If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox Business)   If you're looking for a list of California municipalities that will be declaring bankruptcy in exactly 20 years, here you go   (foxbusiness.com) divider line 58
    More: Fail, franchise taxes, Franchise Tax Board, Stifel Nicolaus, Poway, municipalities, municipal bonds, fiscal years, school districts  
•       •       •

3352 clicks; posted to Business » on 08 Aug 2012 at 4:43 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-08-08 03:46:46 PM
What happens to bond obligations if the state of California dissolves a city?

A school district north of San Diego, Poway Unified, borrowed $105 million over 40 years by selling a bond so unusual that the State of Michigan outlawed it years ago. Taxpayers in the area will end up with a nearly $1 billion bill at the end of this deal.

40 year municipal bonds shouldn't be legal in the first place. A high school a few miles from me was funded with 40 year bonds. The building will need to be rebuilt before the construction bonds are paid off. If you can't afford it in 30 years, you can't afford it at all. At least we don't allow cities to gamble. Some banks had to give refunds after illegally selling auction rate securities to city governments.
 
2012-08-08 04:06:46 PM
California voters aren't willing to fund their infrastructure via taxation, so something has to give eventually.
 
2012-08-08 04:08:30 PM
And the Poway district has already borrowed tens of millions of dollars at nosebleed 12.6% interest rates.

Why don't they just get 0% loans from the Fed like the guys on Wall Street?
 
2012-08-08 04:16:39 PM
Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?
 
2012-08-08 04:20:21 PM
That whole article is a giant facepalm. They can't raise taxes, administrators haven't budgeted correctly, so they're borrowing 100 million with a 1 billion payoff in 40 years. Also, they're sitting on 34.5 million for, I dunno, staff birthday parties or something.
 
2012-08-08 04:22:13 PM

Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?


As long as the boomers and every Republican in Orange County can still vote, they'll never agree that it wasn't.

EVER.
 
2012-08-08 04:22:25 PM

Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?


Thank god for it, actually. The morans in Sacramento would just keep jacking up tax rates and spending whatever they can. The state added 20K workers and spending went up between 2007-2010 for no apparent reason. If they'd stuck with pop growth + inflation (starting in 2007), CA would actually be even, maybe even a little surplus.

Add in AB32 (Global Warming/cap & trade) that's going to chase businesses from the state and they're building a perfect shiatstorm here.
 
2012-08-08 04:23:00 PM
Oops, spending went up 25 percent between 07-10.

/ftfm
 
2012-08-08 04:23:46 PM

timujin: And the Poway district has already borrowed tens of millions of dollars at nosebleed 12.6% interest rates.

Why don't they just get 0% loans from the Fed like the guys on Wall Street?



That's not how Treasuries work ...
 
wee [TotalFark]
2012-08-08 04:39:34 PM
As of the 2009 tax year, California listed just 98,610 California tax returns with adjusted gross income of $500,000 or more, down 32.5% from the 146,221 in 2007.

I'm really curious as to what amounts various factors like a sluggish economy or moving out of state or tax havens account for that decrease. That's an astounding drop, if true...
 
2012-08-08 04:43:09 PM

Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?


No, no it wasn't.

/CA homeowner
 
2012-08-08 04:43:49 PM
All I want to know is what kind of insane person would buy these bonds, and do they want to come to my poker night? 

During the housing bubble when they were making million dollar liar loans to people with no income, at least there was an outside chance that those people were going to win the lottery.  This is just throwing your money away and I guess hoping you can package up and sell the bond a few years down the line to someone who sucks at due diligence.
 
2012-08-08 04:47:47 PM
considering how bad inflation is likely to get, this may not be a bad deal. In 40 years that billion may be worth less than a 10 year old dodge neon is now
 
2012-08-08 04:56:35 PM
There should be a limit as to how far into the future government officials can promise or obligate funds.
 
2012-08-08 05:01:32 PM
Good to see that the school system that completely failed me is still pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-08-08 05:03:44 PM

Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?


