Why is enrollment dropping so dramatically at CA public schools?

6,317 Views | 87 Replies | Last: 18 days ago by sycasey
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Golden One said:

concordtom said:

Golden One said:

concordtom said:

Golden One said:

We should encourage more widespread use of vouchers to create competition for the overly bureaucratic public school systems.

What do you think… is a flat tax a good idea, too?

Definitely. Gives everyone skin in the game and if properly implemented forces the super rich to pay their share. But it will never happen. The lower 50% and the upper 1% don't like the idea.

What's your opinion of a progressive tax system. Why does it exist (in theory, if there weren't special loopholes)?



Such a system is fine if there were no loopholes. Unfortunately, our tax system is is rife with them. Nobody should be exempt from paying something.


Wow. That's odd.
In one post you said you were in favor of a flat tax, in the other you favor progressive tax structure.

Do you understand the difference? How can you favor both?????
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SBGold said:

The thing is Wifey posed the question exactly to turn it into a left-right political culture war. That was the plan and he got what he wanted.

The sneaky guy

Oh the ultimate culture war guy with the 50 threads a day is being snarky.

I know this is a little nuanced for you, but with declining enrollment you have to look at the root causes. You can't reduce it to a clever one liner about MAGA or whatever.

People leaving the public system for privates are doing so because they want their kids to have private education for reasons that can be religious, political or personal. There may or may not be a cultural war aspect to it. While private schooling is growing relative to public schooling in CA, private schooling (including home schooling) still encompasses a relatively small portion of the student population. And yes, it is the public school enrollment which is dropping, which has all sorts of consequences: financial, employment, education quality and to some degree inequality. Some of this clearly is cultural. I don't see how you discuss the issue without some of that. A lot of this isn't, but the usual cultural warriors here chose to focus on the cultural. For example, no where in my OP did I mention teachers other than they were getting laid off. Yet teachers are turning into a cultural war battle here, and it is because people like you make it one. I imagine this will ultimately somehow become a MAGA fight, knowing this board.

There are demographical changes as a factor, and if you dig deeper, in many areas, it is about out-migration of younger families and declining birth rates in many areas of CA (particularly large urban areas). Some of this has to be affordability from a common sense perspective, and affordability is a legitimate political issue in this State that people should be able to discuss without resorting to being shrill and snarky. The decline in population is intuitively less migration and lower birth rates, and I think the data bears that out. Migration is a separate issue, and I suppose can lend itself to culture wars, but it is a factor. Looking at Europe, which has had a shirking birth rate for some time, this has consequences even beyond schools, due to a shrinking tax base, governments having difficulty paying pensions and maintaining infrastructure/public health plans as the population ages. It also has meant higher taxes on the younger population (this is somewhat mitigated in certain EU countries due to migration). An example that is likely to happen in this country in the future is funding for medicare. I suppose looking at the causes of a reduced birth rate raises political and cultural issues, which is certainly beyond my knowledge base to discuss. But if there is war about that, that is on the posters here.

You are never going to discuss education and demographics without some discussion of culture. How you discuss that depends on the people here. You can do so with reasoned analysis and give and take with learned Cal grads, which I think was the original intent of off topic, or with snarky remarks. Take a look in the mirror.



Golden One
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Golden One said:

concordtom said:

Golden One said:

concordtom said:

Golden One said:

We should encourage more widespread use of vouchers to create competition for the overly bureaucratic public school systems.

What do you think… is a flat tax a good idea, too?

Definitely. Gives everyone skin in the game and if properly implemented forces the super rich to pay their share. But it will never happen. The lower 50% and the upper 1% don't like the idea.

What's your opinion of a progressive tax system. Why does it exist (in theory, if there weren't special loopholes)?



Such a system is fine if there were no loopholes. Unfortunately, our tax system is is rife with them. Nobody should be exempt from paying something.


Wow. That's odd.
In one post you said you were in favor of a flat tax, in the other you favor progressive tax structure.

Do you understand the difference? How can you favor both?????


I didn't say I favored either one. My point is that either a flat tax or a modified progressive tax would be much better than the *******ized system that we have where almost 50% don't pay anything and the super rich have so many loopholes that they pay little.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
IMO many people rail against " schools" but are happy with their own kid's schools. There is the no account "other"

I tutor middle schoolers in Berkeley; while hardly a representative place, these kids are a 100 times more engaged in the world than I was at a comparable age- sometimes for better, some for worse.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Will taxpayers have an appetite for this?

