5 ms·

California used to have the best schools in the country, and roughly a third of our urban population is Silicon Valley. It's home to the largest economy in the

by hedora 5mo ago

California used to have the best schools in the country, and roughly a third of our urban population is Silicon Valley. It's home to the largest economy in the US by a large margin, and is one of the richest states. Yet, somehow, for math: https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=NP&chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&st=MN&year=2015R3 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=... the only states/territories doing worse at math are DC, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, and Alabama. I'm not sure what Alabama's excuse is, but the other three entries on that list have obvious economic problems (only low income urban, failed power grid, literally blowing away due to climate change).

watwut 5mo ago
Silicon Valley is also the place of serious homeless problem. "The economy" as an abstractions is not what matters - the economy here is some people being super rich while others increasingly outside of good options.
- hedora 5mo ago
  That's due to unrelated intentional mismanagement by state and local governments. Just build enough market rate housing to house the local population, and the issue will solve itself. "Affordable housing" is a trap for buyers, builders, and policy makers: - If you buy an affordable housing unit, then when you sell it, you have to charge based on a formula that will be way below the normal appreciation in your area. Basically, the money you put into the house was a sunk investment that's guaranteed to under-perform anything else you could have put it into. You're much better off getting a fixer-upper condo, or just renting + putting the money in an ETF.) - If you build an affordable housing unit, then the rest of your development project becomes less profitable. Once the project is approved, you're foolishly tying up capital that could have been used to fund additional developments in other states. Also, the affordable housing approval process is slow and politically fraught. While that happens, you're holding a piece of land (and paying interest on it) that might turn out to be worthless, depending on the outcome of local politics. (If you don't believe me, next time you're driving around Silicon Valley, count "proposed development" signs, and categorize them by "badly weathered" or "brand new". "Badly weathered" means someone has been paying a mortgage on the (probably $10's-100's M) field behind the sign for at least a year. They're not paying home mortgage rates for that. It's probably 7-10% interest. That $700K-10M that could have been used to actually build houses. - If your local government is subsidizing affordable housing, then they're misallocating resources. They could have used that money to expedite permit applications, improve public transit, add bike trails, build parks, increase freeway access or invest in other public goods that make the area more attractive to residents. Those things have a much higher payoff per dollar. Also, the local government has a monopoly on them. By opting to not do them, they are causing economic damage that cannot be routed around by the private sector. Of course, there's also the question of deciding who gets the public funds, and all the corruption and backroom dealing inherent in that process.
alephnerd 5mo ago
Because most of California isn't Silicon Valley. The good parts of the Bay Area (which also align to where the majority of the tech industry is) have public schools that haven't changed their curricula despite common core. On the other hand, the rest of California has had significant financial and budget crises and never recovered from the 2008-13 California budget crisis.
- jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
  >public schools that haven't changed their curricula despite common core. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, most of this has to do with the math framework, not the standards.
  - alephnerd 5mo ago
    My mom's a teacher at one of these schools, we still have friends sending their kids to them, and I'm still in contact with my HS teachers at that school. In wealthier areas of the Bay like Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Fremont, Palo Alto, Tri-Valley, Lamorindia, etc the school districts are only paying lip service to common core and still teaching as they were during my time. Most students take multiple AP classes (and the HSes usually offer 15-20 APs) as well as attend the local CC, UC Berkeley, or Stanford to take additional classes. The schools that are militantly common core and trying to remove classes are also (frankly) in crap school districts like SFUSD or OUSD where school board elections are dominated by local activists who oftentimes don't even have kids but are using the board as a stepping stone into local politics, and due to their reputations and low pay are unable to hire teachers for more advanced classes anyhow. There's a reason the kind of house that would go for $1.5M in Sunset would go for $2.5M in the Peninsula or Tri-Valley.
    - jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
      I am a teacher and I write education software for math as a side gig, which I must have because I'm a teacher. It's rare for any teacher to just discard the standards. And anyone who says "common core" is talking about something from 20 years ago. The new math framework--already years old--has sparked the latest wave of UC revolts and NO standardized testing is part of it. "Common core" is the exact opposite. When people say that they are referring to the standards and the tests that go with them. Standards are just standards you can teach them or not, but the framework, something entirely different, give schools guidance on what courses to offer and how to approach it. The latest framework poo-pooed Calculus and Algebra for advanced middle schoolers in the name of "equity." And dissing admissions tests is part of this movement, that gave us the "Data Science" class that UCs rejected. That was supposed to replace Algebra 2 and therefore make students UC-ready. As someone who taught that class, I can tell you it was a joke. And it had zero, nothing to do with common core. Finding a way to link it to those existing standards was difficult at best. And I promise your mom's school at least gives the CAASPP. Every school in the Bay Area is not not doing that for decades out in the open. Sorry.
jerlam 5mo ago
California had below average (for US states) school funding per student until recently: https://edsource.org/2026/california-education-funding-rise/757381 https://edsource.org/2026/california-education-funding-rise/... At times, it was ranked second-worst. I would argue that with California's high cost of living, "average" funding in California is still low relatively speaking.
- hedora 5mo ago
  True, but I was responding to a comment blaming the children for their under-performance. The funding gap isn't somehow due to those kids not wanting to learn, problems at home, etc.
  - jerlam 5mo ago
    I am agreeing with you - the funding gap is one of the causes for under-performance.
rsanek 5mo ago
Note that with that link you're looking at data that is over a decade old. Alabama is actually doing better than California in the most recent grade 4 math profile. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=NP&chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&st=MN&year=2024R3 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=...
DFHippie 5mo ago
I think you also named Alabama's problems. It's one of the poorest states and seems bound and determined to stay that way.

