|
California school spending - correcting lies
Only posting this because several comments have been made here putting CA school spending at the bottom - CTA-spread BS. RTWTA recent Public Policy Institute of California poll shows that while Californians have strong opinions on what to do about public education, they have no idea what's going on. I give the public an "F" in Education. As a wonderfully sneaky test of awareness, PPIC asked Californians in a recent survey how much of the state budget is spent on public schools. They were clueless. Only one in three knew that public education is by far the biggest item, sucking up half the budget--very roughly, $50 billion of $100 billion. Ignorant voters insist more money pour into the schools, not knowing California spends more on schools than the entire operating budgets of each of the 49 other states, including New York. Here's reality: The National Education Association (NEA) and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) rank California in the middle on per-pupil-spending. We're at the comfy median. We do not "under-fund" our schools despite our many troubles. Why doesn't everybody know this? The PPIC poll shows how misconceptions are driven by partisanship in California. Democrats tend to believe (ridiculously) that California's prisons get the most state money. Republicans tend to believe (absurdly) that social welfare gets the most state money. People are ignorant in part because our crisis-driven media often lazily push the myth that California is near "the bottom" in school funding. That myth is a product of the education lobby, led by the California Teachers Association, which makes sure California teachers earn the highest salaries in the nation, yet constantly whines that schools are under-funded. The myth was furthered in January when Rand Corp. released a just-plain-wrong study showing California wallowing near the bottom. Rand had not returned my call by press time, but state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer notes that Rand included "all children who had excused absences" in California but didn't attend school. The 49 other states did not inflate attendance in this way. Rand has acknowledged that by dividing spending by an inflated student count, it probably affected California's outcome. Eric Hanushek, at the Hoover Institution, notes, "We're not even close to eighth from the bottom---nowhere near that. We are at or near the middle in the nation." Frank Johnson, a respected statistician for NCES, adds, "California per pupil funding is near the middle. Some people are presenting data in a way that supports their (political) views." According to the NCES, California spent $7,552 per student in 2002-03. The national median was $7,574. We're $22 short, so no wonder our kids are near the bottom in math and reading! Fresh NEA data mirrors the NCES data. Its "Rankings & Estimates" report shows that California in 2003-04 was in the exact middle, ranked at 25th, spending $7,692 per pupil. California voters imagine themselves to be well-informed. The PPIC poll says, "72 percent believe voters should make decisions about the budget and governmental reforms rather than abdicate that responsibility to the governor and legislature ⊠But when it comes to the budget, how much knowledge do residents bring to the table? Only 29 percent of Californians can identify the top category for state spending (K-12 education)." Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-13 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=121533 |