PDA

View Full Version : school "obligations"


Beeswing
August 24th 03, 06:58 PM
x-no-archive: yes

Okay, here I go (grabs flame-retardant blanket). :) I believe my husband's and
my obligation is to our child, not to the schools.

We make sure our daughter gets to school fed and reasonably rested, prepared
for school, having done her homework. We support her lessons at home by keeping
aware of what's being taught and helping her if she's either having trouble or
needs more challenge. If she has a project to do for school, we participate in
that by taking her to the library, buying art supplies, or doing whatever else
is needed to support her in getting her project done. If we need to contact the
teacher for more information, we do.

We take part in parent-teacher conferences -- which I do believe is imperative
-- and come to them prepared to share input with our child's teacher and listen
to what the teacher has to say. My husband and I are also lucky enough to have
a flexible enough work schedule that we can and do attend classroom events
(Mother's Day luncheons, Father's Day picnic's, class performances), but we
also recognize that not all parents can. I've driven on a field trip to a play
once, mostly because I wanted to see the play myself and I enjoyed the
opportunity to spend time with my daughter, her teacher, and her class friends.
My daughter liked having me there. I'll probably help in driving the class to a
play again this year, but I don't feel like I "have to" -- it was just a lot of
fun.

We provide additional educational opportunities for our daughter that she
wouldn't be able to get within the school system.

We support our daughter in the extracurricular activities she has committed to.
She's in choir, so we make sure she's at the rehearsals and participates in as
many of the choir activities as is practical. We attend the school choir
concerts. If the choir teacher sends home tapes to learn from, we dig out the
tape player and make sure our daughter spends time practicing.

Our daughter has a mild hearing impairment. I act as an advocate for her in the
school, with my husband backing me up, in setting up a 504 plan for her and
getting her the necessary accommodations. I coordinate the development of the
504 plan with the school nurse, the school audiologist, and her teacher. Our
daughter is gifted, so we also ensure that she has opportunity to take the
appropriate placement tests, including arranging accommodations for the tests
as needed.

I'm sure there's more, but my point is that there's a lot of ways to get
involved in your child's education that have nothing to do with volunteering. I
*do* feel obligated as a parent (happily so) to take part at this level. I'm
imagining that most parents here who are saying they do "nothing" for the
schools are doing at least this much. I don't feel obligated to volunteer in
class or to give money or items to the school. We do buy Christmas wrap,
though. :)

Whether or not someone judges us is immaterial. My husband and I do what we
believe is right by our child and her school. That's what counts.

beeswing

Noreen Cooper
August 25th 03, 01:02 AM
Beeswing > wrote:
: x-no-archive: yes

: Okay, here I go (grabs flame-retardant blanket). :) I believe my husband's and
: my obligation is to our child, not to the schools.

<snip>

: Our daughter has a mild hearing impairment. I act as an advocate for her
: in the school, with my husband backing me up, in setting up a 504 plan
: for her and getting her the necessary accommodations. I coordinate the
: development of the 504 plan with the school nurse, the school
: audiologist, and her teacher. Our daughter is gifted, so we also ensure
: that she has opportunity to take the appropriate placement tests,
: including arranging accommodations for the tests as needed.

I find the juxtoposition of these two statements absolutely amazing,
having a kid with special needs myself. Do you know how much extra money
it costs the schools to fund special services to these kids? And then to
say you have no obligation to the schools? Okay, I do find that stunning.
YMMV, but it is *because* of the extra services my son gets that I go out
of my way to help the schools.

Noreen

Bruce and Jeanne
August 25th 03, 02:00 AM
Beeswing wrote:

> Okay, here I go (grabs flame-retardant blanket). :) I believe my husband's and
> my obligation is to our child, not to the schools.
>

Hear! Hear!

[snip}

>
> I'm sure there's more, but my point is that there's a lot of ways to get
> involved in your child's education that have nothing to do with volunteering. I
> *do* feel obligated as a parent (happily so) to take part at this level. I'm
> imagining that most parents here who are saying they do "nothing" for the
> schools are doing at least this much. I don't feel obligated to volunteer in
> class or to give money or items to the school. We do buy Christmas wrap,
> though. :)
>
> Whether or not someone judges us is immaterial. My husband and I do what we
> believe is right by our child and her school. That's what counts.
>
> beeswing
>

I've been reading the hijacked Kindergarten thread with bewilderment.
Like Beeswing, I do what is right by my daughter and her education, but
I certainly don't feel it's necessary for every parent to volunteer
(that's why they call it *volunteering* ) at the school. And I
certainly don't judge people by the amount of volunteering they do at
the local school.

Jeanne

Marion Baumgarten
August 25th 03, 02:00 AM
Noreen Cooper > wrote:

> Beeswing > wrote: : x-no-archive: yes
>
> : Okay, here I go (grabs flame-retardant blanket). :) I believe my
> : husband's and my obligation is to our child, not to the schools.
>
> <snip>
>
> : Our daughter has a mild hearing impairment. I act as an advocate for her
> : in the school, with my husband backing me up, in setting up a 504 plan
> : for her and getting her the necessary accommodations. I coordinate the
> : development of the 504 plan with the school nurse, the school
> : audiologist, and her teacher. Our daughter is gifted, so we also ensure
> : that she has opportunity to take the appropriate placement tests,
> : including arranging accommodations for the tests as needed.
>
> I find the juxtoposition of these two statements absolutely amazing,
> having a kid with special needs myself. Do you know how much extra money
> it costs the schools to fund special services to these kids? And then to
> say you have no obligation to the schools? Okay, I do find that stunning.
> YMMV, but it is *because* of the extra services my son gets that I go out
> of my way to help the schools.
>
> Noreen


She had no obligation because she is a taxpayer and has a right to those
services. Should we make sure that citizens who donate money to the
police department get faster response times than those who don't?

Marion Baumgarten

Noreen Cooper
August 25th 03, 11:39 AM
Marion wrote:

: She had no obligation because she is a taxpayer and has a right to those
: services. Should we make sure that citizens who donate money to the police
: department get faster response times than those who don't?

Ummm...well it you find a magic way to get the feds to belly up, then
maybe you'd have a point. But what happens instead is Special Ed services
are taken out of the general fund for a particular district, with some
state support. In the case of California, that state support is dwindling
faster still. I *know* how much more Special Ed kids cost our district.
It's no small change.

