RE: Question 1: Funding Model

I think there is a clear need for higher levels of funding. California has dropped dramatically in per pupil funding among the states compared to where it was several decades ago (pre-Prop. 13). But the point of the money is not simply to throw money at the problem. NY State spends about $10,000 per student, almost half again as much as CA, and I am not sure that its educational outcomes are 50% better. NY has some of the same problems of overcrowded schools that feed into overcrowded prisons that we do in California. However, we do need schools staffed with fully-credentialed teachers. That is going to cost money. We need more schools. That is going to cost money. The spending per pupil is lower in many inner city schools because of the payroll difference. Schools staffed with many newer or emergency-credentialed teachers have a much lower payroll cost than schools staffed with senior teachers near the top of their salary schedule. The answer is recruitment, training and paying people in and from every neighborhood and community. The answer is also close parent and community involvement, along with local teachers, in the governance of each school and cluster. As far as finding the funding, I will recommend again the idea of a split-roll property tax, in which homeowners and residential property continues to be sheltered from valuation-induced increases in property taxes, while owners of commercial/industrial property, who are realizing growing income from their properties commensurate with the growth in property values and with the value a well-educated society adds to its social product, will a fair share of the costs of providing that education.