California spends about twice as much per student today (inflation adjusted) as it did before Prop 13 passed, so it doesn't track that Prop 13, or underfunding, is the cause of the poor performance.

All the 200+ student classes would certainly hurt them a lot though since that's a big chunk of some rankings.

I meant that primary/secondary funding per student had doubled. The UC and CSU systems have gotten less money from the state, but not because of Prop 13 which limited property tax rates. UC/CSU weren't and aren't receiving property tax revenue.

Prop 13 made it harder to raise all tax rates

That does not include capital expenditures

> underfunding

This is a decades-old talking point that simply isn't true and hasn't been for years. Funding levels keep breaking records year after year.

"K-12 per-pupil funding [in 2022-23] totals $15,261 Proposition 98 General Fund—its highest level ever—and $20,855 per pupil when accounting for all funding sources." [0]

"Reflecting the changes to Proposition 98 funding levels noted above, total K-12 per-pupil expenditures from all sources are projected to be $18,837 in 2020-21 and $18,000 in 2021-22—the highest levels ever (K-12 Education Spending Per Pupil)." [1]

[0]: https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2022-23/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Edu... (p. 3)

[1]: https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Edu... (p. 4)

I don't know the specifics here, but it seems possible for something to both:

A) have received more money than ever before

B) not have enough money to function properly

OK, please see the chart at the top of page 5 of the 2021-22 budget PDF: https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2021-22/pdf/BudgetSummary/K-12Edu... .

You can see that in 2012-2013 there was a big jump in funding from 2011-2012, going from $47.3B to $58.1B. In 2022-23 we're at $102B.

We're at roughly double funding levels from a decade ago, and the schools still don't have enough money to function properly? If so, this is alarming, and signals something is deeply wrong. We should investigate what is wrong and fix it rather than throwing ever more money into the black hole and hoping that will improve outcomes, despite a decade of evidence to the contrary.

How come everywhere else they get LESS money and have BETTER outcomes?

Hint: teacher salaries are a very tiny part of the expenses

NAEP scores have been pretty much flat since the 1970s while inflation adjusted spending per student tripled.

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/they-spend-what-real-co...