For instance:
The California Department of Education says it spent $16,881 per pupil in the 2020-21 school year, 282% more than the $6,036 they spent per student in 2000.
So, is this person a mediocre teacher who shouldn't be teaching kids anyway or a dishonest moron?
Inflation adjusted figures show they spent about $11,600 in 2025 dollars in 2000. So over 25 years they've increased funding by about $5,000 per student. I'm sure a portion of that is due to the significant increases in technology/computers being integrated into schools over that period. Suddenly, it doesn't sound so bad, does it?
That means an absolutely mind-bending 34% of the dollars spent on labor in our suburban district went to people who have nothing to do with the day-to-day instruction of kids.
This is a completely subjective and arbitrary assessment as "mind-bending." Given the run up to this line, I wouldn't have said this is "mind-bending" at all. Oh, wait, it's because he's an idiot who thinks schools should be run as a business. Gotcha.
From 2000-2019, California moved from 20% proficient to 30% proficient in reading by 8th grade. Nearly tripling spending on schools helped 10% more 13-year-olds read at grade level.
There's that Republican math again. Of course, they went into this exercise with an axe to grind and a conclusion to support, so they only see a negative. What do I see? I see relatively consistent (maybe even slight improvement) performance over 20 years on a subject that is far more complex than the two variable problem this idiot is presenting it as.
The math data is even more embarrassing for this jamoke. Over thirty years you have a five-fold increase in the number of students testing as advanced and almost double those testing as proficient with significant decreases in those testing below basic.
Then at the very end is this gem:
A note on inflation: using an inflation calculator, $16,881 in 2020 was worth $11,231 dollars in 2000. 2020 K12 spending was 186% of 2000 K12 spending, inflation-adjusted. I felt it was necessary to footnote this, even though my analysis hinges on where the money is flowing rather than the amount by which spending has grown.
So they admit to being a dishonest turd and, hilariously, get the math wrong. $16,881 isn't 186% of $11,231. It's about 150%.
What a f*&^ing moron. They're probably bitter and jaded because they suck and they know it.
Well you can tell there is a there, there, since the whole cast of the usual suspects will do anything than actually discuss the topic of the thread and only have deflections to other points to offer up.