There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-08 05:08:50 PM

kmmontandon: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

As long as the boomers and every Republican in Orange County can still vote, they'll never agree that it wasn't.

EVER.


Nah. All the boomers I know were against it in the first place and still are.
 
2012-08-08 05:10:43 PM

tomWright: considering how bad inflation is likely to get, this may not be a bad deal. In 40 years that billion may be worth less than a 10 year old dodge neon is now


I'd have to agree. $100m 40 years ago (1972) would be worth $500m, half a billion, today. So borrowing $100m for 40 years with no payments during those 40 years and having to pay back only double the amount isn't terrible. Lots of people with mortgages will be paying back far more than that over a shorter time.

/Some people just don't understand math.
//Of course blowing that cash in a few months isn't a smart move either.
///Of course it would be better if these schools made savings and didn't have to borrow, but that just insane.
 
2012-08-08 05:13:00 PM

jjorsett: long-lost inamorata




8/10 I like your vocabulary. Nice to see a troll taking a risk and using the big words. Usually they go for the blunt herr derr approach and lose many potential fish by being so blatant.
 
2012-08-08 05:18:35 PM

Flint Ironstag: Of course it would be better if these schools made savings and didn't have to borrow, but that just insane.


Schools are not people. They are public institution which are ideally run as efficiently as possible. They arent supposed to "make savings" they are supposed to meet budget with none left over. They do have a reserve which they probably should have tapped - but often those are earmarked by the tax payers who voted for them for specific expenditures.

25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.
 
2012-08-08 05:27:07 PM
The schools have made a bet that inflation will skyrocket. If it does, then those bonds will be an incredibly good investment.


It's a big bet - if interests remain low or drop, then the municipalities will be exactly as screwed as the poster (and some of you think).

But if the schools are right and interest rates skyrocket, they will be VERY happy - just as people that take out a 30 year mortgage at 3.6% today to buy a home worth 1 million will be laughing all the way to the bank if interest rates sky rocket up to 10%.

Is it wise for them to make this bet? Perhaps not.
 
2012-08-08 05:28:00 PM

quickdraw:
25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.


The only reason Prop 13 came about is because the courts meddled in local funding of schools. Prop 13 would never had occurred if Priest v Serrano didn't happen first. People generally support local property taxes for schools because they correlate to much higher property values in California, but Priest v Serrano blocks this from happening with few exceptions, so, justifiably, people don't want to vote to increase their property taxes to pay for someone's desk chair 1500 miles away.
 
2012-08-08 05:30:43 PM
Stop building Taj Mahal style schools and athletic facilities, stop paying Administration ridiculous salaries, and stop teaching every elective that can be imagined.
 
2012-08-08 05:35:42 PM

ZAZ: 40 year municipal bonds shouldn't be legal in the first place. A high school a few miles from me was funded with 40 year bonds. The building will need to be rebuilt before the construction bonds are paid off. If you can't afford it in 30 years, you can't afford it at all. At least we don't allow cities to gamble. Some banks had to give refunds after illegally selling auction rate securities to city governments.


I would just like to point out that in California it is not unusual for school buildings in any developed area to be 50+ years old.
 
2012-08-08 05:37:28 PM
So vote Democrat.
 
2012-08-08 06:03:20 PM

quickdraw: jjorsett: long-lost inamorata



8/10 I like your vocabulary. Nice to see a troll taking a risk and using the big words. Usually they go for the blunt herr derr approach and lose many potential fish by being so blatant.


Well, thank you. I put some effort and thought into my posts and try to make them interesting, pithy, and provocative. They aren't intended as trolling, which I characterize as making inflammatory statements just to get a rise out of people, but rather statements of position and advocacy. I've never written something that I didn't personally believe to be true or at least highly likely, irony- and sarcasm-based ones excepted.
 
2012-08-08 06:04:52 PM

jjorsett: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.

[i47.tinypic.com image 300x436]


Very nicely done.
 
