[Jeanfromfillmore]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

Go back to them? They have become them. Who would be the real beneficiary of segregated schools by law, when the majority are, as you call them, blacks and browns? It sure wouldn't be white people, because with blacks and browns in charge of the education system and the treasury, they'd just choke the services off and funnel them into the racially acclimated schools of their choice.
And I'm going to point out that you are incorrigible. So many times we've all pointed out your using this forum for a purpose that violates our agenda and rules, and yet you're right back with the same sheet (yes, pun intended) with your first post in weeks. If I was a judge in juvenile court, I'd send you to reform school.

Unfortunately what you describe AG is very close to what is actually happening in our schools here in California. I am required to attend every School Board meeting in my district and I see first hand what is being proposed for our schools. Yes, services are being cut off in the areas where most of the minorities don't live and being funneled to where they do. Here is an article in the Sac. Bee. I've highlighted what Brown is trying to do.



Gov. Brown's school funding plan runs into lawmakers' concerns

Gov. Jerry Brown had hardly finished presenting his annual budget revision last week before state Sen. Ted Lieu lit up on Twitter with a burst of criticism of a major part of the plan, a bid to shift more state aid to poor and English-learning students.
"Instead of working together to help all kids," said Lieu, D-Torrance, Brown's funding formula "pits teacher against teacher, community against community, parent against parent."Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, convened a hearing on the matter in the Assembly Education Committee the next day, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, reiterated his own reservations about the proposal. He said lawmakers will model the effect of Brown's education proposal "region by region, district by district."

In many ways, resistance to Brown's proposal to overhaul California's school financing system is a function of simple math.

Though a majority of California's more than 6 million schoolchildren live in urban and rural districts expected to benefit from Brown's proposal, all but a handful of lawmakers who will vote on the measure represent at least one school district identified by the Department of Education as a potential loser.

"If a district defines itself as a winner or loser, right or wrong, that's what these lawmakers are going to care about," said Kevin Gordon, a longtime education lobbyist. "It's what drives a lot of the skepticism."

Brown was on the defensive last week, laboring to "clarify some common misperceptions" about his plan. He said the most controversial part of his proposal – to provide money to especially needy districts at the expense of wealthier ones – would amount to just 4 percent of total spending, with the rest distributed on a per-pupil basis partly to all students and partly to disadvantaged students statewide.

Brown dismissed a California Department of Education projection that more than half of state school districts could receive less money under this formula than they might under existing law. In his annual budget revision Tuesday, he called it a "very small part" of his plan.

That Brown was forced to address the matter at all suggests how difficult district-level considerations may be for the Democratic governor to overcome.
Asked if he thought he had done enough to mollify resistant lawmakers, Brown said, "I think the idea in a Democratic Legislature of helping the less advantaged is very persuasive."
Brown has endeavored to minimize district-by-district comparisons.
While criticizing the Department of Education analysis for its reliance on uncertain funding assumptions, the administration has refused to endorse a comparison of its own. Because of the complexities of school finance and the uncertainty of future political decisions, officials said it is impossible to accurately project how school funding would be allocated if Brown's proposal is not adopted.

