Budget in a capsule: Teachers (surprise, surprise) get Prop. 30 $

Jan. 10, 2013

By Chris Reed

The 2013-14 budget that Jerry Brown presents today is being billed by the Los Angeles Times as transformative for its push to change school funding basics to help schools with struggling students who don’t speak or read English well and to reduce the categorical spending mandates that tie the hands of many school districts.

The former change is going to be opposed by the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers because they like the status quo — the fact that veteran teachers end up at schools in more affluent neighborhoods with more academically inclined students from two-parent households. As Gloria Romero has figured out but Assembly Speaker John Perez has not, the CTA and the CFT aren’t about social justice.

The latter change is going to be loved by the CTA and the CFT because the fewer school spending mandates there are from Sacramento, the more money can be channeled by union-run school boards to the compensation of adult employees — i.e., teachers, for the most part.

So expect the former to flop and the latter to succeed.

So what’s today’s real headline?

That Brown wants schools and pretty much only schools to benefit from the extra tax revenue from Proposition 30, getting $2 billion more than in the present budget, and that money will go to teachers.

This is exactly as I predicted a year ago on Calwhine in a column agreeing with this observation from Arun Ramanathan of The Education Trust West:

“The proponents of upcoming ballot initiatives argue that taxing California’s Scrooges will restore our education system, thereby restoring our best path to income equality. But anyone who’s spent any time at school board meetings knows that the interests of children – especially the children in poverty and their families – are down near the bottom of the list, after the interests of the adult groups who got the board members elected. Give districts more money and sure, they might restore school days, summer school, and intervention programs for our state’s millions of Tiny Tims – but only after they’ve finished satisfying pent-up salary demands, backfilling pension and benefit obligations, increasing their reserves, paying off early retirement incentives, and recalling employees by seniority.”

This wasn’t exactly a difficult prediction on my part. Once you understand that the main priority in Sacramento is preserving the compensation policies that award automatic raises to most teachers every year, everything is predictable. And yet many media saps still go along with the idea that teachers are all about “the kids” and accept the surface narratives put out by the CTA-dominated education establishment.

So I’m really looking forward to George Skelton’s observations on this budget. I need a good laugh or six.


Write a comment
  1. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 10 January, 2013, 12:13

    But teachers dont make anything-they deserve 🙂

    (sarcasm folks, sarcasm)

    Reply this comment
  2. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 10 January, 2013, 14:20

    Philosophically speaking……

    When did the whole school teachers/state budgets umbilical cord begin in the first place?

    Am I naive, ignorant of history, or both, but…….shouldn’t teachers’ pay come from the local school district?

    I would think there would be ways to use some state money to supplement salaries in poorer districts, but shouldn’t that be an “end-of-line” decision. Shouldn’t the primary drivers be local?

    I’m no expert on school funding (far from it) but as it appears now, EVERYTHING seems to flow from Sacto. And let’s not even talk about how the Feds got involved here.

    Reply this comment
  3. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 10 January, 2013, 16:33

    “School districts would receive a 35 percent increase in per-student funding for each of their English language learners and economically disadvantaged students, and districts where more than half of students fall into those categories would automatically receive an a second 35 percent bump in per-student funding, according to the governor’s plan.”

    Gigantic scam. Here’s how:

    “What’s your name, son?”

    “Michael Ramirez, sir.

    “Ramirez, eh? How long have you been here?”

    “Ohh I was born here. So was my father. My grandfather came here as a small boy in the 1940s….”

    “Do you know ANYONE who ONLY speaks Spanish?”

    “Ummmm…well my uncle came here a few years ago. He speaks mostly Spanish….”

    “That’ll do!” (Checks box ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER). “Next!”

    Reply this comment
  4. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 10 January, 2013, 23:40

    Its racist, jimmy!

    Reply this comment
  5. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 11 January, 2013, 12:21

    “Its racist, jimmy!”

    What on God’s green earth are you talking about, Sunshine?

    I’m just showing how the game is played.

    Reply this comment
  6. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 11 January, 2013, 12:23

    OK…granted there is some hyperbole there. But a kernel of truth as well. There’s no denying – under Brown’s plan, ESL’s are a very, VERY valuable commodity.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

CA GOP moderates immigration tone

Hoping to satisfy restive constituents without handing Democrats a cudgel, the California Republican Party made moves designed to project a

Pay no attention to the political consultants behind the curtain

March 15, 2013 By Katy Grimes As long as I have followed politics closely — since Junior High school in

Unions kill teacher evaluation bill

May 3, 2013 By Katy Grimes For most parents in California, education is a nonpartisan issue. But too many of