Is education not as high a priority in CA as it is in the Northeast (San Diego: sales, renting)

[MtnSurfer]

I think most will agree you cannot generalize all of the CA schools into one bucket. It is definitely not that simple. Everything is a micro environment in CA.

The educational system also follows closely with the RE markets. So in some of the more upscale neighborhoods you will find higher test scores. And even that is an over generalized to some extent. But there is at least a trend from which to start from. And because CA is such a large state you have everything from the poorest areas to the most elite with plenty of computers, supplies, etc... In some of the lower to mid class areas you have charter schools which tend to offer more than some of the 'baby sitting' that goes on in the higher gang effected regions. So even in those parts there some are opportunities. But they have their limits, issues, waiting lists, etc...

And most of the High Schools for example allow students to take high quality college levels courses concurrently and receive dual credit. So for those students and parents who are educationally minded there are a lot of opportunities available. Of course out in Death Valley things are a bit more limited.

So I think depending on where in CA you ask this Q you will receive different answers. It is kind of like asking if it is warm in CA.

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

So I think depending on where in CA you ask this Q you will receive different answers. It is kind of like asking if it is warm in CA.

True, but generally speaking, if you compare the northeast to CA there are a few big differences.

Even middle-class and lower/working class schools in the Northeast will have top-of-the-line facilities, computers, etc. In CA, that is reserved for the elite schools only. In CA gym, art, and music have been cut from many programs including those in wealthy areas. There would be riots in the streets if that was to happen in the northeast.

And just to clarify I am not necessarily advocating the taxation that occurs in the northeast, I am just stating that the taxation is what pays for the schools. CA schools are much more dependent on state and federal money while Northeastern schools get their money from huge property taxes. Smithtown NY is my pat example - 500k homes, 15k/yr taxes, some of the best schools in the country. That's just where the money goes. There are places on LI where if you live in one district your house is 100k less than the guy across the street, and BOTH the schools are top-notch by CA standards.

[sav858]

Just look at the stats, yes the Northeast is the most taxed part of the country but at least they have the good public schools to show it goes to something. CA ranks near the bottom in education while most Northeast states are at the top and you can't argue or deny that FACT, although people will continue to try to make excuses for it b/c they like their artificially low prop 13 property taxes, but it is what it is. If you're upper middle class you're good, if you're not then good luck.

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by sav858

If you're upper middle class you're good, if you're not then good luck.

The attitude that we "already spend enough" or that "it's the kids, not the schools" is just reinforcement that many CA residents do not put a high priority on education.

And yes, we do spend a lot, and yes, it is the kids (and their parents) to a large extent in some areas. But if you look at the physical condition of some of these 1950's era never-been-upgraded facilities... even in middle class areas... it's hard to imagine that this can be considered acceptable.

The fact that the citizens of Poway CA voted in a parcel tax to improve their already-top notch schools tells you something about their priorities regarding education.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

...
And just to clarify I am not necessarily advocating the taxation that occurs in the northeast, I am just stating that the taxation is what pays for the schools. CA schools are much more dependent on state and federal money while Northeastern schools get their money from huge property taxes. Smithtown NY is my pat example - 500k homes, 15k/yr taxes, some of the best schools in the country. That's just where the money goes. There are places on LI where if you live in one district your house is 100k less than the guy across the street, and BOTH the schools are top-notch by CA standards.

Ok, but it seems you are still drawing a correlation here. So are you or are you not implying that it is amount of taxes people pay directly effects the quality of education the students receive? And if the answer is 'Yes' then the logical conclusion would be tax and spend more would it not?

I really liked the 20/20 report (Stupid in America) that John Stossel did with ABC in addressing some of these fallacies (e.g. - we just need more money). If you haven't already seen it I highly recommend watching it. It is available on YouTube -
Supid in America

Of course we can agree to disagree on this point. But I think there are a lot more mitigating factors to the problems with CA schools 'in general' than simply enough school supplies. Now the Northeast may tax more and have better tests scores overall. But I don't think that one can then make the logical 'leap' that it is the primary reason for the delta. IMO it is 'Not' that simple.