by hedora 5mo ago

watwut 5mo ago

Silicon Valley is also the place of serious homeless problem. "The economy" as an abstractions is not what matters - the economy here is some people being super rich while others increasingly outside of good options.

hedora 5mo ago
That's due to unrelated intentional mismanagement by state and local governments. Just build enough market rate housing to house the local population, and the issue will solve itself. "Affordable housing" is a trap for buyers, builders, and policy makers: - If you buy an affordable housing unit, then when you sell it, you have to charge based on a formula that will be way below the normal appreciation in your area. Basically, the money you put into the house was a sunk investment that's guaranteed to under-perform anything else you could have put it into. You're much better off getting a fixer-upper condo, or just renting + putting the money in an ETF.) - If you build an affordable housing unit, then the rest of your development project becomes less profitable. Once the project is approved, you're foolishly tying up capital that could have been used to fund additional developments in other states. Also, the affordable housing approval process is slow and politically fraught. While that happens, you're holding a piece of land (and paying interest on it) that might turn out to be worthless, depending on the outcome of local politics. (If you don't believe me, next time you're driving around Silicon Valley, count "proposed development" signs, and categorize them by "badly weathered" or "brand new". "Badly weathered" means someone has been paying a mortgage on the (probably $10's-100's M) field behind the sign for at least a year. They're not paying home mortgage rates for that. It's probably 7-10% interest. That $700K-10M that could have been used to actually build houses. - If your local government is subsidizing affordable housing, then they're misallocating resources. They could have used that money to expedite permit applications, improve public transit, add bike trails, build parks, increase freeway access or invest in other public goods that make the area more attractive to residents. Those things have a much higher payoff per dollar. Also, the local government has a monopoly on them. By opting to not do them, they are causing economic damage that cannot be routed around by the private sector. Of course, there's also the question of deciding who gets the public funds, and all the corruption and backroom dealing inherent in that process.

alephnerd 5mo ago

Because most of California isn't Silicon Valley. The good parts of the Bay Area (which also align to where the majority of the tech industry is) have public schools that haven't changed their curricula despite common core. On the other hand, the rest of California has had significant financial and budget crises and never recovered from the 2008-13 California budget crisis.

jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
>public schools that haven't changed their curricula despite common core. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, most of this has to do with the math framework, not the standards.
- alephnerd 5mo ago
  My mom's a teacher at one of these schools, we still have friends sending their kids to them, and I'm still in contact with my HS teachers at that school. In wealthier areas of the Bay like Saratoga, Cupertino, Campbell, Fremont, Palo Alto, Tri-Valley, Lamorindia, etc the school districts are only paying lip service to common core and still teaching as they were during my time. Most students take multiple AP classes (and the HSes usually offer 15-20 APs) as well as attend the local CC, UC Berkeley, or Stanford to take additional classes. The schools that are militantly common core and trying to remove classes are also (frankly) in crap school districts like SFUSD or OUSD where school board elections are dominated by local activists who oftentimes don't even have kids but are using the board as a stepping stone into local politics, and due to their reputations and low pay are unable to hire teachers for more advanced classes anyhow. There's a reason the kind of house that would go for $1.5M in Sunset would go for $2.5M in the Peninsula or Tri-Valley.
  - jsLavaGoat 5mo ago
    I am a teacher and I write education software for math as a side gig, which I must have because I'm a teacher. It's rare for any teacher to just discard the standards. And anyone who says "common core" is talking about something from 20 years ago. The new math framework--already years old--has sparked the latest wave of UC revolts and NO standardized testing is part of it. "Common core" is the exact opposite. When people say that they are referring to the standards and the tests that go with them. Standards are just standards you can teach them or not, but the framework, something entirely different, give schools guidance on what courses to offer and how to approach it. The latest framework poo-pooed Calculus and Algebra for advanced middle schoolers in the name of "equity." And dissing admissions tests is part of this movement, that gave us the "Data Science" class that UCs rejected. That was supposed to replace Algebra 2 and therefore make students UC-ready. As someone who taught that class, I can tell you it was a joke. And it had zero, nothing to do with common core. Finding a way to link it to those existing standards was difficult at best. And I promise your mom's school at least gives the CAASPP. Every school in the Bay Area is not not doing that for decades out in the open. Sorry.

jerlam 5mo ago

California had below average (for US states) school funding per student until recently: https://edsource.org/2026/california-education-funding-rise/757381 https://edsource.org/2026/california-education-funding-rise/... At times, it was ranked second-worst. I would argue that with California's high cost of living, "average" funding in California is still low relatively speaking.

hedora 5mo ago
True, but I was responding to a comment blaming the children for their under-performance. The funding gap isn't somehow due to those kids not wanting to learn, problems at home, etc.
- jerlam 5mo ago
  I am agreeing with you - the funding gap is one of the causes for under-performance.

rsanek 5mo ago

Note that with that link you're looking at data that is over a decade old. Alabama is actually doing better than California in the most recent grade 4 math profile. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=NP&chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&st=MN&year=2024R3 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?sfj=...

DFHippie 5mo ago

I think you also named Alabama's problems. It's one of the poorest states and seems bound and determined to stay that way.