Ever since Hiram Johnson and his fellow Progressives made ballot initiatives a part of the California political landscape 100 years ago, the state’s voters have been obliged to grasp some fairly slippery policy issues before casting their votes. Propositions 30 and 38 on the November ballot are representative of the thorny problems other states assign to their legislators, but in California are punted to voters as popular referendums.
Both propositions aim to send more money to the state’s public schools, but that’s pretty much where the similarities end. For typical voters, even those who care deeply about public education, deciphering the long-term consequences of a simple for or against vote could require hours sifting through the arcana of school finance.
Fortunately, the folks over at EdSource did the hard work for us. They’ve prepared an infographic to explain the two propositions in a clear and illustrative format. As EdSource’s executive director Louis Freedberg noted in his accompanying blog, when voters are confused, they tend to vote against propositions—even propositions they might have supported had they possessed more knowledge.
Voters seeking yet more info on the initiatives can visit the Official Voter Information Guide, as well as analyses from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the California Budget Project, the League of Women Voters, and the Silicon Valley Education Foundation. They can also go to the official campaign websites of Prop. 30 and Prop. 38.
And why do you think a voucher will provide enough money for adequate education? The whole strategy behind vouchers is to shrink the amount until it's nothing. This problem will not go away just because you change to a voucher system.
It's not blackmail. If you don't have the money, you make the cuts.
As applied to the K-12 and community college systems (which I am more familiar with), this statement goes in the same list as "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength.".
Flowery Elementary: 90% Hispanic etc." "Hispanic" does not mean illegal. It also doesn't automatically mean that such a person is a fluent Spanish speaker, although there is a higher correlation.
You specifically use the word "illegal." The use of that word is what I took issue with. I also noticed that you use the demographics of Sonoma. I could present equally staggering numbers if I were to use the demographics of Ross, Corte Madera, Tiburon, Novato, etc. Race versus immigration status must be kept separate.
Like you, I take great issue with our immigration policy here in this country. I also take great issue with those that take advantage of systems that are designed to help people that are temporarily in need as you mentioned. It sounds like your experience has led you to believe that this is true of all people of this race. As a white guy, I find that unfortunate. I have many Hispanic friends who are very hard-working, very well educated and very legal here in this country. So if you're in the emergency room one day and you look up and there is a Hispanic doctor, you might want to ask to check his papers and find out where his/her kids go to school and if they are anchor babies. Or if that Hispanic paramedic saves one of your family members' lives, you may want to do the same. Or when that Hispanic police officer responds to your house to protect your family after you call 911, you may want to do the same. Chances are, in some cases, they may even pay more taxes than you do. Just sayin You and I agree in principal, but I caution you on the use of your words and stereotypes.
75% of the funds collected go to the Judicial system to be used in any manner they see fit, from pay roll and personnel to you name it. 25% goes to schools with guidelines and limitations regarding it's use. If the distribution of the "estimated" funds turns out to be incorrect, only the schools have to make up the difference out of the 25% they received. Inherently the schools will receive less and less as we know Judicial cost are going to increase, unless you know of some of our elected representatives who are willing to take the necessary steps to keep cost down.
I find it almost amusing if it wasn't so sad, when I talk to supporters of this Proposition, how they believe this is all for schools. Here's your Quarter, oops, wait a minute I made a mistake, give it back, here's your Dime! READ THE PROPOSITION IN THE GENERAL ELECTION HAND BOOK!
Yes, our state is in a budget crisis. Yes, there was a ton of mismanagement, leading to a lot of mistrust. We have had a revenue decline because we've had a decline in the economy and an increase in tax cuts. Same thing is going on with our federal government. But when we have a budget shortfall, and we've made pretty much as many cuts as we can to education, maybe it's time to increase the revenues somehow. California wants to produce the best and the brightest, but they don't want to fund it. And frankly, I'm embarrassed to appear on a page with people who think that all Hispanic students in California are illegals or anchor babies. Get a grip on reality and stop hating people with a different color skin than yours. This is 2012! I can't even begin to understand why this level of intolerance is still around today. Your relatives weren't born here either, I'd guess. Give people a break. Wow.
There are no enhancements to "corporate contributions," only restrictions on direct funding to candidates and the same for unions. You may continue to choose your candidates individually. That is called choice. SuperPACS will *continue* to be allowed to fund candidates, as will IE groups be able to create ads in support of them or against them, as they are so allowed now. Both unions and corporations will have LESS influence, although union contributions and influence are about 3:1 times corporate now.
Have the innovative, thoughtful, insightful, creative teachers and faculty create methodologies to increase learning with significantly reduced resources $. Be American do more with less! No on 30, No on 38 and No on 32
I left my General Election Handbook at work, however it is all there as I have shown it to others to their shock! I know it is a long one to read, but between the beginning and the middle is where you will find it, since "it" is the source I have no where else to tell you to look. If you want to come over to my shop, I will show it to you. No debate or interpretation as none is needed.
Prior to that the states were responsibile for their own education plus it was a big draw for families to move to the states that had the best schools and look for jobs and buy houses. We need to stop federally regulating everything and allow the states to become competitive.
Best Hope to Fix California Education: teacher faculty never-say-die spirit of more learning for fewer resources. “All you have to do is spend more (Prop 30, 38) on education” should be ignored as Prop 30, 38 do not serve our state’s school and university children. Additional money (Prop 30, 38) is not the magic elixir. We are kidding ourselves by believing that education funding shortfalls disappear with Prop 30, Prop 38. Prop 30, Prop 38 levy significant taxes on each one of us. The wounds that Prop 30, 38 are to heal have been self inflicted largely by our elected Sacramento politicians who simply do not say no to any influential interest group be they teachers, University of California (29% increase in salaries last 6 years), public employees, business, or other unions or lobbyists. As election day approaches Prop 30, 38 are used by Sacramento politicians and lobbyists to blackmail us. Vote No on Prop 30, 38, 32. Save California education for our school and university children.
Pg 80 right column SEC 4 down I quote "Public Safety Services includes the following: Employing and training public safety officials, including law enforcement personnel, attorneys assigned to criminal proceeding and court security staff. Managing local jails"... This list goes on for awhile. For clarification this "is" the judicial system. Pg 82 right top of column before section c. I quote "the Controller shall transfer into the Education Protection Account one-fourth of the total amount estimated pursuant to subparagraph (A) for that fiscal year." This leaves three-fourths going elsewhere. I am not going to sit here and quote the entire Proposition considering it is 4 1/2 pages long, read it!