school "obligations"

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

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

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

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/Arch...ULYAUGUST2002_
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

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

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

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

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

"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

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