From: http://www.nea.org/specialed/

"Access to a free, quality education is the key to the uniquely American
promise of equal opportunity for all. This promise was formally extended
to children with disabilities with the passage in 1975 of landmark
federal legislation now known as the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). Public schools across the country today serve more
than 6 million youngsters with a wide array of disabling conditions.
But the promise made in 1975 remains unfulfilled. NEA President Bob Chase
described the major problems facing special education as "mountains of
paperwork, oversized classes, exhausting workloads -- and above all else,
the failure of Congress to fulfill its more than 26-year-old promise to
fund 40 percent of the cost of educating children with special needs."

Ever since its initial enactment, the federal law has included a
commitment to pay 40 percent of the average per student cost for every
special education student. The current average per student cost is $7,320
and the average cost per special education student is an additional
$9,369 per student, or $16,689. Yet, in 2002, the federal government
provides local school districts with 17 percent of its commitment rather
than 40 percent, or $10.5 billion less than the law specifies.

This shortfall creates a burden on local communities and denies full
opportunity to all students -- with and without disabilities"

-----

Noreen

Beeswing
August 25th 03, 03:32 PM
x-no-archive: yes

Noreen wrote:

>Ummm...well it you find a magic way to get the feds to belly up, then
>maybe you'd have a point. But what happens instead is Special Ed services

For what it's worth, my child is not special ed and does not use special ed
services.

beeswing

Circe
August 25th 03, 06:03 PM
"Marion Baumgarten" > wrote in message
...
> Noreen Cooper > wrote:
> > Beeswing > wrote: : x-no-archive: yes
> > : Our daughter has a mild hearing impairment. I act as an advocate for
her
> > : in the school, with my husband backing me up, in setting up a 504 plan
> > : for her and getting her the necessary accommodations. I coordinate the
> > : development of the 504 plan with the school nurse, the school
> > : audiologist, and her teacher. Our daughter is gifted, so we also
ensure
> > : that she has opportunity to take the appropriate placement tests,
> > : including arranging accommodations for the tests as needed.
> >
> > I find the juxtoposition of these two statements absolutely amazing,
> > having a kid with special needs myself. Do you know how much extra
money
> > it costs the schools to fund special services to these kids? And then
to
> > say you have no obligation to the schools? Okay, I do find that
stunning.
> > YMMV, but it is *because* of the extra services my son gets that I go
out
> > of my way to help the schools.
> >
> She had no obligation because she is a taxpayer and has a right to those
> services. Should we make sure that citizens who donate money to the
> police department get faster response times than those who don't?
>
Bing bing bing bing! The schools are charged with the task of providing
educational services to *all* children. They are *supposed* to be
fully-funded by tax-revenue to discharge this mission (although, in
practice, they rarely are). No parent whose child attends a public school is
under the *slightest* obligation to assist "the school" in any way--not by
volunteering his/her time, not by giving money to the PTA or participating
in fundraisers, not by giving books to the library, etc. Parents *are*, of
course, under an obligation to participate in their children's education
(and sadly, many do not), but one does not have to do anything for "the
school" to achieve this objective.

If parents *want* to help the schools and, by extension, all of the kids who
attend it, that's all to the good, of course. It's noble and generous. But
no parent is *required* to do so, even if their child utilizes expensive
special education services. What, shall we only give such services to the
children of parents who can afford to give either time or money to the
school?

FWIW, my husband is on the Site Council for our school. Whenever a
fundraiser comes along, I write a check in lieu of hawking overpriced
merchandise to family and friends. But we don't do these things because we
feel we *have to* but because we *want to*.

Now, having said that, I have to admit that I believe we tend to shoot
ourselves in the foot when we pad the schools' coffers with charitable
donations. Because every time we do so, we're effectively telling government
that it doesn't have to spend as much on schools as the schools actually
*need* because parents and local businesses will take up the slack. And, of
course, poor schools suffer disproportionately when funding is inadequate
because there is less money in the community to make up the difference. If
we truly *want* our public schools to be fully funded by tax dollars and
therefore ensure *equality* of funding across schools, we have to stop
putting extra money in the kitty.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"...we patiently sat by his door, waiting for it to open so he could tell us
all about who he had met" -- from _Uncle Andy's_ by James Warhola

T68b
August 25th 03, 07:20 PM
>nd therefore not suffering enough academically, my husband and I
>might have to foot the bill personally for the $800 sound-field system to
>ensure that my daughter can adequately hear the teacher.

You shouldnt have to pay for this....is your daughter under 504? There is
nothing stated that the kids have to be suffering academically in order to have
the modifications made for hearing impairments. Does she wear aids?
My daughter uses an FM system in conjunction with her aids...never looked into
the sound field. Do you know off hand what the advantage may be?
Kathi

chiam margalit
August 25th 03, 07:27 PM
Noreen Cooper > wrote in message >...
> Marion wrote:
>
> : She had no obligation because she is a taxpayer and has a right to those
> : services. Should we make sure that citizens who donate money to the police
> : department get faster response times than those who don't?
>
> Ummm...well it you find a magic way to get the feds to belly up, then
> maybe you'd have a point. But what happens instead is Special Ed services
> are taken out of the general fund for a particular district, with some
> state support. In the case of California, that state support is dwindling
> faster still. I *know* how much more Special Ed kids cost our district.
> It's no small change.

The greatest reason for why sped costs so much is that every kid in
the schools has a diagnosis these days. 20 years ago, you had
dyslexia, vision impaired, hearing impaired, MR and ED kids. That was
a fair chunk of kids in SPED, but nowhere NEAR what there is now. In
many states, ADHD alone is cause for an IEP. SIDS is now considered a
SPED diagnosis. NVLD is a new one. APD are also fairly new on the
diagnosis list.

I'm not saying that these aren't legit reasons for help, but
realistically, if every parent of a kid with a quirk starts demanding
an IEP (and all a parent really has to do is demand an assessment to
get an assessment), the cost of SPED skyrockets. As a parent of one
IEP child and one 504 child, I'm keenly aware that my kids are costing
my community extra money. I'm also keenly aware that it is my
responsibility as a parent to get MY children the extra help they
need. I don't expect, nor do I trust the schools to fund all of my
children's extra help. For example, my daughter goes to a private
speech and language specialist for her CAPD. She does this because the
school *cannot* provide the level of help my child needs, nor do I
believe that the person hired by the school would be the right person
to work with my time. This is my responsibility as a parent.

But I highly doubt that I'm in the majority on this way of thinking.
Most parents believe that the schools are there not only to teach, but
to support their child's special needs. Schools should provide
accomodations, just like IDEA says they should, but I do not believe
that schools are funded for, have the expertise in, and the time
planned for PT, OT, SLT, etc., and parents who count on the schools to
provide all this help without paying extra for the privilege are
deluding themselves.