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline. The US obviously had a huge explosion of kids during the Baby Boom, then a smaller bump around the 90s-00s when Millennials were young (many of them being the kids of those same Boomers). We're in a low trough for the school-age population right now that's probably going to get deeper before we come out of it. Not as many kids means enrollment goes down. A hard-line anti-immigration policy is also going to mean fewer kids coming in from overseas. You can argue that this is a good policy for other reasons, but it will mean that schools see these enrollment challenges. States like California that tend to have a high cost of living and have traditionally been a major destination for immigrants will feel it first, but eventually everyone will.

In certain regions there are other issues. Oakland public schools are a mess (some of the schools are good, but the overall district is a total mess), so in places like that parents with means will pull their kids out and go to private schools. You can blame the union for that (I will say that I don't think the Oakland teachers' union has been a helpful partner at all in solving these problems), but ultimately there is still a basic math problem: fewer kids means lower enrollment.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.


Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

In the Diablo Valley, we underwent a period of low enrollment in the late 70's which led to a high school getting closed down (Del Valle High) in 1979 in the Rossmoor area of Walnut Creek in the Acalanes Union High School District. This was a district that had a total of 4 high schools in Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Moraga, and Orinda.

When I graduated from Las Lomas in WC (which is among the Top 20% of public high schools in the state), I think my senior class may have been 225 and overall enrollment was no more than 900 or so.

Today's senior class is 390.
With a student-teacher ratio of 20:1

Total enrollment: 1,568

PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

Earlier in this thread, I posted something from Gavin Newsom's office where they claimed student funding in California is now a RECORD HIGH!

Since Governor Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student!
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

The biggest overall reason is the destruction of the nuclear family and the rise of single-family households.

It seems kids don't do as well in school when there's no daddy around.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PAC-10-BEAR said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

The biggest overall reason is the destruction of the nuclear family……


Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PAC-10-BEAR said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

Earlier in this thread, I posted something from Gavin Newsom's office where they claimed student funding in California is now a RECORD HIGH!

Since Governor Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student!


CA spending per student is up 65% over 10 years.
$21,600 ranks them #13 in the nation.

Newsom took office in 2019.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline. The US obviously had a huge explosion of kids during the Baby Boom, then a smaller bump around the 90s-00s when Millennials were young (many of them being the kids of those same Boomers). We're in a low trough for the school-age population right now that's probably going to get deeper before we come out of it. Not as many kids means enrollment goes down. A hard-line anti-immigration policy is also going to mean fewer kids coming in from overseas. You can argue that this is a good policy for other reasons, but it will mean that schools see these enrollment challenges. States like California that tend to have a high cost of living and have traditionally been a major destination for immigrants will feel it first, but eventually everyone will.

In certain regions there are other issues. Oakland public schools are a mess (some of the schools are good, but the overall district is a total mess), so in places like that parents with means will pull their kids out and go to private schools. You can blame the union for that (I will say that I don't think the Oakland teachers' union has been a helpful partner at all in solving these problems), but ultimately there is still a basic math problem: fewer kids means lower enrollment.

This post makes the most sense to me. It may be that school district funding needs to be on different basis than enrollment. It is simply tough to fix math and parents withdrawing students if the school district doesn't serve what they perceive to be their child's needs. School districts have a lot of "fixed costs" in the short and middle run that can't make adjustments for without radical and painful cuts, if funding is declining becuase it is based primarily on enrollment.

I'm not sure about all the other states having the same experience. Student populations are primarily growing in the Sunbelt and Intermountain West, driven by overall population in-migration and more stable birth rates. Utah is seeing around a 9% growth annual rate growth per year over in the last 10 years, but the percentage growth is declining due to the size of the enrollment base (it is one of only five states where total postsecondary enrollment has grown consistently since 2015). New Hampshire. the Dakota's and Idaho have the next highest rates, but they are small states. The Carolinas and Georgia are seeing around 4 to 5 % growth annually over the last 10 years reflecting booming State economies and in migration. Texas and Florida are growing at 1% per year which on a big enrollment base is significant. In most of the States seeing enrollment gains, the ratio of traditional pubic to private/charter is around 80 to 20 percent, respectively. In CA, the ratio is about 77.5 to 22.5%.


oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

PAC-10-BEAR said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

Earlier in this thread, I posted something from Gavin Newsom's office where they claimed student funding in California is now a RECORD HIGH!

