Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-16-2011, 04:13 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,493,349 times
Reputation: 1223

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
I think our differences are highlighted in post #8, where I pointed out that the public education spending per pupil has declined from about $9,000, almost 10 years ago, to $7,800 in deflated $ today. That is a decrease of about 15%, and when compared to the remainder of the country California is quite a bit below average in expenditure per pupil (see Figure #4):

http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/09f33pub.pdf


Further, if you look at Table #8, you can see the breakout of direct and support expenditures per pupil. Again, California isn't really high at all. Interestingly, if you take a look at the column marked Support Services, California is actually doing fairly well.

I just don't see the main point here, that California is a wasteful state in education expenditures, especially when measured against other states.
The main point is that California's revenue hasn't declined significantly from the non bubble years. The bubble's year's revenue is an outlier and is to be disregarded .. As for 'where' California spends its money, yes.. California's government are idiots .. they have a large amount of revenue yet **** it away on things other than basic (K-12) education ... So, yes, you are right... per pupil spending is down .. THat's the way the politicians punish its citizens here for its reckless spending.. My original post remarked at that as well as follow up posts...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2011, 04:14 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,493,349 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Note all the items that are not included in the cost of education calculations.

My favorites: State contributions to retirement systems on behalf of districts. Facilities acquisitions and construction.

Current Expense of Education - Current Expense of Education & Per-pupil Spending (CA Dept of Education)
Nice find Bulldogdad .. Yes, this is one of the many areas where all of the cash is going ... Residents of this state are getting robbed blind.... They even take from the kids in order to line their pockets ... Downright deplorable.. I'm just glad the fight to prevent d00 d00 brown from extending the temp taxes got slammed into the abyss... At least I will be paying less for this extortion while I remain here.. Raising a family here.. forget about it.. paying 600/700k for a home (shack) just so your kid can get a decent education .. pffft
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,011 posts, read 3,541,159 times
Reputation: 2747
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
The main point is that California's revenue hasn't declined significantly from the non bubble years. The bubble's year's revenue is an outlier and is to be disregarded .. As for 'where' California spends its money, yes.. California's government are idiots .. they have a large amount of revenue yet **** it away on things other than basic (K-12) education ... So, yes, you are right... per pupil spending is down .. THat's the way the politicians punish its citizens here for its reckless spending.. My original post remarked at that as well as follow up posts...
It's a game politicians learn early on. One of the oldest political tricks around. You fund all of your pet projects and garbage first, and then cut the items that make headlines in the hope of getting more money (taxes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 04:43 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,555,520 times
Reputation: 23291
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahthatguy View Post
Nice find Bulldogdad .. Yes, this is one of the many areas where all of the cash is going ... Residents of this state are getting robbed blind.... They even take from the kids in order to line their pockets ... Downright deplorable.. I'm just glad the fight to prevent d00 d00 brown from extending the temp taxes got slammed into the abyss... At least I will be paying less for this extortion while I remain here.. Raising a family here.. forget about it.. paying 600/700k for a home (shack) just so your kid can get a decent education .. pffft
This is that same old argument that gets tossed around on these boards.

The problem is that most people are duped into believing the "inflation adjusted numbers" garbage that all government agencies and many agenda driven "non profits" spew forth to placate the masses into believing that we don't spend enough on education.

Example here is an article I found perusing the net last year from the Cato Institute that did an in depth study on the real cost of public schools. Notice on page 8 the "Real" $25,000+ per student number versus the "Stated" 8,000+ per student number of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Of course it had to come from a libertarian think tank to get at some real numbers

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf

Same story most people don't want to accept how bloated, corrupt and inefficient our public institutions have become.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 05:15 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,493,349 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
This is that same old argument that gets tossed around on these boards.

The problem is that most people are duped into believing the "inflation adjusted numbers" garbage that all government agencies and many agenda driven "non profits" spew forth to placate the masses into believing that we don't spend enough on education.