Why would *any* parent, when they know that with this economy schools
are especially strapped for cash, think that their child should get
special services gratis? Schools are for *educating* children, not
providing health services.

Marjorie

Elisabeth Riba
August 25th 03, 08:37 PM
chiam margalit > wrote:
> The greatest reason for why sped costs so much is that every kid in
> the schools has a diagnosis these days.

I think it's partly a circular phenomenon.
For whatever reason, the school isn't meeting a child's needs, so the
parents get an IEP for that student, then other parents see that the
school is doing better for the children with IEPs, so *they* get IEPs, and
so on. Maybe, if schools could be more accomodating in the first place,
parents wouldn't feel the need to go through the added cost of IEPs and
SPED in order to get their kids a decent education.
As I said, my husband reports that when he was growing up, most of the
gifted students had some form of IEP/sped, because that was the only way
to get special services for the gifted students.

There's also a matter that schools are now expected to educate everybody,
rather than just warehousing disabled students or expelling troublemakers.
It's a societal change in expectations of what minority students deserve
(and I'm including the disabled as special ed).
[Sunday's Boston Globe article had an article on this aspect. To quote:
So much has changed, and so quickly, that it is difficult even to
recall practices that were taken for granted barely two generations ago.
Consider what was commonplace in education. School principals in the
Southwest expelled students who dared to speak Spanish on the
playground, and the same treatment was given to native French-speakers
in Louisiana. Miscreant students had fewer rights than accused
criminals. Athletics was a boys' club, with girls relegated to the
cheerleading squad. Native American children were shipped off to
government-run boarding schools, where they were drugged with Ritalin
into submissiveness as their history and traditions leeched out of them.
Mildly retarded or emotionally troubled youngsters got little more than
babysitting in classrooms far from ``normal'' students. Severely
disabled youngsters, regarded as ``uneducable,'' were locked away in
institutions or left to vegetate at home.
<http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/08/24/the_other_civil_rights_movement/>

Finally, I think schools have become more rigid in certain aspects.
Have you ever read Thom Hartmann's Hunter/Farmer metaphor for ADHD?
Given the percentage of children who have ADHD, our schools are not being
designed to accommodate such students *without* bringing IEPs into the
picture.

For example, as academic requirements have increased, budgets have
decreased, and schools try to squeeze in more learning without increasing
hours, recess and physical education are frequently eliminated, giving
energetic children fewer chances to burn off excess energy, possibly
*increasing* problems in class. [Can you imagine a full workday without
any break?]
And don't get me started on lengthy high-stakes pass-fail multiple-choice tests.


--
------> Elisabeth Riba * http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/ <------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever **** one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"

Noreen Cooper
August 25th 03, 10:14 PM
chiam margalit > wrote:

: But I highly doubt that I'm in the majority on this way of thinking.
: Most parents believe that the schools are there not only to teach, but
: to support their child's special needs. Schools should provide
: accommodations, just like IDEA says they should, but I do not believe
: that schools are funded for, have the expertise in, and the time
: planned for PT, OT, SLT, etc., and parents who count on the schools to
: provide all this help without paying extra for the privilege are
: deluding themselves.

: Why would *any* parent, when they know that with this economy schools
: are especially strapped for cash, think that their child should get
: special services gratis? Schools are for *educating* children, not
: providing health services.

I completely agree with your assessment when parents can obtain funding
outside the schools. Some parents cannot. Most of my son's OT services
have been funded out of our pocket but for the few special accommodations
he is provided at school, I am very grateful and do not consider it gratis
or part of the reason I pay taxes. I'm quite aware that special services
do strain the local school's budget, and wouldn't think of not helping out
the schools in some way in return.

Noreen

David desJardins
August 25th 03, 10:15 PM
Barbara writes:
> Now, having said that, I have to admit that I believe we tend to shoot
> ourselves in the foot when we pad the schools' coffers with charitable
> donations. Because every time we do so, we're effectively telling
> government that it doesn't have to spend as much on schools as the
> schools actually *need* because parents and local businesses will take
> up the slack.

Of course, it depends where you live. In the wealthier school districts
of California, the amount of local tax money that the schools get is
fixed by Proposition 13 (statewide initiative which is essentially
impossible to alter), plus small supplemental taxes which can be adopted
locally (but require a 2/3 vote which is very hard to get---but the
well-off districts can often pass a modest supplemental tax, with some
effort). I think, in practice, local fundraising actually makes it
easier, not harder, to pass these supplemental school taxes, because
voters see that the parents are indeed contributing. And certainly the
state isn't going to give these schools any more money (in fact, it
tried this year to take some money away from them, in probable violation
of the law, and was only stopped by the political clout of all of the
rich people living in those districts---the same people and
organizations that do the fundraising). So it really is pretty much a
choice between helping the schools, or not.

The situation would be very different if the state were more
homogeneous. But it's not.

> An, of course, poor schools suffer disproportionately when funding is
> inadequate because there is less money in the community to make up the
> difference. If we truly *want* our public schools to be fully funded
> by tax dollars and therefore ensure *equality* of funding across
> schools, we have to stop putting extra money in the kitty.

The parents who live in Los Altos and Palo Alto don't want *equality* if
it just means taking their schools down to the level of funding of the
rest of California (and not even reducing their own property taxes any,
but just transferring the money they pay to other state obligations). I
can hardly blame them. Nor can they, on their own, drag the rest of
California up to an adequate funding level (especially since it's the
rest of California that imposes this system on them---I think you could
easily get a majority for repeal of Prop 13 in Palo Alto, but that
doesn't do much good when the whole rest of the state gets to vote,
too).

David desJardins

David desJardins
August 26th 03, 02:40 AM
Barbara writes:
> Well, under Serrano v. Priest (1976), the difference in per pupil
> funding by district is not supposed to be more than $300 per student
> (as of 2000), regardless of how much tax revenue is collected in that
> district.

I think your understanding of the ruling is not correct. Serrano v.
Priest required that the *revenue limit* (the funding level provided, or
guaranteed, to the local district *by the state*) be brought within this
band. And this is, in fact, pretty much the case. But the 59 basic aid
districts (those with more local property tax revenue than the revenue
limit) still keep all their local tax revenue, even though it's above
the revenue limit. And, while there are various opinions on this, it's
certainly the position of the basic aid districts that they are
constitutionally entitled to that local tax revenue (i.e., that the
constitutional purpose of the local property tax is to fund local
schools, not to fund schools somewhere else), and they were very much
prepared to litigate the state attempt to take it away.

