[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

When I first read that article (which was prior to finding it discussed here) my very first inkling was that it was an April Fool’s joke, but then I quickly realized it was just January.

I don’t have kids. Never will. But I feel sorry for kids who endure the kind of upbringing enforced by Ms. Chua. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll agree that the typical Caucasian approach to discipline, education, etc. is lacking. You’ll get no argument from me there. But I think the militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua and her cohorts is just as wrong-headed, just in the opposite direction. While many kids that grow up under the typical Caucasian approach will be unprepared for the rigors of the real world, I suspect that many kids that grow up under the militaristic approach will be prone to insecurity and depression, and have difficult relationships with their parents. I’m not a parent, but neither approach appears to be a recipe for producing “contentment,” which should be the real goal (in my opinion).

I’ve known kids who excelled academically, went the math & science magnet school route, and still managed to not amount to much professionally or otherwise. Conversely, I’ve known kids who went the Montessori route, didn’t work particularly hard, spent plenty of time smelling the roses and went on to great success. I just don’t see it as an either/or proposition. And, in my view, anyone who tries to portray it as such is really revealing more about themselves than anything else.

Although it’s a cliche, there’s some truth to it: The C-students own the company in which the B-student is the President and the A-student is the accountant. Again, clearly that’s not always the case. But the rote/militaristic approach favored by Ms. Chua does not engender much imagination or inspiration. And while perspiration is important, too (as Einstein noted), in this day and age there is a lot of global competition from the automaton set. Personally, I don’t value “computing power” – which is Ms. Chua’s focus – because it’s so easily found – and it’s cheap. I value imagination, initiative, and a high social IQ on top of a fundamental competence as a baseline. But that’s just my view of the world.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Good lord. You conservatives never cease to amaze me with your ignorance. Please stop watching FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other conservative sources that are making you more retarded by the day and learn to read fact-based news sources like Slate and HuffingtonPost.

From Slate:

Can a state declare bankruptcy? Can a country?

No and no. Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn’t include states. (The statute defines “municipality” as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State”—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can’t be sued. In other words, they don’t need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can’t make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state’s debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors’ committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state’s budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2246915/
[/quote]

Let’s assume for a moment that a state can’t declare bankruptcy – or, more specifically, let’s assume that California can’t declare bankruptcy. Just for argument’s sake, of course, so that there won’t be some great debate over the technical legalities.

The article above – assuming it’s correct – clearly states that “receivership” is “a lot like bankruptcy,” but for some technical and procedural differences.

So the bottom line appears to be that California can end up in a state of affairs – “receivership” – which is, for all intents and purposes, “a lot like bankruptcy.” Consequently, bankruptcy and receivership in the context of the State of California are distinctions without significant differences. To the layperson they look pretty much the same from the outside.

Bankruptcy law is legislated at the federal level. With the exception of cases involving federal entities (e.g., banks via FDIC), most receivership law is legislated at the state level. But, trust me, whether an entity is in receivership or bankruptcy – it’s up shit creek. Debating the difference between the two is like arguing about whether you’d rather have your right leg or left leg amputated. They’re both unpleasant.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Good lord. You conservatives never cease to amaze me with your ignorance. Please stop watching FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other conservative sources that are making you more retarded by the day and learn to read fact-based news sources like Slate and HuffingtonPost.

From Slate:

Can a state declare bankruptcy? Can a country?

No and no. Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn’t include states. (The statute defines “municipality” as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State”—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can’t be sued. In other words, they don’t need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can’t make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state’s debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors’ committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state’s budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2246915/
[/quote]

Let’s assume for a moment that a state can’t declare bankruptcy – or, more specifically, let’s assume that California can’t declare bankruptcy. Just for argument’s sake, of course, so that there won’t be some great debate over the technical legalities.

The article above – assuming it’s correct – clearly states that “receivership” is “a lot like bankruptcy,” but for some technical and procedural differences.

