4 ms·

In California, the union didn't just negotiate the contracts from one side of the table. The California Teacher's Association (CTA) is, by amount spent, the mos

by gojomo 14y ago

In California, the union didn't just negotiate the contracts from one side of the table. The California Teacher's Association (CTA) is, by amount spent, the most powerful entity in state politics (to say nothing of volunteer 'ground troops'). Thus they control both sides of the negotiating table, and also usually get what they want via the initiative process, as with 1988's Prop 98 (guaranteeing school funding by formula) or 2012's Prop 30 (as noted by this article, bailing out teachers' underfunded pensions). Here's a nice exegesis of their role over the last 40 years: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-association.html http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-teachers-as... If it's part of school finance or operations in California, and it's broken, it's because the CTA made it that way.

rdl 14y ago
I don't get how there is so much spending, but such crappy schools. There's a reasonable argument over how much should be spent on education (assuming returns are relatively proportional to spending), but CA seems to spend money for no return.
- barry-cotter 14y ago
  No real quality control from outside (How many administrators aren't former teachers?) and really, really high switching costs. If you want to switch schools you can move house or pay for the government schools through taxes and private school in fees. Not that I think the evidence suggests there's much easy improvement in teaching quality but parochial/charter schools suggest you can do it for a lot cheaper.
  - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    Parochial schools are cheap in California?
- adventured 14y ago
  California decoupled the return on investment factor from its spending, with predictable results. It doesn't help that half the political spectrum has been arguing for decades non-stop to just spend more and more and more on education, without any concern for improving the low return on investment we currently have on education dollars.
  - jellicle 14y ago
    > It doesn't help that half the political spectrum has been arguing for decades non-stop to just spend more and more and more on education, without any concern for improving the low return on investment we currently have on education dollars. Can you name even one person who has been arguing that?
    - rdl 14y ago
      I think he means anyone arguing for more money without also wanting metrics. I think there are a lot of people against metrics, for two main reasons: they distrust the metrics for accuracy (or think they measure the wrongs things), or personal fear of change. A bottom-30-percent teacher probably knows he or she is in the bottom half, at least, and is rightly afraid of metrics.
- wildgift 14y ago
  You don't get it because your premise that all schools are crappy is incorrect. There are good schools, and there are crappy ones, at least by their scores. The big spending happens on the poorest student populations, and the results aren't that good. Why? Well, I'm going to say something unpopular, but it is often because the parents lack education, or are crappy parents, or don't prioritize education. Maybe they think work or family are more important than education. Or there are no parents.
  - rdl 14y ago
    It's not that all public schools are crappy in California (Palo Alto, Hillsborough are great counterexamples), but a lot of them are.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    Of course there are good public schools. The problem is, they're mainly where the kids would get a good education even if public schools didn't exist. Those parents would find a way. And by forcing those active-and-mobile parents to cluster together geographically, to get their money's worth from the public system, the abandoned isolation of the other students gets worse.
- greedo 14y ago
  Returns aren't proportional to spending. Most of the studies have shown that increasing spending has little to no impact on student outcomes, nor does decreasing class size. Of course, there's a minimum level of spending required, but that's been reached a long time ago.
- fusiongyro 14y ago
  What are you talking about? The schools actually are doing a fantastic job at their twin goals, which are: 1) being a place to send your children during the day so you can work, and 2) creating excellent standardized test takers. I have great faith that we are producing a generation of the very best and most talented standardized American test takers. No other nation in the world is producing kids who are as good at taking and succeeding at our standardized tests, and they're no help at all with babysitting.

by gojomo 14y ago

rdl 14y ago

I don't get how there is so much spending, but such crappy schools. There's a reasonable argument over how much should be spent on education (assuming returns are relatively proportional to spending), but CA seems to spend money for no return.

barry-cotter 14y ago
No real quality control from outside (How many administrators aren't former teachers?) and really, really high switching costs. If you want to switch schools you can move house or pay for the government schools through taxes and private school in fees. Not that I think the evidence suggests there's much easy improvement in teaching quality but parochial/charter schools suggest you can do it for a lot cheaper.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Parochial schools are cheap in California?
adventured 14y ago
California decoupled the return on investment factor from its spending, with predictable results. It doesn't help that half the political spectrum has been arguing for decades non-stop to just spend more and more and more on education, without any concern for improving the low return on investment we currently have on education dollars.
- jellicle 14y ago
  > It doesn't help that half the political spectrum has been arguing for decades non-stop to just spend more and more and more on education, without any concern for improving the low return on investment we currently have on education dollars. Can you name even one person who has been arguing that?
  - rdl 14y ago
    I think he means anyone arguing for more money without also wanting metrics. I think there are a lot of people against metrics, for two main reasons: they distrust the metrics for accuracy (or think they measure the wrongs things), or personal fear of change. A bottom-30-percent teacher probably knows he or she is in the bottom half, at least, and is rightly afraid of metrics.
wildgift 14y ago
You don't get it because your premise that all schools are crappy is incorrect. There are good schools, and there are crappy ones, at least by their scores. The big spending happens on the poorest student populations, and the results aren't that good. Why? Well, I'm going to say something unpopular, but it is often because the parents lack education, or are crappy parents, or don't prioritize education. Maybe they think work or family are more important than education. Or there are no parents.
- rdl 14y ago
  It's not that all public schools are crappy in California (Palo Alto, Hillsborough are great counterexamples), but a lot of them are.
- gojomo 14y ago
  Of course there are good public schools. The problem is, they're mainly where the kids would get a good education even if public schools didn't exist. Those parents would find a way. And by forcing those active-and-mobile parents to cluster together geographically, to get their money's worth from the public system, the abandoned isolation of the other students gets worse.
greedo 14y ago
Returns aren't proportional to spending. Most of the studies have shown that increasing spending has little to no impact on student outcomes, nor does decreasing class size. Of course, there's a minimum level of spending required, but that's been reached a long time ago.
fusiongyro 14y ago
What are you talking about? The schools actually are doing a fantastic job at their twin goals, which are: 1) being a place to send your children during the day so you can work, and 2) creating excellent standardized test takers. I have great faith that we are producing a generation of the very best and most talented standardized American test takers. No other nation in the world is producing kids who are as good at taking and succeeding at our standardized tests, and they're no help at all with babysitting.