tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post116733305530118868..comments2024-03-13T21:26:03.011-07:00Comments on Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher: New Report Due That Identifies and Fixes All of California's Education WoesDarrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1167444494279617812006-12-29T18:08:00.000-08:002006-12-29T18:08:00.000-08:00Thanks for clarifying that. The numbers I'd alway...Thanks for clarifying that. The numbers I'd always heard were in the $6-7000 range, and you've identified what that number entails.Darrenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730642770935985796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1167425660608548812006-12-29T12:54:00.000-08:002006-12-29T12:54:00.000-08:00And funding at $11,000 per student? Bull, unless s...<I><BR/>And funding at $11,000 per student? Bull, unless someone's using so new metric for measuring how much money we're spending. That would be a few thousand more than any of the numbers I've ever heard thrown around...<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>There are at least two numbers that get reported for educational<BR/>spending. One is the amount of money spent per pupil (per year) at the<BR/>schools. This tends to be in the $7,500 - $8,000 range for California.<BR/><BR/>A second number is the amount of money that the state spends per<BR/>pupil. This number tends to be about 33% higher than the first number.<BR/><BR/>This second number includes things like capital costs for building new<BR/>schools, non-trivial mantainance (sp?) costs for the schools and paying<BR/>the interest on the bonds that we took out in earlier years for K-12 education.<BR/><BR/>The second number is the "correct" one to use, since we can't let the<BR/>schools fall down and going into default on the bonds is generally<BR/>considered a bad idea.<BR/><BR/>The second number is the one typically used when people complain about<BR/>how poor the schools are and it is the one handed out by the local<BR/>school districts (which is sorta reasonable since this is the only<BR/>money that they see).<BR/><BR/>$10K-$11K per pupil per year is about right for the total amount of<BR/>money that California spends on K-12 education. Or, as I like to<BR/>quote it, ~$200K - ~$250K per class-room per year.<BR/><BR/>Of this money, approximately $73K goes to the teacher in the form<BR/>of salary and benefits (benefits are a non-trivial cost ... which<BR/>doesn't mean that the teachers see much of them). So, $10K-$11K<BR/>per student per year. About 33% of the funding pays for the teachers.<BR/><BR/>I can provide a more detailed estimated breakdown (using data from<BR/>my local school district) if you wish.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/> -Mark RouloAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10348701.post-1167339904876856412006-12-28T13:05:00.000-08:002006-12-28T13:05:00.000-08:00You inquired -Are California's teachers currently ...You inquired -<BR/><BR/>Are California's teachers currently not professional? Perhaps union protections have turned California's teachers from professionals into skilled labor?<BR/><BR/>Union protections have placed California educators in the same category as skilled laborers, largely due to the impending and imminent merger of the NEA/CTA with the AFL/CIO. We are no longer educators, in the professional sense of the word. We are unionized laborers, period.<BR/>The AAE is the only professional organization dedicated to keeping educators in the category of professionals, i.e. white collar workers.<BR/>But no one is forced to join the AAE, and therefore, forced-unionized teachers are no different from dockworkers, steel workers, and other blue collar professions.<BR/>The rough, bullyish tactics of the union during the special election demonstrated that vividly in 2005.<BR/>We are doomed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com