> *All* of the schools in the district are underfunded, but those
> serving wealthy neighborhoods are better able to make up the
> difference than those serving the working-class and low income
> neighborhoods. That's just wrong, IMO.

I don't know. Is it "wrong" that California schools have more resources
than Mississippi schools? How about the fact that US schools have a lot
more resources than Bangladeshi schools? My ideal human society would
give every person the same opportunities from birth, but that doesn't
mean that I think it's a good idea to take our tax revenues and send it
around the world so that every school everywhere has the same amount per
student to spend. And if not that, then how do you draw the line
between inequalities that are "wrong" and those that are not?

As a practical matter, if you banned parents from contributing (time or
money?) to their local schools, but required them solely to contribute
to a single universal fund for all students everywhere, then you'd have
more "fairness", but at a much lower level, because no one would
contribute. For that matter, you'd even have less tax revenue for the
schools, much less contributions, because people won't be willing to tax
themselves as heavily if the benefit from the tax is not local.

If they took away the "excess" funding (above the revenue limit) from
the basic aid districts, there would be a flight into private schools,
and a lot more anti-tax sentiment in the wealthy areas (because they
would no longer have a stake in public education), and in the long run I
think the public schools everywhere would probably have less money and
be that much worse off.

David desJardins

Beeswing
August 26th 03, 02:53 AM
x-no-archive: yes

T65b wrote:

>You shouldnt have to pay for this....is your daughter under 504? There is
>nothing stated that the kids have to be suffering academically in order to
>have the modifications made for hearing impairments. Does she wear aids?
>My daughter uses an FM system in conjunction with her aids...never looked
>into the sound field. Do you know off hand what the advantage may be?

Yes, my daughter has a 504 plan. I had to fight the school nurse to get her to
even bring together the committee necessary to develop it. The issue wasn't my
daughter's hearing loss, which was beyond question -- but instead whether or
not one could say she was "substantially affected" if she was working above
grade level. I was and continue to be told repeatedly that "these laws were
intended to 'level the playing field,' and since you daughter is doing above
average in school, it isn't clear that she needs accommodation." (This is
despite the fact that many times she wasn't hearing the teacher's homework
instructions and was also missing spelling words during tests because she could
not hear them.)

I've heard a of a deaf girl who was refused an interpreter in all but her core
classes because she was able to get a "C" in them without one -- regardless of
the fact she was otherwise an "A" student. There's your worst case scenario.
No, it's not right. But it's done.

My daughter doesn't have hearing aids because of the nature of her hearing
loss. I'd rather not get into details here, but suffice it to say that her
doctor recommends against them. She does benefit from a sound-field system,
though, because it amplifies the teacher's voice over those of the other
children and any other extraneous noise (chairs shuffling, whatever).

A good article to look at is "Minimal Hearing Loss Is Not Minimal":

http://journals.cec.sped.org/EC/Archive_Articles/VOL.34NO.6JULYAUGUST2002_
TEC_Article_2.pdf .

It discusses the impact a mild hearing loss can have on a child and his or her
ability to hear and gives teachers recommendations of how to work with the
child (including why a sound-field system is good). I found this to be a great
article to pass along to my daughter's teachers and others who deal with her on
a regular basis. The PhonicEar site also has a lot of good information
regarding sound-field systems more specifically:
http://www.phonicear.com/learn.asp .

Best wishes.

beeswing

Beeswing
August 26th 03, 03:00 AM
x-no-archive: yes

>Since my child is
> "gifted" and therefore not suffering enough academically, my husband and I
> might have to foot the bill personally for the $800 sound-field system to
> ensure that my daughter can adequately hear the teacher.

I'm sorry -- this statement isn't quite clear the way I wrote it. What is meant
is that we might *choose* to buy my daughter a sound-field system (be forced
to, really) -- that otherwise, a system would not be available to her. Our
school audiologist was able to find one to "borrow" last year, but it's not
likely that that will be true this year. We'd either need to buy one ourselves
or not have one ... or at the very least, wait months and months while the
school determines *if* she they think she really needs one and how to fund it.
This is despite her hearing tests and the recommendations of her doctor, her
audiologist, the school audiologist, and her teacher.

My child is gifted. The accommodations are supposed to "level the playing
field." Since she's better than a C student, they consider her playing field
leveled, even though she can have trouble hearing the teacher. I think it's
ridiculous. But that's a whole 'nother topic.

beeswing

Beeswing
August 26th 03, 11:26 AM
x-no-archive: yes

Noreen Cooper wrote:

>Hey, I'm all for early intervention. I took exception with a post which
>said a parent didn't feel obligated to help out the schools but had a 504
>on her child.

Did you read the followup that said we'll probably be buying the $800
sound-field system ourselves because while her doctor, her audiologist, the
school audiologist, and her teacher agrees it is necessary -- and while the law
does say the schools should pay for it -- our school district probably can't
find the budget for it and it's unlikely to try to get the grant money that is
supposed to be available to cover accommodations such as these? The only upside
to this is that the system would stay with our child when she moves onto
another school.

You were really barking up the wrong tree on that one. I thought you might have
noticed that. Or are you paying the special ed fees for your children out of
pocket, too?

beeswing

Beeswing
August 26th 03, 12:16 PM
x-no-archive: yes

Not that it's to my mind relevant to the "duty" side of this argument...but I
did want to clarify some terms, in case people are being thrown off by the
(mis)use of them.

A 504 plan is for children that do not require an individualized educational
program (IEP). In other words, they don't receive special education services.
The purpose of a 504 is to enable children who have disabilities to have equal
access to education. Items on a 504 plan for a mildly hearing impaired child,
for example, might include preferential seating (for example, having the child
sit in the first row of class), having the teacher write down homework
instructions for the child rather than just speak them to the class, or having
the teacher get the child's attention before trying to speak to him or her.
Many times, items on a 504 plan have no added cost to the school.

beeswing

Noreen Cooper
August 26th 03, 04:47 PM
Beeswing > wrote:
: x-no-archive: yes

: Noreen Cooper wrote:

:>Hey, I'm all for early intervention. I took exception with a post which
:>said a parent didn't feel obligated to help out the schools but had a 504
:>on her child.

: Did you read the followup that said we'll probably be buying the $800
: sound-field system ourselves because while her doctor, her audiologist, the
: school audiologist, and her teacher agrees it is necessary --

Yes I did read the follow-up but I still don't think you understand the
complexities of school financing when you say you feel obligated to help
out your own daughter but have no obligation to help out the schools.
When you help out the schools, you help out your daughter.