Since Governor Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student!


CA spending per student is up 65% over 10 years.
$21,600 ranks them #13 in the nation.

Newsom took office in 2019.




That's completely wrong. Per student spending was $11,000 in 2016-17. If we are taking a 10 year period, it is up more than 100%. If we take just the period Newsom has been in office, it is up around 66%, which was the number posted a few replies above yours.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

PAC-10-BEAR said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

Earlier in this thread, I posted something from Gavin Newsom's office where they claimed student funding in California is now a RECORD HIGH!

Since Governor Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student!


CA spending per student is up 65% over 10 years.
$21,600 ranks them #13 in the nation.

Newsom took office in 2019.




That's completely wrong. Per student spending was $11,000 in 2016-17. If we are taking a 10 year period, it is up more than 100%. If we take just the period Newsom has been in office, it is up around 66%, which was the number posted a few replies above yours.


I stand by my post and data provided.

The $28,272 number posted by a previous post is unsubstantiated.

"No facts in evidence"
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline. The US obviously had a huge explosion of kids during the Baby Boom, then a smaller bump around the 90s-00s when Millennials were young (many of them being the kids of those same Boomers). We're in a low trough for the school-age population right now that's probably going to get deeper before we come out of it. Not as many kids means enrollment goes down. A hard-line anti-immigration policy is also going to mean fewer kids coming in from overseas. You can argue that this is a good policy for other reasons, but it will mean that schools see these enrollment challenges. States like California that tend to have a high cost of living and have traditionally been a major destination for immigrants will feel it first, but eventually everyone will.

In certain regions there are other issues. Oakland public schools are a mess (some of the schools are good, but the overall district is a total mess), so in places like that parents with means will pull their kids out and go to private schools. You can blame the union for that (I will say that I don't think the Oakland teachers' union has been a helpful partner at all in solving these problems), but ultimately there is still a basic math problem: fewer kids means lower enrollment.

This post makes the most sense to me. It may be that school district funding needs to be on different basis than enrollment. It is simply tough to fix math and parents withdrawing students if the school district doesn't serve what they perceive to be their child's needs. School districts have a lot of "fixed costs" in the short and middle run that can't make adjustments for without radical and painful cuts, if funding is declining becuase it is based primarily on enrollment.

I can only speak to my experience watching things in Oakland, but I suspect there are similar issues in other districts: there is also an unfortunate tendency to avoid the necessary cuts in favor of kicking the can down the road and hoping for more funding.

Oakland in particular is running way more school campus sites than the available population of school-age children would necessitate (as compared to other similar districts), and a lot of it is people just wanting to hang on to an old "neighborhood schools" model that was made when there were a lot more kids and families around. It means the district resources are stretched pretty thin to maintain all of these under-enrolled sites.

And yes, since it was raised: the teachers' union fights any potential cuts or site closures tooth-and-nail and is part of the problem.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline. The US obviously had a huge explosion of kids during the Baby Boom, then a smaller bump around the 90s-00s when Millennials were young (many of them being the kids of those same Boomers). We're in a low trough for the school-age population right now that's probably going to get deeper before we come out of it. Not as many kids means enrollment goes down. A hard-line anti-immigration policy is also going to mean fewer kids coming in from overseas. You can argue that this is a good policy for other reasons, but it will mean that schools see these enrollment challenges. States like California that tend to have a high cost of living and have traditionally been a major destination for immigrants will feel it first, but eventually everyone will.

In certain regions there are other issues. Oakland public schools are a mess (some of the schools are good, but the overall district is a total mess), so in places like that parents with means will pull their kids out and go to private schools. You can blame the union for that (I will say that I don't think the Oakland teachers' union has been a helpful partner at all in solving these problems), but ultimately there is still a basic math problem: fewer kids means lower enrollment.

