If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
"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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
school "obligations"
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Suing a school 4 child endangerment & neglect FWD: | Kane | General | 4 | June 7th 04 12:38 AM |
Expelled from school - What now? | Mike | General | 17 | April 3rd 04 06:12 AM |
Students increasingly being arrested for school offenses | Doan | General | 0 | January 7th 04 05:51 PM |
Philly public schools go soda free! email to your school board | Maurice | General | 1 | July 14th 03 01:05 AM |
Virtual school seeks Iowa funding | [email protected] | General | 4 | June 29th 03 12:55 AM |