So the bottom line appears to be that California can end up in a state of affairs – “receivership” – which is, for all intents and purposes, “a lot like bankruptcy.” Consequently, bankruptcy and receivership in the context of the State of California are distinctions without significant differences. To the layperson they look pretty much the same from the outside.

Bankruptcy law is legislated at the federal level. With the exception of cases involving federal entities (e.g., banks via FDIC), most receivership law is legislated at the state level. But, trust me, whether an entity is in receivership or bankruptcy – it’s up shit creek. Debating the difference between the two is like arguing about whether you’d rather have your right leg or left leg amputated. They’re both unpleasant.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Good lord. You conservatives never cease to amaze me with your ignorance. Please stop watching FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other conservative sources that are making you more retarded by the day and learn to read fact-based news sources like Slate and HuffingtonPost.

From Slate:

Can a state declare bankruptcy? Can a country?

No and no. Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn’t include states. (The statute defines “municipality” as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State”—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can’t be sued. In other words, they don’t need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can’t make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state’s debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors’ committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state’s budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2246915/
[/quote]

Let’s assume for a moment that a state can’t declare bankruptcy – or, more specifically, let’s assume that California can’t declare bankruptcy. Just for argument’s sake, of course, so that there won’t be some great debate over the technical legalities.

The article above – assuming it’s correct – clearly states that “receivership” is “a lot like bankruptcy,” but for some technical and procedural differences.

So the bottom line appears to be that California can end up in a state of affairs – “receivership” – which is, for all intents and purposes, “a lot like bankruptcy.” Consequently, bankruptcy and receivership in the context of the State of California are distinctions without significant differences. To the layperson they look pretty much the same from the outside.

Bankruptcy law is legislated at the federal level. With the exception of cases involving federal entities (e.g., banks via FDIC), most receivership law is legislated at the state level. But, trust me, whether an entity is in receivership or bankruptcy – it’s up shit creek. Debating the difference between the two is like arguing about whether you’d rather have your right leg or left leg amputated. They’re both unpleasant.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Good lord. You conservatives never cease to amaze me with your ignorance. Please stop watching FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other conservative sources that are making you more retarded by the day and learn to read fact-based news sources like Slate and HuffingtonPost.

From Slate:

Can a state declare bankruptcy? Can a country?

No and no. Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn’t include states. (The statute defines “municipality” as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State”—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can’t be sued. In other words, they don’t need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can’t make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state’s debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors’ committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state’s budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2246915/
[/quote]

Let’s assume for a moment that a state can’t declare bankruptcy – or, more specifically, let’s assume that California can’t declare bankruptcy. Just for argument’s sake, of course, so that there won’t be some great debate over the technical legalities.

The article above – assuming it’s correct – clearly states that “receivership” is “a lot like bankruptcy,” but for some technical and procedural differences.

So the bottom line appears to be that California can end up in a state of affairs – “receivership” – which is, for all intents and purposes, “a lot like bankruptcy.” Consequently, bankruptcy and receivership in the context of the State of California are distinctions without significant differences. To the layperson they look pretty much the same from the outside.

Bankruptcy law is legislated at the federal level. With the exception of cases involving federal entities (e.g., banks via FDIC), most receivership law is legislated at the state level. But, trust me, whether an entity is in receivership or bankruptcy – it’s up shit creek. Debating the difference between the two is like arguing about whether you’d rather have your right leg or left leg amputated. They’re both unpleasant.

[davelj]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]
Good lord. You conservatives never cease to amaze me with your ignorance. Please stop watching FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and other conservative sources that are making you more retarded by the day and learn to read fact-based news sources like Slate and HuffingtonPost.

From Slate:

Can a state declare bankruptcy? Can a country?