This post makes the most sense to me. It may be that school district funding needs to be on different basis than enrollment. It is simply tough to fix math and parents withdrawing students if the school district doesn't serve what they perceive to be their child's needs. School districts have a lot of "fixed costs" in the short and middle run that can't make adjustments for without radical and painful cuts, if funding is declining becuase it is based primarily on enrollment.

I can only speak to my experience watching things in Oakland, but I suspect there are similar issues in other districts: there is also an unfortunate tendency to avoid the necessary cuts in favor of kicking the can down the road and hoping for more funding.

Oakland in particular is running way more school campus sites than the available population of school-age children would necessitate (as compared to other similar districts), and a lot of it is people just wanting to hang on to an old "neighborhood schools" model that was made when there were a lot more kids and families around. It means the district resources are stretched pretty thin to maintain all of these under-enrolled sites.

And yes, since it was raised: the teachers' union fights any potential cuts or site closures tooth-and-nail and is part of the problem.

I am a big teachers union kind of guy but I agree with you on this. My wife worked for OUSD when they went on strike several years back. The union wanted to have the district pay the teachers more and also keep all the declining-enrollment schools open. But who was going to finance all of this? Gotta make tough choices...
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

oski003 said:

DiabloWags said:

PAC-10-BEAR said:

DiabloWags said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline.

Bingo.
And when that happens, school districts don't get the money that they are used to from the State.

Earlier in this thread, I posted something from Gavin Newsom's office where they claimed student funding in California is now a RECORD HIGH!

Since Governor Newsom took office, it's increased 66% reaching $28,282 per student!


CA spending per student is up 65% over 10 years.
$21,600 ranks them #13 in the nation.

Newsom took office in 2019.




That's completely wrong. Per student spending was $11,000 in 2016-17. If we are taking a 10 year period, it is up more than 100%. If we take just the period Newsom has been in office, it is up around 66%, which was the number posted a few replies above yours.


I stand by my post and data provided.

The $28,272 number posted by a previous post is unsubstantiated.

"No facts in evidence"



Your number of $21,600, your FY 2023 number, is already almost double that of $11,500


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

sycasey said:

The biggest overall reason is birthrate decline. The US obviously had a huge explosion of kids during the Baby Boom, then a smaller bump around the 90s-00s when Millennials were young (many of them being the kids of those same Boomers). We're in a low trough for the school-age population right now that's probably going to get deeper before we come out of it. Not as many kids means enrollment goes down. A hard-line anti-immigration policy is also going to mean fewer kids coming in from overseas. You can argue that this is a good policy for other reasons, but it will mean that schools see these enrollment challenges. States like California that tend to have a high cost of living and have traditionally been a major destination for immigrants will feel it first, but eventually everyone will.

In certain regions there are other issues. Oakland public schools are a mess (some of the schools are good, but the overall district is a total mess), so in places like that parents with means will pull their kids out and go to private schools. You can blame the union for that (I will say that I don't think the Oakland teachers' union has been a helpful partner at all in solving these problems), but ultimately there is still a basic math problem: fewer kids means lower enrollment.

This post makes the most sense to me. It may be that school district funding needs to be on different basis than enrollment. It is simply tough to fix math and parents withdrawing students if the school district doesn't serve what they perceive to be their child's needs. School districts have a lot of "fixed costs" in the short and middle run that can't make adjustments for without radical and painful cuts, if funding is declining becuase it is based primarily on enrollment.

I can only speak to my experience watching things in Oakland, but I suspect there are similar issues in other districts: there is also an unfortunate tendency to avoid the necessary cuts in favor of kicking the can down the road and hoping for more funding.

Oakland in particular is running way more school campus sites than the available population of school-age children would necessitate (as compared to other similar districts), and a lot of it is people just wanting to hang on to an old "neighborhood schools" model that was made when there were a lot more kids and families around. It means the district resources are stretched pretty thin to maintain all of these under-enrolled sites.

And yes, since it was raised: the teachers' union fights any potential cuts or site closures tooth-and-nail and is part of the problem.

I am a big teachers union kind of guy but I agree with you on this. My wife worked for OUSD when they went on strike several years back. The union wanted to have the district pay the teachers more and also keep all the declining-enrollment schools open. But who was going to finance all of this? Gotta make tough choices...

The answer always seems to be for people to wave their hands and say they will increase enrollment or the state will come up with more funding or something. No actual solutions for the district itself to live within its means..
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.