Example here is an article I found perusing the net last year from the Cato Institute that did an in depth study on the real cost of public schools. Notice on page 8 the "Real" $25,000+ per student number versus the "Stated" 8,000+ per student number of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Of course it had to come from a libertarian think tank to get at some real numbers

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa662.pdf

Same story most people don't want to accept how bloated, corrupt and inefficient our public institutions have become.
Sounds good to me .. I mean, you bring in lots of revenue .. it's going somewhere... Thanks for further educating me though on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,139,035 times
Reputation: 7373
Always look for criticisms of think tank studies (especially when the think tank has a political agenda), they tend to provide some interesting insights.

In the case of the CATO paper, here is an objective and specific criticism as to why the analysis is significantly flawed:

Real Spending per Pupil. The figure is as comprehensive as the Cato author can make it. It is also flawed by double counting. He makes a point of including both capital construction and debt service (p. 15). By far the largest difference between the stated public per-pupil figure and the report’s “Real” figure turns up in LAUSD. The “stated public” figure was $10,053, while the “Real” figure is $25,208.

At this reviewer’s request, finance specialists at the California Department of Education were able to reconstruct the Cato figure to within $6 as follows. They started with the 2008-09 total authorized expenditures figure for all of LAUSD: $17,685.9 billion. They then removed a number of expenditures that duplicate or fall outside K-12 education, but retained capital construction and debt service as the author did. They divided by average daily attendance to produce a per-pupil spending figure of $25,202.12.

The author’s justification for the nature of the report’s calculation is “that these are expenses borne by the taxpayer . . . and as such must be included” (p. 15). However, most capital construction expenditures are not paid with taxpayer dollars. They are paid with proceeds from bonds. Taxpayer dollars then service the debt. This is key. The cost of a house bought with a loan is not the purchase price plus the cost of the loan.


http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Thi..._SpendWhat.pdf

This is a public policy paper, and not subject to copyright.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 07:19 PM
 
2,311 posts, read 3,493,349 times
Reputation: 1223
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
Always look for criticisms of think tank studies (especially when the think tank has a political agenda), they tend to provide some interesting insights.

In the case of the CATO paper, here is an objective and specific criticism as to why the analysis is significantly flawed:

Real Spending per Pupil. The figure is as comprehensive as the Cato author can make it. It is also flawed by double counting. He makes a point of including both capital construction and debt service (p. 15). By far the largest difference between the stated public per-pupil figure and the report’s “Real” figure turns up in LAUSD. The “stated public” figure was $10,053, while the “Real” figure is $25,208.

At this reviewer’s request, finance specialists at the California Department of Education were able to reconstruct the Cato figure to within $6 as follows. They started with the 2008-09 total authorized expenditures figure for all of LAUSD: $17,685.9 billion. They then removed a number of expenditures that duplicate or fall outside K-12 education, but retained capital construction and debt service as the author did. They divided by average daily attendance to produce a per-pupil spending figure of $25,202.12.

The author’s justification for the nature of the report’s calculation is “that these are expenses borne by the taxpayer . . . and as such must be included” (p. 15). However, most capital construction expenditures are not paid with taxpayer dollars. They are paid with proceeds from bonds. Taxpayer dollars then service the debt. This is key. The cost of a house bought with a loan is not the purchase price plus the cost of the loan.


http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Thi..._SpendWhat.pdf

This is a public policy paper, and not subject to copyright.
Good reply NewtoCA and thank you for digging even further.. Very interesting this dissection of #'s...

My issue w/ the capital construction lies in things like this :
New Public School in Los Angeles Named After Robert Kennedy is Most Expensive in American History - ABC News

In the state I come from, they don't do idiotic things like this .. The 'tax payer' dollars go more towards enhancing teaching of students through a broader range of course offerings and quality of teachers. At the end of the day, tax payer dollars pay for these construction expenditures .. To some degree, I feel the interest should have a weighting to the overall cost of education. Also, if the CATO institute used the construction expenditures in calculating costs for every state, then I feel it is an o.k addition.... Especially when you have a state that's blowing $578 million dollars on a friggin school .. That's tax payer money to pay that principal and interest which could have been going to increase the standards of education.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2011, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,139,035 times
Reputation: 7373
Excessive capital expenditures are never a good idea, no problem with agreement there.

The investment in physical facilities are also tangible assets, meaning they retain some inherent value. Ultimately, if no longer needed the facility can be converted or disposed, so it really is an investment and not an expenditure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top