We pay most of the special ed services out of our own pockets but the
teachers do need to modify some things for our son in the classroom,
and it is an on-going awareness issue for any teacher who has him in his
class. Their time in doing so takes away from the other students and I'm
more than happy to give back to the schools for this effort. In fact, I
feel obligated to help out the schools because of the extra care they
extend for my son's special needs.

But I do applaud your helping out with the special audio equipment and so
I'd say that is helping out the schools also, even though you wish to
emphasize how unobligated you are help them out.

Noreen

Post sent Tuesday, 8/26/03, 6:16am, PST

Circe
August 26th 03, 06:06 PM
"Noreen Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> Circe > wrote:
> : Well, under Serrano v. Priest (1976), the difference in per pupil
funding by
> : district is not supposed to be more than $300 per student (as of 2000),
> : regardless of how much tax revenue is collected in that district. Now,
my
> : understanding is that the Serrano band limits haven't been entirely met
and,
> : certainly, $300 per pupil can be quite a chunk of change depending on
the
> : size of the district. Notwithstanding, California is *supposed* to have
> : relatively equal funding between school districts, Prop. 13 or not Prop.
13.
>
> I know for a fact that doesn't hold in our neck of the woods. Palo Alto
> and Los Altos still get far more funds than our district. Far more per
> student.
>
As I said, I don't believe the Serrano band limits have actually ever been
properly enforced. And the revenue limits were all set based on what each
district was actually spending at the time Serrano was decided (1976). But

> : I happen to live in a district that has a wildly heterogeneous
population,
> : both in terms of income and ethnicity. We have some schools in the
district
> : (like my own) with virtually no ESL students or students receiving
> : free/reduced lunch and others that are virtually *all* ESL and on
> : free/reduced lunch.
>
> I know you don't believe parents *should* be obligated to help out the
> schools, but I wonder if you'd think the same way if your kids attended a
> less affluent school with a high number of ESL students. I'm sure my
> strong opinions are influenced by living on the thinner slices of the
> funding pie.
>
Well, I think my reason for believing parents should *not* be obligated is
that the parents who are least able to contribute, either financially or
with their time in the classroom, are the parents whose kids most *need* the
additional resources. Schools need to be funded so that they can meet their
basic mission with or without additional help from parents. I think my
objection to the expectation that parents will chip in significantly is
precisely that it leads to the wild disparities that I see between my school
(where parents fall over themselves to "help the school" and every
conceivable need and nearly every want is provided) and the one down the
road where kids are lucky to arrive at school each morning with a full
stomach and a decent pair of shoes on their feet. Expecting the parents of
the kids in that other school to provide more resources isn't going make it
possible for them to do so, but it *does* allow the state and school
district to "pass the buck" and claim that such schools are failing not
because they aren't adequately funded to begin with but because they lack
"parental involvement".

Certainly, when I was growing up, there was PTA and there were funds raised
for "extras". But I don't remember any parents *ever* volunteering in the
classroom nor do I recall that the school had fundraisers to provide
supplies or other necessities. In the '60s and 70s, parents generally sent
their kids off to school in the morning with the assumption that those kids
would receive a decent education and that the schools would do that job
without much (if any) interference from the parents. And for the most part,
kids *did* get decently educated without all the parental involvement we
seem to expect today.

I think to some extent, what's different is that school funding overall is
much less sufficient than it was in those days. I just don't think the
solution to insufficient school funding is to expect parents to pick up the
slack, because that expectation is least likely to be fulfilled by parents
of kids in schools who need extra revenue the most.
--
Be well, Barbara
(Julian [6], Aurora [4], and Vernon's [17mo] mom)
See us at http://photos.yahoo.com/guavaln

This week's special at the English Language Butcher Shop:
"...we patiently sat by his door, waiting for it to open so he could tell us
all about who he had met" -- from _Uncle Andy's_ by James Warhola

Beeswing
August 26th 03, 07:01 PM
x-no-archive: yes

"Noreen Cooper" > wrote in message
...
> Beeswing > wrote:
> : x-no-archive: yes
>
> : Noreen Cooper wrote:
>
> :>Hey, I'm all for early intervention. I took exception with a post
which
> :>said a parent didn't feel obligated to help out the schools but had
a 504
> :>on her child.
>
> : Did you read the followup that said we'll probably be buying the
$800
> : sound-field system ourselves because while her doctor, her
audiologist, the
> : school audiologist, and her teacher agrees it is necessary --
>
> Yes I did read the follow-up but I still don't think you understand
the
> complexities of school financing when you say you feel obligated to
help
> out your own daughter but have no obligation to help out the schools.
> When you help out the schools, you help out your daughter.

We're looking at this from two very different vantage points. I'd flip
your statement: When I help out my daughter, I help out the schools.
It's my kid -- not the schools --that I feel obligated to help. YMMV.

beeswing

David desJardins
August 26th 03, 10:38 PM
Cathy Kearns writes:
> I agree with your post, though, to be precise, as a parent of Los
> Altos elementary, we are not basic aid, but receive the amount of
> money per student any "rural" school would get. (Much less than say,
> Ravenswood, the local disadvantaged district, or San Jose Unified, our
> large urban district, and about 1/3 of what Palo Alto receives per
> student.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "receives per student", but Los Altos
School District had revenue of $7749 per student in 2001-02 (112% of the
average in the state, for elementary districts). Palo Alto Unified
School District had revenue of $10749 per student (149% of the average
in the state, for unified districts). That's more, but it's certainly
not three times as much!

For California, you can look up these numbers at
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ (click on District reports and then select
Financial statement).

Of course, Palo Alto has such high local property tax revenue because
it's *both* a very expensive place to live, and also has a lot of
commercial real estate. Los Altos has the expensive homes, but not so
much commercial real estate. Funding of school districts based on
whether they happen to have commercial properties located within them is
certainly one of the many shortcomings of the California system.

> We are hoping to become a basic aid district as houses turn over and
> property taxes go up. We did pass a local parcel tax, at $597 a
> parcel to make up the difference, but right now, if the state passed a
> law that all schools would be paid the per student, we would get much
> more money.

You left something out of this sentence, so I don't know what you're
trying to say. The (what) per student? As noted above, the Los Altos
School District does receive more tax revenue per student than the
statewide average (but not hugely more).

