On Reason’s Hit & Run blog, Matt Welch responds to a LA Times story warning California’s future will be ruined by cutting 5,000 government employees to cope with the $24 billion budget deficit. Among other things, the Times fears, “Promising students would go to other states, taking their future skills, earnings and, possibly, Nobel Prizes elsewhere”?
There is no scenario being contemplated that I’m aware of where the net number of University of California students will be decreased under whatever cuts are coming. Does higher tuition = less Nobel Prizes? I dunno, ask the aforementioned Stanford, which IS A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY THAT WON’T BE AFFECTED BY THESE ANNIHILATING CUTS, YA MAROON.
“California companies would then find it harder to attract high-value employees who might be dubious about moving to a state with sub-par schools,” warns the Times.
California has increased education spending with “The ZERO noticeable improvements,” Welch writes.
Because the union-run school districts are infamous laboratories for inefficiency, job protection, and corruption, the state spends and spends, with nothing to show for it. Teachers unions are literally running out of other people’s money, and now they warn us about “sub-par schools”? That par got done subbed a long time ago. If politicians, journalists, and other “experts” want to defend the status quo (of constant spending increases), then they need to explain why Californians need to keep throwing more and more good money after bad on a K-12 system that is showing no results.
I think California is making progress in public education, despite enormous challenges. High housing prices — not poor schools — have discouraged some “high-value” workers from moving here.
I do worry about the state’s future because our legislators seem incapable of making difficult decisions.