Brown said no school district would receive less money under his plan than it does now, only that some districts with greater funding needs will do "considerably better" than others. This is NOT TRUE!!
Legislators not reassured
For many lawmakers, that assurance is insufficient. The Department of Education analysis, said Buchanan, is "a big deal."
Buchanan, who chairs the Assembly Education Committee, is one of two Assembly members, along with Diane Harkey, R- Because Dana Point is a wealthier district."It's a struggle for me, because I completely understand what the governor's trying to do," Buchanan said. "You can talk to people in my district who say, 'I can understand not getting as much, but we want our kids to have textbooks.' "
Like Steinberg, Buchanan has called for a greater proportion of the $1.9 billion Brown proposes to spend next year on restructuring the education system to be distributed statewide.
Brown did not offer such a concession in his budget revision, but he did move to please education interests in other ways. He proposed accelerating the repayment to local school districts of state aid deferred in previous years, and he offered $1 billion in one-time funding to help implement English, math and other education standards.
Brown offered to increase first-year spending overall on his education plan by $240 million, and he included about $218 million in continued funding for popular regional occupational centers and home-to-school transportation programs.
He left intact his proposal to eliminate most of California's categorical funds – money that can be used only for certain purposes – in an effort to give local districts greater flexibility in how they spend state money.
Following the release of a counterproposal last month, Senate Democrats released a list of school districts they said would not qualify for additional funding under Brown's plan, despite containing individual schools with high poverty.
Among districts on the list was Folsom Cordova Unified School District, which includes wealthy neighborhoods of Folsom and poorer pockets of Rancho Cordova."We're the losers," said Rhonda Crawford, the district's chief financial officer. "All of us in education, I think we all agree that something needs to be done and he's on the right track with this, but it's just that we, as one of the districts that is severely impacted by this, we just are asking for just a little extra time to look at the formulas and look at those discrepancies between districts."
Folsom Cordova expects to receive as much as $700 less per student than allowed by existing law under the governor's formula by the time it is fully implemented, or about $12 million annually, Crawford said.
"It's just not good for kids," she said.
Assemblyman Ken Cooley, the Rancho Cordova Democrat who represents the area, said that with Brown's proposal so closely following years of budget cuts to local schools, "I think what Californians expect is to see sort of broad-based improvement in education. … A scenario where you have truly winners and losers is not right."Some areas benefit greatly
Brown's proposal would generally be more advantageous for urban and rural school districts than for wealthier, suburban ones. In some of California's poorest areas, the benefit may be great.The massive Bakersfield City School District, where about 84 percent of students are low-income, could receive more than $1,000 more per student under Brown's funding formula than under existing law, according to the Department of Education analysis. Wasco Union Elementary School District, where nearly 90 percent of students are low-income, could receive more than $1,800 per student more."That 4 percent for these districts like Wasco is huge," said Michael Hulsizer, chief deputy for government affairs at the Kern County Office of Education.
Michael W. Kirst, president of the state Board of Education and a Stanford University professor emeritus who co-wrote a 2008 paper that became the model for Brown's proposal, said district-level comparisons have contributed to a "political battle" and distracted focus from broader policy concerns.
"You can manipulate assumptions to show anything, but the proposal that's out there by the governor is out there, and not the alternative assumptions about the future that make it look bad," he said.
Kirst said opposition may be overstated. Budget negotiations between the governor and lawmakers are only now beginning, and Kirst said changes Brown made in the budget revision may help some districts enough to satisfy the lawmakers representing them.
Still, Kirst said, "You can't make everybody 100 percent happy. There are tradeoffs in any school finance plan unless you have just all the money in the world."

This is from the LA Times and discusses ethnisity

Gov. Jerry Brown pitches education budget at East L.A. school


Brown said Humphreys Avenue Elementary was precisely the place that would get more aid and that the school deserved it.
"We’re trying to compensate a little bit for the difference between living in this neighborhood... [and] in Beverly Hills,” said Brown, standing with local dignitaries in front of the campus multipurpose room.
At Humphreys, about 98% of students are Latino, 100% are low income and about 50% are learning to speak and read in English.Brown's goal is to take 20% of the education allotment and distribute it based on the characteristics of the individual students enrolled in a school. Four percent would be reserved for schools with the highest concentration of the hardest-to-educate students.
"When you have more than 50% of kids in poverty or speaking another language, that is an extra barrier,” Brown said.
L.A. Unified could be a huge beneficiary, and has, in fact, based its own budget on the success of Brown's initiative, which gave L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy substantial motivation to be supportive.
"Students need to be funded for situations beyond their control,” Deasy said. "Equity delayed is equity denied.”
The stakes for L.A. were made clear by the group that had assembled, which included local teachers union president Warren Fletcher, who has lately been at odds with Deasy. On Friday the two exhibited nothing but common cause.
Those on hand also included L.A. Area Chamber of Commerce president Gary L. Toebben and United Way of Greater Los Angeles chief executive Elise Buik.
Humphreys Principal Ricardo Tapanes said the state recession cut into resources for his campus of 827 students, one of the larger elementary schools in the state. Class size in the early grades increased from about 20 to about 24 students per teacher. Class sizes in the upper grades increased from 25 to about 30. He also had to cut back on intervention services that provide extra help for students.
He has a nurse only two days a week to assist students and families that often lack regular healthcare. He said he could use a full-time counselor and a psychiatric social worker.
Ads by Google

"A lot of the issues have to do with the home life," said Tapanes, noting a range of challenges such as lice infestations, deficient nutrition and child-abuse reporting.
Brown has encountered bipartisan resistance from lawmakers who represent other kinds of school systems, so his visit was intended as political marketing to buttress his budget release this week. Brown argues that his proposal redirects new state funding that has come through an improving economy and voter-approved taxes. But school systems statewide are still trying to recover from reduced funding of past years.
The governor took a swipe at Democrats who haven't sided with him and also placed his plan in the context of a nationwide imperative for economic equity.
"As a society we’re getting more unequal every year and that’s going to tear us apart,” Brown said. "People of goodwill will see we’re all in it together.”
He left East L.A. for another similar event at a school in Long Beach.
[For the record 12:50 p.m. May 20: An earlier version of this post incorrectly stated that 6% of Brown's education allotment would be reserved for schools with the highest concentration of the hardest-to-educate students. The correct number is 4%.]