David desJardins

chiam margalit
August 27th 03, 12:13 AM
Elisabeth Riba > wrote in message >...
> chiam margalit > wrote:
> > The greatest reason for why sped costs so much is that every kid in
> > the schools has a diagnosis these days.
>
> I think it's partly a circular phenomenon.
> For whatever reason, the school isn't meeting a child's needs, so the
> parents get an IEP for that student, then other parents see that the
> school is doing better for the children with IEPs, so *they* get IEPs, and
> so on.

As if! It doesn't work that way. I've mentioned before that I do
educational consulting as a side business. I do this because I know
how to wrangle services that most parents can't possibly negotiate.
I'm a professional advocate for LD kids, and I have a large number of
clients ongoing. With that said, I have *never* met a parent who can
just 'get' an IEP for a child. Even with an attorney in hand (and I
work with one) and a hired gun advocate, parents can't just demand an
IEP for their child. They have to go through a very lengthy and
complicated assessment period for their child, and the schools are
required to look at the big picture to determine if the student is
lagging so far behind as to need special services. Many more kids get
passed over than actually get services, even in states like MA where
they have extra strength SPED laws (766).

Many more parents don't want their child to be labeled SPED, which
they see as stigmatizing, and so do not go through the IEP process
until their children are very very far behind, if at all.

Maybe, if schools could be more accomodating in the first place,
> parents wouldn't feel the need to go through the added cost of IEPs and
> SPED in order to get their kids a decent education.
> As I said, my husband reports that when he was growing up, most of the
> gifted students had some form of IEP/sped, because that was the only way
> to get special services for the gifted students.

Well, that's one data point. One. Gifted students in MA do not get any
special services. They no longer have resource rooms in most schools
except for the very impaired learners, as most children are
mainstreamed into regular classrooms. So your husbands claims are
really just not relevant, since they're a single data point in a huge
morass of stories. BTW, giftedness is NOT a learning disability
(obviously) and so does not qualify for an IEP in most states. There
are some that will accept giftedness as a reason for individualized
education, but most do not.
>
> There's also a matter that schools are now expected to educate everybody,
> rather than just warehousing disabled students or expelling troublemakers.
> It's a societal change in expectations of what minority students deserve
> (and I'm including the disabled as special ed).

Yes, that is a problem. Schools have always been expected to educate
everyone, as that is their charter. What I think you're trying to say
is that schools now are expected to give an *appropriate* education to
every student. In the old days, blind and hearing impaired kids went
to school but they often didn't have special services and were
expected to learn just like everyone else. I went to elementary school
with a blind boy in my class, and other than braille books, he had
*no* special accomodations. Not any.


> [Sunday's Boston Globe article had an article on this aspect. To quote:
> So much has changed, and so quickly, that it is difficult even to
> recall practices that were taken for granted barely two generations ago.
> Consider what was commonplace in education. School principals in the
> Southwest expelled students who dared to speak Spanish on the
> playground, and the same treatment was given to native French-speakers
> in Louisiana. Miscreant students had fewer rights than accused
> criminals. Athletics was a boys' club, with girls relegated to the
> cheerleading squad. Native American children were shipped off to
> government-run boarding schools, where they were drugged with Ritalin
> into submissiveness as their history and traditions leeched out of them.
> Mildly retarded or emotionally troubled youngsters got little more than
> babysitting in classrooms far from ``normal'' students. Severely
> disabled youngsters, regarded as ``uneducable,'' were locked away in
> institutions or left to vegetate at home.
> <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/08/24/the_other_civil_rights_movement/>

All true. But now the turnaround is just as ridiculous. My son has a
friend whose parents (with my help) negotiated a special placement for
their GT/LD child in a private school setting that is costing our
school district $65K/year. Yes, it's a great placement for this boy,
but I don't feel that he really *needed* such an accomodation and
tried to get the parents to consider a similar school-based program in
one of our middle schools, but they didn't want to and went full guns
blazing in front of the school board to get this placement. My son,
with the same issues, is mainstreamed into a regular classroom
setting, which is more in keeping with my beliefs that children should
be with like peers rather than warehoused into special populations.
>
> Finally, I think schools have become more rigid in certain aspects.
> Have you ever read Thom Hartmann's Hunter/Farmer metaphor for ADHD?
> Given the percentage of children who have ADHD, our schools are not being
> designed to accommodate such students *without* bringing IEPs into the
> picture.

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but ADHD is not a reason alone to
get an IEP. Unless a child has ADHD and a learning disability, the
best you can hope for is a 504:

The Rehabilitation Act 1973 Section 504

Students with disabilities are protected by an additional source,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Even students whose
disabilities are not recognized by the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) are covered under the civil rights of Section
504. A Section 504 states that no individual with a disability can be
denied access to any program or activity that receives federal funds
because of his/her disability. Programs that receive federal funds
must be accessible to people with disabilities. They must be barrier
free. "Reasonable accommodations" such as interpreters, assistive
devices, transportation, etc., must be provided when needed.


>
> For example, as academic requirements have increased, budgets have
> decreased, and schools try to squeeze in more learning without increasing
> hours, recess and physical education are frequently eliminated,

Recess disappears in middle school anyhow. What takes it's place is
passing time in the halls, which gives kids frequent breaks to
socialize and jump up and down. I know people sound the alarm that
recess is going to disappear, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.
I *have* seen recess that is no longer supervised unless by parent
volunteers, but I don't see cutting recess as a cost cutting measure.
Additionally, PE in my school system has been paid for solely by the
PTO for many many years, without incident. I don't have a problem with
that. My children are athletic, skinny, and well toned, and none of
that is caused by their 2x/week PE classes.

giving
> energetic children fewer chances to burn off excess energy, possibly
> *increasing* problems in class. [Can you imagine a full workday without
> any break?]

Yes, I can and do. I work straight through every day because I want to
knock off earlier to get to my kids. I haven't eaten lunch at work in
many many years. Additionally, as a teacher I wasn't even allowed
bathroom breaks when I needed to go, so this isn't a huge leap for me
at all.


> And don't get me started on lengthy high-stakes pass-fail multiple-choice tests.

On that one I'm completely with you. I hate the damn things. But what
I hate more is that the day after they're done with the tests,
academic learning ceases to happen in our schools. Which really does
support the 'teach to the test' theory.

Marjorie

Cathy Kearns
August 27th 03, 12:47 AM
If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos
receives $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa
Clara County. Palo Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite
double. Los Altos spends $7550, Palo Alto $10415.

