Another special ed question

Kevin Karplus wrote:

In fact, if my child were going to a private school, I would be
embarassed to ask the public schools to provide any services at all.
If you are taking the child out of the public school system, and
removing the per-child allotment from the school budget, why should
they go out of their way to provide expensive services for you?

I'm not realy following you're logic here. I pay property taxes to
support my local school district and dont expect them to educate my
children. How am I supposedly hurting the school district by doing
this? I shouldn't be embarassed to ask them to educate all my kids
for 13 year but I should be embarassed to ask for a few hours of
speech therapy a month for a year or two? How does that make sense?

The school district has exactly the same amount of money weather I
send my kids to there schools or not. If there are 2 less kids in the
district and the same money, that means the "per-child allotment" can
be increased. so the district doesn't lose anything. the particular
school my kids would of gone to might lose because the total of my
property taxes is probably less than the amount of per-child alotment
for 2 kids, even with the bigger alotments my taxes with no kids in
school allow, but the also have 2 less kids to deal with. And as
long the kids going to private schools are mostly spread out amoung
all the schools in the district then really all the schools gain by
some parents paying taxes but not sending their kids to public
schools. its not like our overcrowded public schools would really
benefit from having to squeeze in a bunch more private school kids,
even given a few more bucks.

Leandra

"Leandra" wrote in message
m...
Kevin Karplus wrote:

In fact, if my child were going to a private school, I would be
embarassed to ask the public schools to provide any services at all.
If you are taking the child out of the public school system, and
removing the per-child allotment from the school budget, why should
they go out of their way to provide expensive services for you?

I'm not realy following you're logic here. I pay property taxes to
support my local school district and dont expect them to educate my
children. How am I supposedly hurting the school district by doing
this? I shouldn't be embarassed to ask them to educate all my kids
for 13 year but I should be embarassed to ask for a few hours of
speech therapy a month for a year or two? How does that make sense?

I think Kevin is thinking more of the California school tax system,
and is basically ranting about how it is funded. In California, yes
property taxes go to the state to fund schools, but then how it is
sent back to the local districts is pretty convoluted.

The school district has exactly the same amount of money weather I
send my kids to there schools or not. If there are 2 less kids in the
district and the same money, that means the "per-child allotment" can
be increased. so the district doesn't lose anything. the particular
school my kids would of gone to might lose because the total of my
property taxes is probably less than the amount of per-child alotment
for 2 kids, even with the bigger alotments my taxes with no kids in
school allow, but the also have 2 less kids to deal with. And as
long the kids going to private schools are mostly spread out amoung
all the schools in the district then really all the schools gain by
some parents paying taxes but not sending their kids to public
schools. its not like our overcrowded public schools would really
benefit from having to squeeze in a bunch more private school kids,
even given a few more bucks.

Well, in a Basic Aid district in California, such as Palo Alto Unified or
Sunnyvale, even if only one child was in that district the district would
get the same generous amount of money. In these districts the amount
of property taxes collected is larger than the state expects, so it keeps
some and sends the rest back to the districts. If you aren't in a Basic
Aid district then the state sends a certain amount per student who attended
school per day. This is why California schools get so persnickity about
parents pulling kids from school, the days the kids are out, they don't
get paid. Depending on the district, and whether many years ago it was
considered urban, suburban, or rural, you get different amounts. I believe
the lowest amount per student in the state is given to the Cupertino school
district, because at the time ofprop 13, Cupertino was mostly agricultural,
or didn't have a high cost of living. These designations don't change,
despite the fact that Cupertino is now smack dab in the center of
Silcon Valley, and cost of living has sky rocketed. To add insult to
these districts, the federal and state government mandate special
education, but only fund around 50% of what it costs.
So the district may be getting an extra $1K per SPED child, but they are
spending and extra $2K per SPED child. Kevin alludes that children
that require SPED but are not enrolled in school may mean the school
receives no state money (or none of your property taxes) to pay for
the additional resources needed to help that child. Though the vast
majority
of school districts do not shirk their responsibility to SPED students, they
don't have tons of extra money laying around to spend just on SPED
students. So in California, though it may seem they are making SPED
parents jump through hoops, in actuality they are just trying to ensure
all SPED students can get what they need for the least cost, so they can
use that to pay for regular education. They way to make this not an issue
is for the state and federal governments to fully fund all SPED, and
ensuring the local districts won't need to dip into general education funds
to pay for SPED. It would be really great if the SPED funds were so
large schools had to find ways to ensure they spend all the SPED funds
on Special Ed programs.



