[cowtown]

I don't see how you can pin this on Arnold. My wife is a teacher (college prof) and I have done contracting with the CA state dept. of education in the finance area.

My view is that it's not the teachers, but the laberynthine funding model and totally incomprehensible "accountability measures" like No Child Left Behind that are keeping anything from changing. Oh, and the teacher's unions.

Categorical funding - state revenues get divied up into a bunch of categorical programs, some big, some small. Some are for things like "Special Education Programs," which most, if not all, see the benefit of. Others are for things like "promotion of understanding of the Floridian White Owl in K-8 economically depressed schools," which is a waste of money, pure and simple. Arnold is trying to consolidate a bunch of these programs into large pots of money that can be allocated at the superintendent (district) level. Good idea, no? I think it is. The unions don't. It might disrupt the balance of power. Education lobbyists would lose out big time.

Accountability - No Child Left Behind funding is determined on a district level, based on the district's previous-year performance. This is a national (not state) program. Does this make sense? How do schools improve over one year? They don't. There are fluctuations as cohorts of kids move through the system, and schools are rewarded/penalized because of it. This should be changed, but it's not Arnold's program.

Per-pupil funding - over $10,000 per child, per year. Is more money the answer? (EDIT - took out incorrect ranking information).

Bureaucracy - The state superintendent of education (Jack O'Connell) is an elected officer, which makes the Dept. Of Ed a non-consititional office (meaning that the Gov. can't just impose his will on it). BUT, the State school board, to which the supe reports, is appointed by...the Governor. Does this make sense? Infighting is the biggest output here.

Unions - Anytime you even think about trying to fire an incompetent teacher, the union will sue. This is a blanket policy without regard to the merits of the individual case. It's just standard operating procedure, because precedent is everything in these actions. Does this make sense?

The system's screwed up, no doubt about it. But I don't think you can lay it all at Arnold's feet. These are complicated problems, and I was only involved in the money side of things.

The scapegoat excuse doesn't work. Why would the Gov scapegoat the most powerful organized labor union in the state, knowing full well that he has no direct control over the school system? My view is that he really does want to make changes, but he is becoming mired in the system and flailing around. Good intentions, unmanageable state.

Sorry this is long and not spellchecked.