Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Yay, California

From Instapundit I get the link to this article, about how California shafted itself by adopting Common Core:
A California commission has just decided the technology costs for Common Core tests are an unfunded mandate, which will require state taxpayers to cough up approximately $4 billion more to local school districts, Californian and former U.S. Department of Education official Ze’ev Wurman tells The Federalist.

This adds to the extra $3.5 billion the legislature gave schools for Common Core in spring 2015 and a separate infusion of $1.7 billion Gov. Jerry Brown snagged for Common Core spread across fiscal years 2014 and 2015. That makes a total of approximately $9.2 billion above and beyond existing tax expenditures Californians will pay to have Common Core injected into their state.

This even though both vested and independent analyses found that California’s pre-Common Core curriculum mandates were of higher quality than the Common Core that replaced it. You read that right: Californians got their kids worse instruction, and are paying $9.2 billion extra for it.
This follows our $6 billion in stem cell research that has returned nothing to the state, our tens of billions of dollars on our bullet train that will never see the light of day, etc.   California's motto:  if it's wacky enough or liberal enough, we'll do it--if for no other reason than to show how wacky or liberal we are!

One of the biggest problems, though, is that unlike the stem cell research (which was merely fruit of the poisoned tree, not the actual poisoning) or the bullet train, the change to Common Core standards actually hurts kids, at least in math.


Auntie Ann said...

Los Angeles has spent about $10 billion building idiotic light rail lines, then increased fares $0.25/ride to pay help for them.

A single ride (no transfers) in LA is $1.75 ($2.00 in Orange County, $1.75 in San Bernadino, $2.50 in San Diego, and $2.25 in San Francisco) and a 30-day pass is $100 ($69 in OC, $55 in San Bern, $72 in San Diego, and $70 in San Fran).

A family with two parents and two kids that is dependent on the bus for their transportation would have to spend $248 a month (child passes are $24/month) just to get around town. That's almost $3,000 a year. And since this is mostly the people on the poorer end of the economic spectrum, that will eat up a huge part of their annual income.

There were 453 million rides in LA in 2015. If you assume that the average fare is $1.00, that means that could have made the entire system free for users for over 15 years for the same money.

Which is more likely to improve ridership: making fares free? or building new lines and jacking up the prices to $1.75 per boarding.

Which is more likely to help the poorest in the community, decreasing their transportation costs, or building new light rail lines?

On the other hand, if the goal is actually to provide construction business to your political cronies and create temporary jobs for construction unions, then you choose to spend your money on light rail. If you want to pretend to be doing something about pollution and overcrowded roads, but not actually help with anything, you choose light rail.

And that's how corruption hides in plain sight while all the right-thinking people applaud and slap each other on the back for their goodness.

Ellen K said...

Politicians are trying to push a bullet train from Dallas to Houston. It's going to be a money pit. Landowners up and down the state are fearful that someone in Washington will push it through on a Federal mandate and us eminent domain to basically take land away from owners as the city of Arlington did to residents there in order to build the Jerry Dome.