2012-08-08 06:10:07 PM

bhcompy: ZAZ: 40 year municipal bonds shouldn't be legal in the first place. A high school a few miles from me was funded with 40 year bonds. The building will need to be rebuilt before the construction bonds are paid off. If you can't afford it in 30 years, you can't afford it at all. At least we don't allow cities to gamble. Some banks had to give refunds after illegally selling auction rate securities to city governments.

I would just like to point out that in California it is not unusual for school buildings in any developed area to be 50+ years old.


The High School in my neighborhood was built in 1924. I'm pretty sure they'd have paid off any 40-year bonds by now.

The Muthaship: So vote Democrat.


What does that have to do with the linked article? You do know that San Diego is about as Republican as you can get, right? They've had a majority vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate a total of six times in the least 92 years.
 
2012-08-08 06:12:11 PM

bhcompy: quickdraw:
25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.

The only reason Prop 13 came about is because the courts meddled in local funding of schools. Prop 13 would never had occurred if Priest v Serrano didn't happen first. People generally support local property taxes for schools because they correlate to much higher property values in California, but Priest v Serrano blocks this from happening with few exceptions, so, justifiably, people don't want to vote to increase their property taxes to pay for someone's desk chair 1500 miles away.


Having lived thru the Prop 13 era, I can say that a big motivator for many was that the state was running a surplus at the time while the increase in housing prices and resultant assessed values was taking property taxes to higher and higher levels. People were getting taxed out of their homes, and dreaded the arrival of each year's tax bill. The biggest selling point for me at the time was the limitation on how much your taxes could go up while you owned the house. If that hadn't been in place and the tax rate reduced to 1% of assessed value, I'd be paying $25K a year now, just in property tax. Or rather, the new owner would, since I'd have moved.
 
2012-08-08 06:14:03 PM

Marcus Aurelius: jjorsett: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.

[i47.tinypic.com image 300x436]

Very nicely done.


Thanks very much. I know we're on opposite sides of most issues, but a kind word is always appreciated.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-08-08 06:18:32 PM
bhcompy

The standard used around here is a school building should be renovated every 30 years. That's what I meant by rebuilt, not tear it down and build a new one. Maybe a quarter the cost of a new building.
 
2012-08-08 06:22:33 PM

dj_bigbird: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

Thank god for it, actually. The morans in Sacramento would just keep jacking up tax rates and spending whatever they can.


California has raised taxes and spent more than just about any other state since Prop 13. So clearly their cunning plan was not thought all the way through. It's basically just rent control for property taxes - new entrants pay absurd rates to make up for the subsidied properties.

tomWright: considering how bad inflation is likely to get, this may not be a bad deal. In 40 years that billion may be worth less than a 10 year old dodge neon is now


If that happens they'll go bankrupt, anyway. That's like buying apocalypse insurance.

jjorsett: There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.


You think Prop 13 prevented taxes from going up? Do you buy $.01 items with $99 shipping and think you're getting a great deal?

Flint Ironstag: I'd have to agree. $100m 40 years ago (1972) would be worth $500m, half a billion, today. So borrowing $100m for 40 years with no payments during those 40 years and having to pay back only double the amount isn't terrible. Lots of people with mortgages will be paying back far more than that over a shorter time.


That is not what is happening. They're paying very high interest rates and deferring payments for 20 years. If inflation is massive enough to make that make sense, then they'll go broke, anyway.

quickdraw: 25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.


wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net

Yeah, look at that huge drop in the blue line after 1978.

tarkin1: The schools have made a bet that inflation will skyrocket. If it does, then those bonds will be an incredibly good investment.

It's a big bet - if interests remain low or drop, then the municipalities will be exactly as screwed as the poster (and some of you think).

But if the schools are right and interest rates skyrocket, they will be VERY happy - just as people that take out a 30 year mortgage at 3.6% today to buy a home worth 1 million will be laughing all the way to the bank if interest rates sky rocket up to 10%.

Is it wise for them to make this bet? Perhaps not.


Ignoring the question of whether city governments should be allowed to gamble - and I think it should get them sent to jail - unless we get hyperinflation, they are going to be screwed when these payments come due because they will undoubtedly continue to lever up even more between now and then.
 