No and no. Chapter 9 of the U.S. bankruptcy code allows individuals and municipalities (cities, towns, villages, etc.) to declare bankruptcy. But that doesn’t include states. (The statute defines “municipality” as a “political subdivision or public agency or instrumentality of a State”—that is, not a state itself.) For one thing, states are said to have sovereign immunity, as protected by the 11th Amendment, which means they can’t be sued. In other words, they don’t need any protection from angry creditors who would take them to court for failing to pay their debts. As a result, states can simply borrow money ad infinitum.

Say the state can’t make its debt payments, and no one will lend it any more money. In that case, the federal government can step in and put the state into receivership. This would involve the assignment of an accountant to manage the state’s debt, overseen by a judge. It would be a lot like bankruptcy, except instead of following a structured set of steps—informing creditors, appointing creditors’ committees, a 120-day window to file a plan, etc.—a receiver has the authority to force creditors to renegotiate loans in a speedy fashion. However, the accountant in charge would not have the power to make decisions about the state’s budget, such as which programs needed to be cut and which taxes had to be raised. (No state has ever gone into receivership.)

http://www.slate.com/id/2246915/
[/quote]

Let’s assume for a moment that a state can’t declare bankruptcy – or, more specifically, let’s assume that California can’t declare bankruptcy. Just for argument’s sake, of course, so that there won’t be some great debate over the technical legalities.

The article above – assuming it’s correct – clearly states that “receivership” is “a lot like bankruptcy,” but for some technical and procedural differences.

So the bottom line appears to be that California can end up in a state of affairs – “receivership” – which is, for all intents and purposes, “a lot like bankruptcy.” Consequently, bankruptcy and receivership in the context of the State of California are distinctions without significant differences. To the layperson they look pretty much the same from the outside.

Bankruptcy law is legislated at the federal level. With the exception of cases involving federal entities (e.g., banks via FDIC), most receivership law is legislated at the state level. But, trust me, whether an entity is in receivership or bankruptcy – it’s up shit creek. Debating the difference between the two is like arguing about whether you’d rather have your right leg or left leg amputated. They’re both unpleasant.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.[/quote]

Let’s go to the tape:

1998 CA Dept. of Education budget: $22.3 bil
2010 CA Dept. of Education budget: $52.8 bil

That’s annual growth of 7.5%.

1998 CA population: 33.3 mil
2010 CA population (est.): 37.1 mil.

That’s annual growth of 0.9%. Throw in some illegal immigration and I’ll liberally grant growth of 1.5% annually over the period.

Importantly, over the last decade the two age groups contributing most to CA’s growth were 18-24 and 45-64. The school-age group of 5-17 was below CA’s average.

So, let’s take 3% inflation plus my generous 1.5% school-age population growth and – voila! – we get to 4.5% growth in expected education expenditures. But, in fact, it’s been 7.5%. That 3% spread for CA’s largest budget item is the single largest source of our current budget problems. 3% compounded over 12 years on 40% of your budget leads to big problems. Now I’m sure there are other problem areas as well, but until we address the education issue, we’re just pissing in the wind.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.[/quote]

Let’s go to the tape:

1998 CA Dept. of Education budget: $22.3 bil
2010 CA Dept. of Education budget: $52.8 bil

That’s annual growth of 7.5%.

1998 CA population: 33.3 mil
2010 CA population (est.): 37.1 mil.

That’s annual growth of 0.9%. Throw in some illegal immigration and I’ll liberally grant growth of 1.5% annually over the period.

Importantly, over the last decade the two age groups contributing most to CA’s growth were 18-24 and 45-64. The school-age group of 5-17 was below CA’s average.

So, let’s take 3% inflation plus my generous 1.5% school-age population growth and – voila! – we get to 4.5% growth in expected education expenditures. But, in fact, it’s been 7.5%. That 3% spread for CA’s largest budget item is the single largest source of our current budget problems. 3% compounded over 12 years on 40% of your budget leads to big problems. Now I’m sure there are other problem areas as well, but until we address the education issue, we’re just pissing in the wind.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.[/quote]

Let’s go to the tape:

1998 CA Dept. of Education budget: $22.3 bil
2010 CA Dept. of Education budget: $52.8 bil

That’s annual growth of 7.5%.

