Are Californians a bunch of rich tightwads?

People often talk about CA as a rich state when they are referring to GSP (Gross State Product).  Looking at just the total GSP when CA has the biggest population is rather odd.  On that basis I suppose India is a rich country ($1,729T) and Switzerland ($523T) is a poor country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

GSPs are available at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
which shows California’s at 12th “per capita”.  If, after adjusting for COL, being 9th in personal income adjusts to 34th, then being 12th in GSP probably adjusts to about 40th in GSP per capita.  (see previous post). You spend it on services “per capita” and collect it in taxes “per capita”.  Mostly it is collected on income and on property.  CA at 34th “per capita” personal income (adjusted for cost of living) is not really rich.  Richer than some, poorer than most.  The reason it spends proportionately less on K-12 is because it spends proportionately more on colleges, particularly the UCs.  It spends proportionately more on education than most states in unadjusted expenditures.  The group that took the biggest hit in this years state budget was social services.  This huge hit to social services helped minimize the cuts to education.

I see a state with higher than the national average unemployment at a time when the national average unemployment (including those who stopped looking or are working only a few hours a week and so don’t count in the official figures) is around 18%, college graduates working at $8/hour, (if they can find that) and a lot of laid off people wondering when their unemployment checks will run out.  Even the Army and Navy are “laying off” thousands of enlisted and officers because the lousy economy isn’t inducing many to leave voluntarily.  There should be a little sympathy for people who feel stretched and are taxing themselves more than most to pay for education, such as teachers salaries.

Suppose CA did raise taxes enough to give everyone below poverty level an extra $20K per year, thereby cutting nominal poverty by a lot – would this automatically turn their kids into good students?  Or would they be the same kids only with better shoes?  Maybe correlation is not causation as others have so wisely noted.  Maybe the reason they are poor is that they and their parents don’t have the life skills to figure out how to get out of poverty.  In which case high intensity burn-out-the-teachers but turn (at least some) kids around charter schools might help if the local districts would quit fighting them?  Or maybe a lousy economy doesn’t provide much opportunity for anyone these days?

The National Education Association rankings report

The National Education Association periodically publishes an interesting rankings report. (Looking at the NEA “Rankings of the States 2009″ downloaded from the NEA web site.)
http://www.nea.org/home/30896.htm

Statistically, it seems CA is behind other states in per capita income though a bit above the average. What I see is a state where taxes per capita or per income are above average, state spending on all education is well above average, and teacher income is at or near the top. Spending per K-12 student is a little above average or a little below average (depending on the year) but hardly the bottom. It is near the top in K-12 capital spending, even though the percentage growth in enrollment is not near the top. It is spending proportionately more on higher education than most states and more than most on education overall.

As for a correlation between NAEP scores and spending, funny you should mention that, I did an analysis myself and found correlation coefficients on the order of 0.2 which is meaningless. Can you provide access to your numbers? A spreadsheet perhaps? What correlation coefficient did you get in which subject populations? What years did you cover? I will try to post mine ASAP and provide access to it.

Out of 50 states and the D. of C.,
CA is #1 in teacher salaries in 2007-2008, #2 in 2008-2009 (C-16, C-18, pg 21)
CA = #5 in growth of teacher’s salaries over the 10 years 1998-2008 in constant dollars.
CA = #9 in per capita personal income (D3, p26)
CA = #5 in per capita state and local tax revenue
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per student ADA 2007-2008 (F-3, p 39)
CA = #22 in Public school revenue per $1,000 of personal income 2007 (F-5, p 40)
CA = #15 in per capita expenditures for all education (H-3, p 52)
CA = #3 in per capita capital spending for public K-12 schools (H-19, p 58)

Let us not forget to throw in cost of living adjustments for states. Those are available only after years of study and self denial in the bowels of the national archives here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Near the bottom of the entry under “Income by state”. California is ranked 9th in personal income before COL and 34th after COL adjustment. Not a rich state.