage gang affiliation and all the hallmarks of inner city schools — people who’ve sent their kids there report intimidation of white kids unless they adopt the prevalent culture, so naturally there are fewer and fewer local kids. You gonna keep taxing these people? Even as home values declined? Same is true of blue collar people who can’t even afford Catholic schools, and have to move. This is a tragedy for L A, which needs people living closer to their jobs, and who otherwise would love to stay in this dynamic, culturally sophisticated city.
Sure, the libs and UTLA and LAUSD Board want to just raise taxes on the homeowners again, and there’s talk of wanting to repeal Prop 13 — if they get away with it, watch the increased exodus and further crash of the real estate market. And who will they try to hit on then?
As I said, “Magical Thinking.” Only brain-dead conservatives could believe that resources (thats “Money” to you guys) has no impact on results. Want better teachers? PAY THEM!!!! Think you can teach kids computer skills on Apple IIs? Tech subjects on Vac Tube Eqt? Funny, but all that stuff costs money. There is no magic school fairy that will fix things.
Oh, and for your information there is no magic Road Fairy for fixing gridlock. No magic cop fairy for crime prevention. No magic Health fairy for public health . . .
(See a pattern?) No, sadly you probably don’t!
There is a pattern: indoctrinated thinking over reality. “You guys” don’t and can’t listen and just ignore statistics and facts, being so indoctrinated that you discount anything that doesn’t support your preconceived views. So the problems become ever worse by your own doing, and you blame those who’ve been overtaxed for less and less, compared to other cities and states, and had enough, leaving you with even less of a tax base to bash. Talk about circular “logic.”
If those are RNC talking points, then they get them from me, as I never read theirs.
You don’t read them, you parrot them.
As for throwing money at schools, maybe we should see how this school does in terms of its teacher salaries.
Screwed up the link it’s for this school:
http://www.tepcharter.org/
rlc, want better teachers? Grade them and pay according to results rather than give good and bad ones the same salaries. It appears that I might agree with the concept of the site that Randy linked. More money won’t fix a system that is broken and protected by the unions.
If schools were Iraq, we would have given up a long time ago–so, you might as well take money from education and give it to our military.
BTW, from the article that I linked and WBC dissected comes this paragraph:
LAUSD must be the ENRON of education, as they screw the taxpayers, who are its investors, with deceptive accounting disclosures and demands for more money. I would have no desire to invest in a company or an education system that consistently lies about its financial information. Fix that first, then we can talk about more money–or less.
An economist on one of today’s morning shows explained the education budget deficit is the result of the down housing market in California and the reduction in tax revenues from that. He said that it would take about $120 per person to make up that difference. Choices must be made, and one of your choices isn’t ending the Iraq mission and taking that money.