- Derek

[Sassberto]

I do believe that spending 3-4x as much per pupil is going to have a dramatic effect in the quality of a school. More money means more computers, music and sports equipment, building maintenance, etc... It also means better pay for teachers which I believe has a big impact on teacher quality. Starting pay for a teacher in San Diego is 20k below most northeastern cities.

So while per-pupil spending is not the sole metric, it is important. It's one thing to say "we are just as good but we spend 3x less", but that is clearly not the case here.

Again not to say there isn't waste in the northeastern system, but the end-result (good schools, high levels of education) is pretty hard to argue with. I went to a high school with 99% college attendance... and grew up in a 1000sf house on the "wrong side of the tracks".... good luck finding that here in SoCal.

[sav858]

I don't think anyone here is putting all the blame or saying the " primary reason" for CA's poor public education system on just low funding but some of you are trying to place those of us calling out the low funding as ONE of the problems as being such that. Like I said, people will continue to make excuses to justify the low funding b/c they like their property taxes low whether they want to admit that or not. And yes it does indicate or show how Californian's in general do not value education as much as Northeasterner's. I've found similar attitudes in Arizona, people opposing higher property taxes for schools despite the fact that AZ is constantly at the bottom for education and has been ranked as the DUMBEST state several times. You can't deny education funding and property taxes don't play a role at all and that it doesn't matter how much or little we spend. It's sure as hell not the only reason our public education system is so poor but it's stupid to just completely dismiss it as one of the reasons. When you see states with higher education funding having better schools and states with low funding having worse schools, it's hard not to see the correlation but that doesn't mean it's the only factor.

Where I grew up in an upper middle class Bay Area suburb we were always passing local bonds, parcel tax increases, etc...that went towards education and the schools in my area were excellent. And of course we had some students that lived out of the district but went to my school b/c they lived in a middle to lower middle class suburb nearby with much worse schools.

With Ca's tax system as screwed up and as fundamentally flawed as it already it is I don't advocate just jacking up property taxes as a solution or anything like that, I think we've passed the point of no return with Prop 13 and will just have to deal with what we have and try to fix our broken system.

[MtnSurfer]

I think that if one looks at the areas which have poor performance in any school district across America there will exist a myriad of problems from the top down. And so I don't think that simply giving more money to that district will improve anything necessarily. And in the 20/20 report test scores actually went down in some areas where more money was given and new computers and equipment were provided. It is 'trying to pour more water into a broken bucket' analogy that was mentioned before.

Now it could be that some additional funding would help. But even then how much will actually make it to the students vs the bureaucrats? If a system is broken all aspects must be examined including the 'mismanagement' of funds which already exist. So while I don't rule out funding as a contributing factor I certainly don't think it is always the answer. Sometimes before anything really changes the 'overseers' of the system need to change as well as the 'approach' which is taken.

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by MtnSurfer

Sometimes before anything really changes the 'overseers' of the system need to change as well as the 'approach' which is taken.

I agree with that completely.

The concern I have is that in my city, San Diego, the residents voted down a fire protection tax AFTER wildfires destroyed the city. In fact residents of San Diego basically refuse to accept a tax of any type. So they are saying, we don't care, we won't pay taxes, even though we are unprepared for wildfires, underfunded and understaffed police, and failing schools (25% dropout rate)

How can education, or any public service be a priority with an attitude like that?

[MtnSurfer]

Unfortunately for the vast majority of people it ends up being an all or nothing approach. Either tax and spent with very little accountability or Hell no, no more taxes!

When the real answers to the hard questions are more complex than people are willing to admit or bother to work on and possibly sometimes more in the middle of all that political posturing.

And knee jerk reactions just can't solve these complex socioeconomic issues. Instead the pendulum will just swing back and forth and nothing of any real significance will get accomplished.