TKM
2012-08-08 06:46:11 PM
If only there were professional math practitioners available for consultation.
 
2012-08-08 06:54:58 PM

BMFPitt: dj_bigbird: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

Thank god for it, actually. The morans in Sacramento would just keep jacking up tax rates and spending whatever they can.

California has raised taxes and spent more than just about any other state since Prop 13. So clearly their cunning plan was not thought all the way through. It's basically just rent control for property taxes - new entrants pay absurd rates to make up for the subsidied properties.

tomWright: considering how bad inflation is likely to get, this may not be a bad deal. In 40 years that billion may be worth less than a 10 year old dodge neon is now

If that happens they'll go bankrupt, anyway. That's like buying apocalypse insurance.

jjorsett: There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.

You think Prop 13 prevented taxes from going up? Do you buy $.01 items with $99 shipping and think you're getting a great deal?

Flint Ironstag: I'd have to agree. $100m 40 years ago (1972) would be worth $500m, half a billion, today. So borrowing $100m for 40 years with no payments during those 40 years and having to pay back only double the amount isn't terrible. Lots of people with mortgages will be paying back far more than that over a shorter time.

That is not what is happening. They're paying very high interest rates and deferring payments for 20 years. If inflation is massive enough to make that make sense, then they'll go broke, anyway.

quickdraw: 25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 620x452]

Yeah, look at that huge drop in the blue line after 1978.

tarkin1: The scho ...


Isn't the SAT indexed every year to give an average of 100 nationally? So every state could be spending more and every pupil could be learning proportionally more, but this plot only shows that that CA students are slightly behind the national average.

I don't know if that's actually the conclusion one should draw from this graph, just that SAT score is a shiatty comparison, which is why the CATO institute chose it.
 
2012-08-08 06:55:34 PM
*average of 1000 nationally.
 
2012-08-08 07:27:32 PM

BMFPitt: dj_bigbird: Shostie: Guess Prop. 13 wasn't such a great idea, huh, California?

Thank god for it, actually. The morans in Sacramento would just keep jacking up tax rates and spending whatever they can.

California has raised taxes and spent more than just about any other state since Prop 13. So clearly their cunning plan was not thought all the way through. It's basically just rent control for property taxes - new entrants pay absurd rates to make up for the subsidied properties.

tomWright: considering how bad inflation is likely to get, this may not be a bad deal. In 40 years that billion may be worth less than a 10 year old dodge neon is now

If that happens they'll go bankrupt, anyway. That's like buying apocalypse insurance.

jjorsett: There's nothing spendaholics hate more than a tax that's lower than it once was. Every other tax can go up to the sky, but if even one slips the net, they obsess over it, like a long-lost inamorata, hoping with all their being to entice it back.

You think Prop 13 prevented taxes from going up? Do you buy $.01 items with $99 shipping and think you're getting a great deal?

Flint Ironstag: I'd have to agree. $100m 40 years ago (1972) would be worth $500m, half a billion, today. So borrowing $100m for 40 years with no payments during those 40 years and having to pay back only double the amount isn't terrible. Lots of people with mortgages will be paying back far more than that over a shorter time.

That is not what is happening. They're paying very high interest rates and deferring payments for 20 years. If inflation is massive enough to make that make sense, then they'll go broke, anyway.

quickdraw: 25 years ago California had the best public education system in the world. Prop 13 cut funding for public schools drastically over time so the effects weren't felt immediately but this is the inevitable result.

[wac.0873.edgecastcdn.net image 620x452]

Yeah, look at that huge drop in the blue line after 1978.

tarkin1: The scho ...


1 graph doesn't explain it. Enron alone cost the state billions, destabilizing the budget further.

regarding schooling. . .

CA is the future for the rest of the states. lets start with the bad teachers today who 'can't be fire'

CA decided many years ago that small class room sizes was a good thing. good idea.
CA didn't give a fuzzyratbutt about who they hired. bad idea.

they have since made becoming a teacher very interesting, but at least its better than anyone with a BA. No training in teaching, where as today you essentially get a graduate degree and then STILL have to continue formal education for another two years IF you do find a job. LOTS of training...

