5 ms·

It's not because of BLM. It's because of Prop 13.

by rcpt 2y ago

BadHumans 2y ago
Go on...Going to need a little bit more of an explanation here.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Prop 13 limits property taxes which are typically used for funding local schools. The comment is implying that it’s low school funding in Ca that is the culprit.
  - itbeho 2y ago
    Property prices in California have skyrocketed in the last decase, and so have tax revenues. Spending more money wastefully won't solve the problem.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    I understand now thanks. That point doesn't make sense to me in the context of the article because the article is claiming that black and Latino gifted children were under-scouted until the BLM movement. Seems that this and that are 2 different issues.
    - pfisherman 2y ago
      Prop 13 had a huge negative effect on quality of public schools in California, which I got to experience first hand. The difference was quite apparent to me during high school when I compared my older siblings’ yearbooks to my experience of the same school a decade later. They had so many more classes, clubs, sports, programs, and activities available to them than I did.
- cosinetau 2y ago
  Prop 13 prevents new property tax without a direct referendum. Without new revenue streams, gifted programs were affordable for school districts until they were not.
jedberg 2y ago
It could be both. Prop 13 is definitely a huge problem, it cut school funding significantly since the 80s. But also the focus on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I read a good book a while back that pointed out how much more we spend on special ed, which is aimed at the bottom 5%, compared to what we spend on gifted education, which is the top 5%. It asked why we would spend so much on one and not the other, especially since the ROI is so much higher for the top 5%. (It obviously skipped the whole "making our society better and helping those in need" argument since it hurt their argument).
- panzagl 2y ago
  Special ed is expensive because it's things like 'this student needs a full time aid'. The only way to decrease it is to basically abandon those children.
  - jedberg 2y ago
    Or agree that the top 5% should get the same resources and give each one a private tutor at the same cost.
elzbardico 2y ago
So paying incompetent administrators and teacher even more than what they make in California will somehow improve things magically? The solution is to always tax more, that's it?
- teachrdan 2y ago
  Funny how HN never assumes that paying software developers more money is pointless. It's just those greedy teachers trying to make enough money to buy a home!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
xbar 2y ago
Specifically, Prop. 13's impact on commercial real estate, which was the real reason for it all along.
tick_tock_tick 2y ago
Spending per student isn't really that related to test performance so I don't really understand the link?

It's not because of BLM. It's because of Prop 13.

by rcpt 2y ago

It's not because of BLM. It's because of Prop 13.

BadHumans 2y ago

Go on...Going to need a little bit more of an explanation here.

edmundsauto 2y ago
Prop 13 limits property taxes which are typically used for funding local schools. The comment is implying that it’s low school funding in Ca that is the culprit.
- itbeho 2y ago
  Property prices in California have skyrocketed in the last decase, and so have tax revenues. Spending more money wastefully won't solve the problem.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  I understand now thanks. That point doesn't make sense to me in the context of the article because the article is claiming that black and Latino gifted children were under-scouted until the BLM movement. Seems that this and that are 2 different issues.
  - pfisherman 2y ago
    Prop 13 had a huge negative effect on quality of public schools in California, which I got to experience first hand. The difference was quite apparent to me during high school when I compared my older siblings’ yearbooks to my experience of the same school a decade later. They had so many more classes, clubs, sports, programs, and activities available to them than I did.
cosinetau 2y ago
Prop 13 prevents new property tax without a direct referendum. Without new revenue streams, gifted programs were affordable for school districts until they were not.

jedberg 2y ago

It could be both. Prop 13 is definitely a huge problem, it cut school funding significantly since the 80s. But also the focus on equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity. I read a good book a while back that pointed out how much more we spend on special ed, which is aimed at the bottom 5%, compared to what we spend on gifted education, which is the top 5%. It asked why we would spend so much on one and not the other, especially since the ROI is so much higher for the top 5%. (It obviously skipped the whole "making our society better and helping those in need" argument since it hurt their argument).

panzagl 2y ago
Special ed is expensive because it's things like 'this student needs a full time aid'. The only way to decrease it is to basically abandon those children.
- jedberg 2y ago
  Or agree that the top 5% should get the same resources and give each one a private tutor at the same cost.

elzbardico 2y ago

So paying incompetent administrators and teacher even more than what they make in California will somehow improve things magically? The solution is to always tax more, that's it?

teachrdan 2y ago
Funny how HN never assumes that paying software developers more money is pointless. It's just those greedy teachers trying to make enough money to buy a home!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

xbar 2y ago

Specifically, Prop. 13's impact on commercial real estate, which was the real reason for it all along.

tick_tock_tick 2y ago

Spending per student isn't really that related to test performance so I don't really understand the link?