Leandra

"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
om...
So in California, though it may seem they are making SPED
parents jump through hoops, in actuality they are just trying to ensure
all SPED students can get what they need for the least cost, so they can
use that to pay for regular education. They way to make this not an issue
is for the state and federal governments to fully fund all SPED, and
ensuring the local districts won't need to dip into general education
funds
to pay for SPED. It would be really great if the SPED funds were so
large schools had to find ways to ensure they spend all the SPED funds
on Special Ed programs.


How are the Federal funds applied, especially for the children who are not
yet school age?

-Aula

"just me" wrote in message
m...
"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
om...
So in California, though it may seem they are making SPED
parents jump through hoops, in actuality they are just trying to ensure
all SPED students can get what they need for the least cost, so they can
use that to pay for regular education. They way to make this not an
issue
is for the state and federal governments to fully fund all SPED, and
ensuring the local districts won't need to dip into general education
funds
to pay for SPED. It would be really great if the SPED funds were so
large schools had to find ways to ensure they spend all the SPED funds
on Special Ed programs.


How are the Federal funds applied, especially for the children who are not
yet school age?

-Aula
Federal funds are based on special ed children recieving services, who are
between the ages of 2 and 22 years of age. But they're a small percentage of
the actual costs of SPED.

In article ,
(Leandra) wrote:

Kevin Karplus wrote:

In fact, if my child were going to a private school, I would be
embarassed to ask the public schools to provide any services at all.
If you are taking the child out of the public school system, and
removing the per-child allotment from the school budget, why should
they go out of their way to provide expensive services for you?

I'm not realy following you're logic here. I pay property taxes to
support my local school district and dont expect them to educate my
children. How am I supposedly hurting the school district by doing
this? I shouldn't be embarassed to ask them to educate all my kids
for 13 year but I should be embarassed to ask for a few hours of
speech therapy a month for a year or two? How does that make sense?

The school district has exactly the same amount of money weather I
send my kids to there schools or not. If there are 2 less kids in the
district and the same money, that means the "per-child allotment" can
be increased. so the district doesn't lose anything. the particular
school my kids would of gone to might lose because the total of my
property taxes is probably less than the amount of per-child alotment
for 2 kids, even with the bigger alotments my taxes with no kids in
school allow, but the also have 2 less kids to deal with. And as
long the kids going to private schools are mostly spread out amoung
all the schools in the district then really all the schools gain by
some parents paying taxes but not sending their kids to public
schools. its not like our overcrowded public schools would really
benefit from having to squeeze in a bunch more private school kids,
even given a few more bucks.

Leandra


That's not how the funding works in California: the schools get $$
based on how many kids are attending. (Not even how many are enrolled:
every time a child is off sick, the school looses money.)

And since many of the kids who go to private schools are the ones who
would cost less to educate -- they are unlikely, for example, to need
ESL service, or some of the other services that tend to be neede more by
poorer families -- the cost per pupil goes UP when those kids are pulled
out, but the $$ available per pupil stays the same.

And, since the school is still required to provide the special services
*but does not get paid for it*, the school district ends up spending $$
for kids they do not get to count when they collect $$.

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

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

That's not how the funding works in California: the schools get $$
based on how many kids are attending. (Not even how many are enrolled:
every time a child is off sick, the school looses money.)

Ok, so that's just a little screwed up ;-) Do they have to even
provide sped programs for the preschoolers in their district, even
though they couldn't possibly be attending? Or do the schools get to
count preschoolers enrolled in their adaptive preschool programs as "in
attendance" (which could lead to a kind of perverse preference for
providing full-time services to a child who really only needed a few
hours).

