This is not unique to large districts. My small, rural district’s former superintendent was a lawyer. My state’s former education commissioner has simply been a board member of Teach for America after briefly being a “corps” member. And then there’s DeVos.
I’m sure they would if the republican ■■■■■■■■ about democrats views on taxes were even remotely true.
I’m sure in the future after thinking about this situation you won’t be one of the pubs repeating the stupid republican party line about dems just always wanting to raise taxes. 
Oh… I couldn’t hold a straight face there.
Who is saying anything about wanting to raise taxes capriciously? There is a issue regarding the state of CA’s largest school district which can be resolved with more tax revenue. Also the tax raise here being discussed was a higher marginal tax rate on the very wealthy that as far as I know many Democrats favor including people on this discussion board.
Cal is like 48th in education… More proof dems have no solutions. And they will put up with anything for a govt check.
This is a School District/county/city issue. You DO know that, right?
You.
10 char
1 Like
According to who? Forbes has California ranked #37. The ten bottom-ranked states are mostly predictable: Arkansas; West Virginia; Oregon; Alabama; Mississippi; Nevada; Arizona; Alaska; Louisiana; New Mexico.
Schools receive state funding as well. In NJ for example we have what is referred to as Abbott districts which typically receive most of the state funding:
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/10mainnj.html
I have to assume that would be the same in CA as well.
No. The focus of the discussion pertains to higher taxes on the wealthy, which is a targeted tax. Do you believe that someone making over few millions dollars can’t afford that?
lol - So when dems say they want to raise taxes on the wealthy it’s capricious, but when you do it, it’s a strategic targeted move for a purpose. I love it.
Did you read my other posts? Nowhere in ANY post did I say that pertaining to higher marginal tax rates on the very wealthy. I’m personally not opposed to that, I would consider myself center-left regarding that.
I bet LA has one of the most expensive school systems in the world… Probably 20K per student spent for mediocre results…
And you would lose that bet. Par for the course
In 2014, California spent $8,694 per pupil and ranked 46th, while New York, spent $18,191 per pupil and ranked third in the nation. First in the nation was Vermont at $19,654.
More recent figures come from the nonpartisan California Budget & Policy Center in a report released in January on 2015-16 spending, but even that report gives two different rankings.
In terms of state spending per K-12 student, the report gives California a rank of 41st. That’s $10,291 per student, adjusting for cost-of-living.
Did you miss the word “LA”?
Why am I not surprised that’s you’re completely unaware of how it works. The state set the cost and not individual cities.
Cost per student by country.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp
Top 40 countries for education
If money alone made things better the lists would be identical…
What does any of that have to do with the fact that your assertion wasn’t even remotely true? You said you bet that LA ha the most expensive school systems in the world when the truth is that it’s one of the lowest in the entire country.
Los Angeles schools spend $12,807 per student (The US average is $12,383)
Now compare that to world cost per student I posted…lol! Not the most expensive but near it…
Your source isn’t the most reliable. This is also on that page
Los Angeles has 0 schools: 0 public schools and 0 private schools