The difference, in the case of Los Altos, comes from a $597
parcel tax on each parcel passed under the 2/3 voter rule, state
grants some received from applications filled out by volunteers,
and a Los Altos Educational Fund donation of $1.2 million, culled
mostly donations of $600 per student supplied by students families.
I noticed Palo Alto also came up with over $2000 a student from
local taxes.

Yep, if an affluent community really wants to, it can pay for its own
schools. Not that I'm saying that's fair, but unless all schools
are funded to the top schools, parents who can are going to
put out to ensure their kids get a good education.

"David desJardins" > wrote in message
...
> Cathy Kearns writes:
> > I agree with your post, though, to be precise, as a parent of Los
> > Altos elementary, we are not basic aid, but receive the amount of
> > money per student any "rural" school would get. (Much less than say,
> > Ravenswood, the local disadvantaged district, or San Jose Unified, our
> > large urban district, and about 1/3 of what Palo Alto receives per
> > student.)
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "receives per student", but Los Altos
> School District had revenue of $7749 per student in 2001-02 (112% of the
> average in the state, for elementary districts). Palo Alto Unified
> School District had revenue of $10749 per student (149% of the average
> in the state, for unified districts). That's more, but it's certainly
> not three times as much!
>
> For California, you can look up these numbers at
> http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/ (click on District reports and then select
> Financial statement).
>
> Of course, Palo Alto has such high local property tax revenue because
> it's *both* a very expensive place to live, and also has a lot of
> commercial real estate. Los Altos has the expensive homes, but not so
> much commercial real estate. Funding of school districts based on
> whether they happen to have commercial properties located within them is
> certainly one of the many shortcomings of the California system.
>
> > We are hoping to become a basic aid district as houses turn over and
> > property taxes go up. We did pass a local parcel tax, at $597 a
> > parcel to make up the difference, but right now, if the state passed a
> > law that all schools would be paid the per student, we would get much
> > more money.
>
> You left something out of this sentence, so I don't know what you're
> trying to say. The (what) per student? As noted above, the Los Altos
> School District does receive more tax revenue per student than the
> statewide average (but not hugely more).
>
> David desJardins
>

Beeswing
August 27th 03, 01:55 AM
x-no-archive: yes

Noreen wrote:
>
>But I do applaud your helping out with the special audio equipment and so
>I'd say that is helping out the schools also, even though you wish to
>emphasize how unobligated you are help them out.

I want to make a quick comment regarding this. The schools are legally required
to provide my daughter with the system so that she has "equal access" to an
education. If it turns out that when the school year starts, the school hasn't
dealt with this -- we may end up buying one for our daughter to use -- NOT one
to donate to the school district. We wouldn't be doing this out of the goodness
of our hearts but because it's really helpful to my daughter's education if she
can adequately hear the teacher. Personally, I'm frustrated that the school
district may choose not to comply with the law and purchase the system, as the
law requires. There are additional funding sources available if the district
wishes to seek them out.

So the applause isn't called for.

I'm really done talking about this, now.

beeswing

dragonlady
August 27th 03, 02:09 AM
In article >,
(chiam margalit) wrote:

> Elisabeth Riba > wrote in message
> >...
> > chiam margalit > wrote:
> > > The greatest reason for why sped costs so much is that every kid in
> > > the schools has a diagnosis these days.
> >
> > I think it's partly a circular phenomenon.
> > For whatever reason, the school isn't meeting a child's needs, so the
> > parents get an IEP for that student, then other parents see that the
> > school is doing better for the children with IEPs, so *they* get IEPs, and
> > so on.
>
> As if! It doesn't work that way. I've mentioned before that I do
> educational consulting as a side business. I do this because I know
> how to wrangle services that most parents can't possibly negotiate.
> I'm a professional advocate for LD kids, and I have a large number of
> clients ongoing. With that said, I have *never* met a parent who can
> just 'get' an IEP for a child. Even with an attorney in hand (and I
> work with one) and a hired gun advocate, parents can't just demand an
> IEP for their child. They have to go through a very lengthy and
> complicated assessment period for their child, and the schools are
> required to look at the big picture to determine if the student is
> lagging so far behind as to need special services. Many more kids get
> passed over than actually get services, even in states like MA where
> they have extra strength SPED laws (766).
>
> Many more parents don't want their child to be labeled SPED, which
> they see as stigmatizing, and so do not go through the IEP process
> until their children are very very far behind, if at all.
>
> Maybe, if schools could be more accomodating in the first place,
> > parents wouldn't feel the need to go through the added cost of IEPs and
> > SPED in order to get their kids a decent education.
> > As I said, my husband reports that when he was growing up, most of the
> > gifted students had some form of IEP/sped, because that was the only way
> > to get special services for the gifted students.
>
> Well, that's one data point. One. Gifted students in MA do not get any
> special services. They no longer have resource rooms in most schools
> except for the very impaired learners, as most children are
> mainstreamed into regular classrooms. So your husbands claims are
> really just not relevant, since they're a single data point in a huge
> morass of stories. BTW, giftedness is NOT a learning disability
> (obviously) and so does not qualify for an IEP in most states. There
> are some that will accept giftedness as a reason for individualized
> education, but most do not.
> >

The real problem with this is for gifted kids who are also learning
disabled, but so smart that they are able to keep up with their grade
level. They work and struggle to maintain C's, when they should be
getting A's -- but, because they are not falling behind in their grade,
they cannot get the special help they need to deal with their learning
disabilities. When I lived in Mass, I knew two families who finally
gave up and either put their child in a private school or started home
schooling -- they clearly had exceptionally bright kids, but the kids
were getting more and more unhappy and discouraged because they couldn't
keep up. In both of those cases, the kids got the special help they
needed to overcome specific, diagnosed (privately) disabilities, and,
eventually, returned to do very well in the public schools.

I'm not sure what the solution is -- but there does seem to be something
terribly broken when a child has a clear disability, but, because they
are so bright they are able to barely keep up, they don't get the
specialized help they need to truely meet their potential.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

David desJardins
August 27th 03, 02:10 AM
Cathy Kearns writes:
> If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos receives
> $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa Clara County. Palo
> Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite double.

I think you're seriously misunderstanding something. Here's the actual
revenue breakdown:

Los Altos School District
local funds $6162 (per student)
state funds $1449
Federal funds $138

Palo Alto Unified School District
local funds $8999 (per student)
state funds $1481
Federal funds $318

The local funds include property taxes (ad valorem taxes and parcel
taxes) and donations. You can see, from these numbers, that the
difference in funding is almost entirely due to the greater property tax
revenues in Palo Alto (I think donations are similar in the two
districts).