Funding

Prop 13 bad, but leaving prop tx as is would have been worse. high end neighborhoods had great schools due to high revenue, not so much for poorer schools.

right now the schools are more than 1 year behind actual payments from the state, and further the fed. bills due in april are being paid the following june.

Unions?
pay is not nessesaraly the problem, benifits more so. the complain about unions donating to Ds is silly, unions have affiliated themselves with dems/libs in order to get overall funding for the school districts, not just their personal coffers. as always more than enough unscrupulous individuals in the heirarchy system of the unions is also doing plenty of damage to both schools and government.

Tenure?

how does a teacher get tenure? being a good teacher for 4-7 years (or longer) at one school. how often are teachers observed by administration, other teachers, community members, local or state officials? to possibly see if a person should become essentially part of the community? Not enough.

Testing?

too many memes to go through... but essentially linking payment and results is not as good as it sounds. teaching to the test, tens of billions of dollars and only 4 companies? that doesn't sound like a cartel to you?

why spend so much money on testing supplies/prep/ANALYSIS when you could get better results by providing free breakfast? You know, like they do only for test week?

Immigration?

Lots of court cases lay out that the public school system must teach each child, regardless of condition to a certain financial/libel/saftey point. Some try to point out that the staff to studnt ratio has gone up or remained steady, but staff includes the huge number of resource aids. the public school must meet these demands. Same with english language learners. Its up to you to decide if the state really is responsible for meeting theses needs, but these kids are getting an education.

a better point would be that the school's funding is also linked to ADA, average daily attendance. schools need to prove that they need all the resources they are asking for, and use attendence and registration to plot budgets. this also puts the legal irresponsibility to get 'delinquents' to class as well.

here is a sad example of the school system in california, csb time

taught 7/8th grade history for a year. had an 8th grader who came to class 33 of the 90 day semester. the school lost funding from her not being there, lost funding trying to get her there, and lost funding when she took her various tests.

she had been failed throughout her school carrier, guardians as well as teachers. i tried to get her to red a graph off the board. to read the number 114,000 miles of track. she couldn't say one hundred and fourteen thousand.

rare case? my class size went from 30-45 due to attendance. a handful got perfect attendance. hard to learn with no book to take home.

went to admin with my fail list. lots.

admin says we do not have the resources to 'retain' students. was told to give C-. i inquired further (ie demanded) to at least fail the girl with 30% attendance and 14% grade. C-.



point being, do we bother trying to save the system anymore or just burn it down and leave everyone on their own?
 
2012-08-08 07:54:10 PM

astro716: Isn't the SAT indexed every year to give an average of 1000 nationally?


No, it isn't.

I don't know if that's actually the conclusion one should draw from this graph, just that SAT score is a shiatty comparison, which is why the CATO institute chose it.

The SAT line had nothing to do with this topic. The graph was posted in response to a comment that school funding had been slashed constantly since Prop 13. The graph refutes that claim.

thekilt04: Wall of text


Why were you responding to me with that?
 
2012-08-08 08:19:30 PM

BMFPitt: The graph was posted in response to a comment that school funding had been slashed constantly since Prop 13. The graph refutes that claim.


Should CA go back to 1968 spending levels?
 
2012-08-08 08:21:00 PM
Most kids born today will not be able to afford college, and that's gonna be the least of their problems.
 
2012-08-08 08:44:45 PM
You mean educating illegal crimmigrants and their crotch droppings aren't producing good returns? The hell you say.
 
2012-08-08 09:23:55 PM

jjorsett: Well, thank you. I put some effort and thought into my posts and try to make them interesting, pithy, and provocative. They aren't intended as trolling, which I characterize as making inflammatory statements just to get a rise out of people, but rather statements of position and advocacy. I've never written something that I didn't personally believe to be true or at least highly likely, irony- and sarcasm-based ones excepted.