But, is the $$/student/day rate fixed by statute or something, or is it
based somehow on (some percentage of) the state's total property tax
revenue divided by the total average daily attendance figures?

Vermont's education funding is kind of screwy too, but not a messed up
as CA seems to be.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

In article ,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

That's not how the funding works in California: the schools get $$
based on how many kids are attending. (Not even how many are enrolled:
every time a child is off sick, the school looses money.)

Ok, so that's just a little screwed up ;-) Do they have to even
provide sped programs for the preschoolers in their district, even
though they couldn't possibly be attending? Or do the schools get to
count preschoolers enrolled in their adaptive preschool programs as "in
attendance" (which could lead to a kind of perverse preference for
providing full-time services to a child who really only needed a few
hours).

But, is the $$/student/day rate fixed by statute or something, or is it
based somehow on (some percentage of) the state's total property tax
revenue divided by the total average daily attendance figures?

Vermont's education funding is kind of screwy too, but not a messed up
as CA seems to be.

--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)


I'm afraid I can't answer your questions without doing more research --
and at the moment I'm disinclined to spend the time, though I hope
someone reading this thread who DOES know the answers can post a
response, since I'd like to know without doing too much work. (I know,
lazy today.)

However, saying that California's educational system and the funding
thereof is "just a little screwed up" may be one of the biggest
understatements I've heard for a while. . .

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

In article , Robyn Kozierok wrote:
In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

That's not how the funding works in California: the schools get $$
based on how many kids are attending. (Not even how many are enrolled:
every time a child is off sick, the school looses money.)

Ok, so that's just a little screwed up ;-) Do they have to even
provide sped programs for the preschoolers in their district, even
though they couldn't possibly be attending? Or do the schools get to
count preschoolers enrolled in their adaptive preschool programs as "in
attendance" (which could lead to a kind of perverse preference for
providing full-time services to a child who really only needed a few
hours).

But, is the $$/student/day rate fixed by statute or something, or is it
based somehow on (some percentage of) the state's total property tax
revenue divided by the total average daily attendance figures?

Nope, nothing that simple or rational. The formulas for computing how
much money a school district gets in California are so bizarre and
convoluted that some school districts have gone bankrupt before
realizing they were in financial difficulty. There is a $/student/day
figure which depends on grade level and on whether the school district
is participating in the class-size reduction program for K-3, with
some variation based on whether the community generated lots of
property tax at the time Prop 13 was passed. There are various
targeted funds for particular programs (such as the federal Title I
funds and local parcel taxes to pay the librarians).

There is a mandate for providing SPED services for preschoolers, and I
know that the schools are doing so, because my son had speech therapy
before he was in school. I believe that they get federal, but not
state funds for the preschoolers, and that the federal funds only pay
about half the expenses. I may be wrong on this though, as I have not
tried to get the true budgetary information from the school district.

There have been some citizens trying to make sense out of the
budgetary data from the school district, because of the draconian
plans being pushed by the school district staff to balance the budget.
It seems that it takes between 40 and 100 hours of study to get to the
point where the baroque budgetary information is marginally
comprehensible, and I haven't had that much time to spare this year.

It seems to me that there has been a higher than normal absenteeism
this year due to various viruses, which will hurt the school budget in
two ways: less income due to students being absent, higher expenses
due to having to hire substitutes for ill teachers. Coming on top of
the annual and midyear budget cuts, it is going to be a disasterous
year for school finances.

--
Kevin Karplus http://www.soe.ucsc.edu/~karplus
life member (LAB, Adventure Cycling, American Youth Hostels)
Effective Cycling Instructor #218-ck (lapsed)
Professor of Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Santa Cruz
Undergraduate and Graduate Director, Bioinformatics
Affiliations for identification only.

In article ,
dragonlady wrote:

However, saying that California's educational system and the funding
thereof is "just a little screwed up" may be one of the biggest
understatements I've heard for a while. . .


I was trying to be civil ;-)

--Robyn