The local rag of plausible deniability has this article:
As housing prices in Ventura County are going up, enrollment in local schools is going down, and that means less money for education.
That's because most school funding is based on enrollment, so if schools have fewer students, they get less money from the state.
"As we're in this slow decline, it's difficult to balance the budget," said Charles Weis, Ventura County superintendent of schools. "It's difficult to keep teachers and programs in place."
Countywide, enrollment dropped by 1,500 students last year, Weis said.
Full Story: http://tinyurl.com/pg558
Of course there's a whole lot more than just housing prices but it is a piece of the picture.
12 comments:
Even in Oxnard?
Especially in Oxnard. The HS Dist lost enrollment in the midsts of a massive, out of control, population explosion and unprecedented demographic shift towards school age residents. What the article fails to mention iis performance is so poor private schooling is rising. The Catholic schools are full to bursting for instance.
Have schools in the 'Nard ever been good? My only reference point is about 1973, when my brother went to HS there. He said it was miserable, and ended up moving to escape.
I have noticed that the school district has spent big on new buildings recently. Apparantly they have not invested in learning.
Have the non-Catholic private schools started up in Venco? They are literally all around us here in SM.
sm_l,
Yes to all. Oxnard never has found itself. Education has suffered and 1973-5 was the atart down from average. The educational alternatives are all thriving;homeschool, the Catholics, thee privates an the dual tracked publiics. My children are in the latter. These are scchools within schools ith olid acaademics. The districts need this because 1 star pupil can pull up 5 mediocre scores and save the district from imploding.
Robert,
See the L.A. Mayor's plans for "urban transit villages"? What a crock.
Ahhh yes. The infamous TPVs. Transit Potemkin Villages. Very dangerous public policy. Nothing more than 1960s era "Projects" with the Liquor Store on the bottom floor. There's a great idea.
Yo Cote,
What are the Peak Oilers saying about this?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/05/news/companies/chevron_gulf/index.htm?cnn=yes
Just curious, but not enough to see for myself.
See my comments at bigpicture.typepad.com for the whole peak oil mess again. Sigh.
"Peakinese"
LOL!!!
I do admit to enjoying how they redirect the debate to either "price" or "demand" when the fundamental "supply" leg of their argument is cut out from under them.
Funny shit.
So, those who question "Peak Oil" seize headlines on Chevron's deep well test as proof of their skepticism? They must've missed the details of the story.
Specifically: (a) no significant production until at least 2012, and (b) max production of maybe 600Kbbl/day.
Given that demand will have risen -and- existing production will have declined by much greater amounts in the interim, this amounts to grasping at straws.
p.s.: I'll convert you yet, RC. ;-)
LOL!!
Yet another redirection to demand and supply fortune-telling.
You've never yet been right.
I'll put up another Peak Oil open forum after the 3 Sets of Seven series. In the meantime anon is correct. The peakenese are constantly shifting from no discoveries to no extraction to no capacity to no refining/distribution to no demand response to no substitution because every time they try and focus on any one in particular it is shortly refuted. There haven't been a lot doscoveries lately and there have been some long overdue downgrades of known reserves so thet's where they've focused of late. The significance of Cantrell II and Jack II is not their viability but rather that they discovered each more oil than the peakenese claimed was even possible.
Post a Comment