1998 CA population: 33.3 mil
2010 CA population (est.): 37.1 mil.

That’s annual growth of 0.9%. Throw in some illegal immigration and I’ll liberally grant growth of 1.5% annually over the period.

Importantly, over the last decade the two age groups contributing most to CA’s growth were 18-24 and 45-64. The school-age group of 5-17 was below CA’s average.

So, let’s take 3% inflation plus my generous 1.5% school-age population growth and – voila! – we get to 4.5% growth in expected education expenditures. But, in fact, it’s been 7.5%. That 3% spread for CA’s largest budget item is the single largest source of our current budget problems. 3% compounded over 12 years on 40% of your budget leads to big problems. Now I’m sure there are other problem areas as well, but until we address the education issue, we’re just pissing in the wind.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.[/quote]

Let’s go to the tape:

1998 CA Dept. of Education budget: $22.3 bil
2010 CA Dept. of Education budget: $52.8 bil

That’s annual growth of 7.5%.

1998 CA population: 33.3 mil
2010 CA population (est.): 37.1 mil.

That’s annual growth of 0.9%. Throw in some illegal immigration and I’ll liberally grant growth of 1.5% annually over the period.

Importantly, over the last decade the two age groups contributing most to CA’s growth were 18-24 and 45-64. The school-age group of 5-17 was below CA’s average.

So, let’s take 3% inflation plus my generous 1.5% school-age population growth and – voila! – we get to 4.5% growth in expected education expenditures. But, in fact, it’s been 7.5%. That 3% spread for CA’s largest budget item is the single largest source of our current budget problems. 3% compounded over 12 years on 40% of your budget leads to big problems. Now I’m sure there are other problem areas as well, but until we address the education issue, we’re just pissing in the wind.

[davelj]

[quote=davelj]

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.[/quote]

Let’s go to the tape:

1998 CA Dept. of Education budget: $22.3 bil
2010 CA Dept. of Education budget: $52.8 bil

That’s annual growth of 7.5%.

1998 CA population: 33.3 mil
2010 CA population (est.): 37.1 mil.

That’s annual growth of 0.9%. Throw in some illegal immigration and I’ll liberally grant growth of 1.5% annually over the period.

Importantly, over the last decade the two age groups contributing most to CA’s growth were 18-24 and 45-64. The school-age group of 5-17 was below CA’s average.

So, let’s take 3% inflation plus my generous 1.5% school-age population growth and – voila! – we get to 4.5% growth in expected education expenditures. But, in fact, it’s been 7.5%. That 3% spread for CA’s largest budget item is the single largest source of our current budget problems. 3% compounded over 12 years on 40% of your budget leads to big problems. Now I’m sure there are other problem areas as well, but until we address the education issue, we’re just pissing in the wind.

[davelj]

Some budget stats to consider. Here’s the breakdown of the Big 4 for 2010/2011:

Education (K-12 & Higher Ed.): 40%
Health & Human Services: 28%
Bus., Transportation & Housing: 10%
Corrections & Rehab: 7%

That’s 85% of CA’s budget right there. So that’s where you have to cut. Everything else is just fiddling around at the edges.

The big whopper, of course, is education. Interestingly, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, instructional spending comprises just 54% of per-pupil spending in CA for K-12. The other 46% is administration. Per-pupil K-12 spending is going to be roughly $11,200 this year. That means that there’s about $6,000 of ADMINISTRATIVE expense for every K-12 student in CA. Sacramento, we have a problem. But I think I know where we can find some cuts for the budget. And it starts in the administrative bureaucracy that is the CA Dept. of Education.

I’m going to research this a bit, but I bet that the education budget for CA has increased over the last 12 years at a FAR higher rate than the sum of student population growth plus inflation. And I think I know where most of that ended up. And it ain’t in the classroom.

[Author]

Posts