(07-30-2014, 05:49 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=10244.msg93336#msg93336 date=1406764392]
Is my recollection faulty that the lottery proposition was sold on the basis of it creating an additional source for increased school spending and then, after it passed, the State reduced its budget for that purpose? Seems to me there was some sort of bait and switch like that, but I'm not sure whether that was noise or fact.
That is exactly what I remember, along with the pious "it's for the children" as a reason the state refused and refuses to legalize "immoral" Las Vegas style casinos. I am all for education, as are you all, but in my lifetime there seems to be an inverse correlation between money spent on education and the overall quality of education. Except for my first grade teacher, Sister Rita, who I famously asked to set aside my vows and marry me when I grew up, I only had a small handful of teachers (pre Stanford) who I respected and learned anything from. I remember, fondly, signing up for an elective class my Senior year billed as "Economics." Day 1 the teacher, Mr. Craft, announced that teenagers weren't mature enough to study Economics so the class would focus on "Problems of the American Teenager." I made a louder than intended remark that some might consider disrespectful. He usered me outside, asked me if an A- was satisfactory in his class and, if so, would I please not show up again. I took him up on it and enrolled in Freshman English at our local Junior College, where the teacher, by the way, was one of the best I ever had, Stanford or elsewhere.
I laso, that same semetester ( my last) had two other incidents this old man wants to share. First was Mrs. Hecht's Business Law calss (I had to sign up for something!). First day she asked a bunch of questions, all of which I answered (probably a pain in the ass to the other students but I wasn't paying attention.). So, she also took me outside, offered me an A if I wouldn't show up anymore. Took her up on it.
Finally, on the last day of Senior year, getting things filled out, like sigs from teachers that I was passing their class, etc., I came upon "Completed Drivers Ed. with space for a teacher's sig. Holy Crap! I needed to take Driver's Ed to graduate? Who knew? How did I miss this memo? Oh Geez! A teacher's name, which I didn't know, was listed so I set off in search of him. Found him and introduced myself. He consulted his list and said, "yes, I gave you a B+, is that okay?" High school was a strange time.
[/quote]
When the Lottery Act was passed, there was fear that its proceeds would be used to replace funding that had previously come from other taxes rather than to supplement funding. The voters did not want to approve the Lottery Act to shift the tax burden from regular taxes onto gambling, but they were willing to allow gambling if it wound up actually improving education. To try to guaranteed this, the Act contains language supposedly mandating that the funds would be supplemental and not used to supplant or replace other funding sources. In the CSU, for example, Lottery funds for many years could not be spent on things that had previously been supported with state dollars, and they were used for technological enhancements in the classroom that we otherwise could not afford, etc.
Unfortunately, during numerous budgetary downturns since then the funding sources for K-12, CCC, CSU, and UC have all been cut, and the various systems have always found ways to play a "shell game" to circumvent the spirit of the Act. By the time the pots of money get shifted around the Lottery Funds do wind up replacing rather than supplementing other revenues. All the Lottery Act has accomplished is to raise a relatively small amount of money--largely from working class gamblers--so that sales, income, and property taxes can be a tiny bit lower. Its net effect on the funding level of California education is negligible, and possibly even negative since it can be used as an excuse not to support education better with other revenues.