Again, this data is all at http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/

David desJardins

chiam margalit
August 27th 03, 11:48 AM
dragonlady > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (chiam margalit) wrote:
>
>
> The real problem with this is for gifted kids who are also learning
> disabled, but so smart that they are able to keep up with their grade
> level. They work and struggle to maintain C's, when they should be
> getting A's -- but, because they are not falling behind in their grade,
> they cannot get the special help they need to deal with their learning
> disabilities. When I lived in Mass, I knew two families who finally
> gave up and either put their child in a private school or started home
> schooling -- they clearly had exceptionally bright kids, but the kids
> were getting more and more unhappy and discouraged because they couldn't
> keep up. In both of those cases, the kids got the special help they
> needed to overcome specific, diagnosed (privately) disabilities, and,
> eventually, returned to do very well in the public schools.
>
> I'm not sure what the solution is -- but there does seem to be something
> terribly broken when a child has a clear disability, but, because they
> are so bright they are able to barely keep up, they don't get the
> specialized help they need to truely meet their potential.

You are definately preaching to the choir here. There are two
advocates in the Boston area that specialize in GT/LD kids, and
they're starting to make a difference in *some* districts. I had a kid
last year in Needham that I represented who had been kicked out of his
private school (long long story) and was profoundly gifted but had
fairly severe LDs plus some other problem, and hearing loss. This
family got *great* accomodations from a district that is not known for
being generous, but only because there were 2 advocates and an
attorney at the IEP meeting. He's doing very very well in public
school!

What most parents don't understand is that GT kids with LDs can get a
504 (my son has one) and the schools have to follow it to the letter.
Most parents have never heard of 504 and nobody in the school system
is going to tell them out it. Only parents who are willing to either
do a ton of research or hire an advocate (we're not cheap, either)
will get the accomodations their kids need.

One thing I've discovered is, the poorer the district, the more
willing they are to find and fund outside help because they do not
have the resources within the district but can get money from 766
sources in MA. Waltham is a good example of this, sending their severe
ED kids into Boston private hospital-based programs instead of
sponsoring a program for ED kids within their schools.

Unbelievable as it might seem, MA is a lot more willing to deal with
SPED issues than is CA, and NY seems to be the best state I've dealt
with so far.

Marjorie
>
> meh

chiam margalit
August 27th 03, 12:04 PM
"Cathy Kearns" > wrote in message >...
> If you look closely, I was wrong, from the state Los Altos
> receives $4446 per student, 3rd from the bottom in Santa
> Clara County. Palo Alto Unified receives $7194, not quite
> double. Los Altos spends $7550, Palo Alto $10415.
>
> The difference, in the case of Los Altos, comes from a $597
> parcel tax on each parcel passed under the 2/3 voter rule, state
> grants some received from applications filled out by volunteers,
> and a Los Altos Educational Fund donation of $1.2 million, culled
> mostly donations of $600 per student supplied by students families.
> I noticed Palo Alto also came up with over $2000 a student from
> local taxes.
>
> Yep, if an affluent community really wants to, it can pay for its own
> schools. Not that I'm saying that's fair, but unless all schools
> are funded to the top schools, parents who can are going to
> put out to ensure their kids get a good education.

I have close friends who live just above Palo Alto in Woodside, which
makes Palo Alto look like Poverty Row. Woodside has one
elementary/middle school, and a high school that they 'share' with a
part of Redwood City (much less affluent). Woodside has a yearly
auction fund raiser for the schools, and they raise close to a million
dollars on this auction every year. That money is used for specials,
PE, and other things the town can't raise in property taxes.

Down the Peninsula, where my kids attend school, we've also got a very
affluent community and a very large commercial tax base (thank you
Apple Computer!). We have one fund raiser for our elementary school
too, a walk-a-thon where the kids raise a goodly amount of cash also
for specials, PE, etc. But it isn't even close to what Woodside raises
in their one school. Schools in our district prefer to ask parents to
pay one fee at the beginning of the year (currently $150/family)
rather than be nickeled and dimed to death with fund raisers. We have
670 students in our elementary school, so that's a goodly amount of
cold cash raised.

Our per pupil spending is $6,257. Much less than Palo Alto, but we
consistantly rank equal to or above them in the yearly scores. And we
consistantly rank in the top 5 in the entire state, usually number 1
or 2. Money isn't everything, evidentally!

Marjorie

David desJardins
August 28th 03, 01:25 AM
Cathy Kearns writes:
>> I think you're seriously misunderstanding something. Here's the
>> actual revenue breakdown:
>>
>> Los Altos School District
>> local funds $6162 (per student)
>
> Now where is this chart? I'm looking at
> http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/fsTwoPanel.asp?bottom=%2Fprofile%2Ea
> sp%3Flevel%3D06%26reportNumber%3D16
> It shows Los Altos receives $4446 under Revenue limits. For Los Altos that
> is not property taxes, as we don't reach the
> basic aid limit. For us that is state funds.

I think you're looking at the same chart, but you're not understanding
it. There's a line that says "Subtotal, Revenue Limit Sources." This
means, in the context of state law, local property taxes (not including
the parcel tax), plus supplemental funds from the state which are
mandated to bring the district up to its "revenue limit". (Thus, the
"revenue limit sources" for a district will always total at least as
much as the "revenue limit" for that district, but may be greater if the
local property taxes are already above the revenue limit.)

You can see, looking at the chart, that the $4446 figure is just
obtained by adding $4062 under Local Property Taxes and Fees and $384
under State Aid. It's not all (or even mostly) state funds. If you add
up the different types of state and local funds, ignoring which are
"revenue limit sources" and which aren't (essentially just a
technicality), you get the figures I posted.

> LAEF, the district wide educational foundation last year gave the
> district $1.2 million to ensure small class sizes and keeping programs
> for its 4000 students. (This is in addition to $1 million raised in
> spring of 2002 to keep the class sizes small, less than 20 K-3, less
> than 30 4-8.)
>
> PAFE, the similar district wide foundation, gave $350 thousand
> for its 10,000 students.

That's true, but I think there's more giving to the individual schools
in Palo Alto. However, it certainly may be that there's more total
giving in Los Altos; that wouldn't surprise me.

> My point is it probably takes closer to the $10k Palo Alto spends per
> student to have a good educational program. Until all districts get
> that, the more affluent districts are going to try and make up as much
> as they can. Some are better at making it up than others. (See
> Woodside Elementary.)

I think we both agree about that.

David desJardins