What you're missing is that "trolling" is just shorthand for "any post that doesn't argue in favor of increasing taxes as a generalized cure for every known socioeconomic malady."
 
2012-08-08 09:56:20 PM

nytmare: Should CA go back to 1968 spending levels?


No. Why?
 
2012-08-08 10:09:27 PM

timujin: And the Poway district has already borrowed tens of millions of dollars at nosebleed 12.6% interest rates.

Why don't they just get 0% loans from the Fed like the guys on Wall Street?


They must have a horrible credit rating because the local district got 2.6% interest on their bond issue last year.
 
2012-08-08 10:25:54 PM

kurr: Good to see that the school system that completely failed me is still pants-on-head retarded.


I had no idea that kids from Abraxas could even read, let alone log onto the internet.

The Aurora shotter was a Poway Unified student, we rock.

/Mt Carmel, class of '90
 
2012-08-08 10:26:46 PM

Bonzo_1116: kurr: Good to see that the school system that completely failed me is still pants-on-head retarded.

I had no idea that kids from Abraxas could even read, let alone log onto the internet.

The Aurora shotter was a Poway Unified student, we rock.

/Mt Carmel, class of '90


hahahahahahahaha

Shooter.

Billions and billions down the toilet in the Poway Unified.
 
2012-08-08 11:03:19 PM

BMFPitt: astro716: Isn't the SAT indexed every year to give an average of 1000 nationally?

No, it isn't.

I don't know if that's actually the conclusion one should draw from this graph, just that SAT score is a shiatty comparison, which is why the CATO institute chose it.

The SAT line had nothing to do with this topic. The graph was posted in response to a comment that school funding had been slashed constantly since Prop 13. The graph refutes that claim.

thekilt04: Wall of text

Why were you responding to me with that?


you seemed like you didn't know what you were talking about, tried to help.
 
2012-08-09 12:34:05 AM

tarkin1: The schools have made a bet that inflation will skyrocket. If it does, then those bonds will be an incredibly good investment.


It's a big bet - if interests remain low or drop, then the municipalities will be exactly as screwed as the poster (and some of you think).

But if the schools are right and interest rates skyrocket, they will be VERY happy - just as people that take out a 30 year mortgage at 3.6% today to buy a home worth 1 million will be laughing all the way to the bank if interest rates sky rocket up to 10%.

Is it wise for them to make this bet? Perhaps not.


If there isn't much inflation they will just declare bankruptcy once the bond is due. I wonder how much of those costs were necessary and how much was on neat toys. Do students really need the latest and best computers, or just computers? Do they really need a covered eating area?

What is problematic is that those expected to pay for these schools 40 years from now will be those that don't get the benefit from them as by that time,the schools will need to be upgraded. Those residents will get the double whammy, necessitating a bankruptcy filing, or kicking the can even further down the road. .
 
2012-08-09 01:05:56 AM

BMFPitt: astro716: Isn't the SAT indexed every year to give an average of 1000 nationally?

No, it isn't.


Wow. I'm convinced.
 
2012-08-09 01:08:14 AM

AiryAnne: Stop building Taj Mahal style schools and athletic facilities, stop paying Administration ridiculous salaries, and stop teaching every elective that can be imagined.


What are these electives you speak of? I have 25+ kids on my caseload (special ed teacher, caseload is RSP). One of my responsibilities is to schedule classes for them and I can promise you that having too many electives is not a problem. Right now, there just aren't many electives. When school budgets get slashed, electives get cut first.
 
2012-08-09 01:43:43 AM
We send our kids to private school.

The public elementary school for our neighborhood has gang problems. Houses are still about $600 grand on this block... and our public elementary school for our area has gang problems.

Yes, we can petition to go to one of the whiter schools in the district with no gang problems, but we didn't want to deal with the lottery system.

/California public schools... a lot of good intentions, and you know where that leads.
/We have many studies that show we need more administrators for our public schools in California because that's what you think of when you think "quality education"... a bloated administration for every single farking school district.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report